SO, ABOUT GOD’S PRIVATE PARTS…

... as well as Hollywood's penchant for publicly exposing itself (not that it's all negative, ever since the actress Sally Field set everybody straight that "c#nts are powerful, beautiful, nurturing and honest," such is her anatomy lesson for the nation)—well, you might be wondering...

What gives when its comes to the nature of our private parts, which have become less and less private in the Digital Age?

Someone I know in a private discussion group recently brought up this question when making a funny-punny play on words regarding the name of Phillip K. Dick, the divine sci-fi writer whose moniker obviously invites some incidental punch-lines, punniness and related whimsical musings.

This is one such musing, but it goes well beyond praise for the work of divine "Dicks," of which, I hear Hollywood recently has had its Phil, er, fill.

So, if the adults in the room don’t mind delving into some controversial ideas (and everybody else with delicate sensibilities or short attention spans clears the room), this might take a bit of explaining. 

After all, you wouldn’t want to be a, umm, superficial dick, right?

As for the nature of this discussion, I wanted to address some psycho-spiritual-sexual dynamics that we tend to overlook or ignore. If you’re easily offended by any discussion of sexual topics, please move on.

As for moi, far be it from me to shy away from controversy or attempting to pull down the pants of reality as much as I modestly might, that is, if and when I suspect that there might be something worthwhile to see lurking behind the curtains of life as it 'seems to be'.

To that end, the Dick-headed play on words above “gave rise,” if you will, to the notion of "divine dicks," and I’d like to propose the controversial notion that when it comes to the male “members” of our society, far from sticking all of our patriarchal parts up everybody’s arses for the past aeon or so (as some contemporary narratives have it), authentic masculine spirituality has been largely suppressed.

Perhaps overtly suppressed. 

And maybe if we changed our orientation, we might not see as many public figures swinging their private parts around like irredeemable demons. 

This notion was touched on slightly by the author Jeff Kripal in his recent interview with Miguel Conner, who runs the website and online show “Aeon Byte” (found at thegodabovegod.com), although the conversation wasn’t engaged in quite the same way as I propose here, so I’ll directly address what I'm getting to with a question:

Why don't we ever encounter discussions about “The Divine Masculine?”

Before you reflexively laugh, I wonder why this notion has become so utterly laughable to most people, that is, in a way that sorta makes us think such thoughts must be a bad thing, or certainly silly and impossible things?

I wonder if this mindset contributes to a self-fulfilling prophecy that guides our behavior, or in this case, misguides male behavior? 

And yet, I'm guessing this would be the visceral response of most folks if, let's say, some artist attempted to favorably portray masculine sexual appendages and their attributes in the same divine light that Georgia O'Keefe has depicted feminine parts.

Mind you, I think it's a good thing that we appreciate the literal and spiritual function of the female body, so that the "milk of human kindness" flows in our hearts (if not elsewhere) when we encounter such images, and we rightly think of this as a good thing.

Not all ladies are sunshine and lollipops, but sometimes you’ve gotta fake it to make it, and most of us see women as a kinder sex. And maybe they are. 

But this also suggests that to the extent we demonize male sexuality, well, men just might tend to act more demonically. Some might say, hey, it’s just the way men are built, but it’s a sad and unobservant person indeed who thinks that all men are alike, and scoundrels to boot. 

For starters, this negates the fact that a small percentage of men and women are asexual—they really and truly aren’t very concerned with sex, period. 

As for everybody else, and more specifically, the fate of phalluses in the modern world (as opposed to the ancient world or else the many places where fertility cults and related festivals are still practiced and celebrated), if we think of our "patriarchal" parts at all, they tend to be fairly negative portraits (even self-portraits!) of penetrating coercion, whereby nasty men ram it up the Hellhole of Earthly existence.

In a word, they're anything but "divine."

It's either that sort of confused self-reference and Freudian ugliness or phalluses tend to be consigned to the boy's club of the homosexual community, where they may play a starring role (and generally aren't as repressed, at least not their sexual dimension), or else the heterosexual community, where they generally are repressed (or relegated to naughty back room humor), or the heterosexual porn community, where they rarely co-star vs., at best, maybe playing a "Best Supporting Role."

However, in all of the above instances and beyond, there's a decided tendency to cartoonishly objectify and reduce the phallus to the status of its sexual function as an expression of mindless urges that cannot be controlled. 

Basically, wieners are treated like pieces of meat... maybe with buns and batteries included.

For God's sake, get me a fig leaf!

In short, while images of feminine parts might be met with the sort of benevolent reverence one might reserve for a Holy relic, manly parts?

Not so much.

There are exceptions, of course, and I trust intelligent people will take that into account without me having to go on at length to make that point. 

I'm not saying this is how everybody reacts, but I think it's a fair description of our consensus reality. I mean, tell me it’s not there in the punchlines of nightly talk shows or bathroom banter, where it’s all taken as a given. 

Or should I say, it’s more of a “taken” than a given. 

The question is whether this is a correct, healthy or helpful perspective?

Whatever the case, I do think it reflects the current POV, or perhaps more accurately, the current prevailing blindness.

After all, isn’t it a bit telling that the very phrase, "Divine Masculine" doesn't roll off of society's collective tongue, even as we have no compunction about discussing “The Divine Feminine” (as we rightly should. BTW—my point of view is anything but an opposition to feminine divine energy)?

Now, of course, the most likely knee-jerk response to the above perspective is, hey, jackass, society has been patriarchal for the last couple of millennia, and male archetypes (of God or any rulers) have lorded it over everyone the whole time!

Moreover, this disposition has been the bane of women, since it's led to the suppression of females, as well as the suppression of society's feminine traits and qualities, institutionally or otherwise, including female spirituality.

I don't dispute any of that.

Quite the contrary, I agree wholeheartedly, or maybe 'mostly heartedly', because, IMHO, this POV can be overplayed against the interests of the whole of our society and its individuals, male or female, and the thing is, by definition, the "whole" is a healthier concern for all.

In other words, I'm happy to cheer when the pendulum of blind bias swings away from any given extreme towards a more wholesome and fully conscious reality. 

However, just as pendulums are designed to do (and as the polarities of this world seem hardwired to mimic), the counter-momentum of any pendulum swing tends to carry us well past any reasonable mid-point, in which case, I'm not so eager to cheer for a blind, albeit shiny and new directional bias.

Here.

There.

Why should I could care?

Why can't I care for both positions as opposed to just one?

In any case, perhaps more central to my concern is a particular bias that annoyingly continues to frame, shape and drive the current discussion of gender dynamics, which is the utterly absurd notion that the patriarchy of the past even remotely served the interests and fates of men in general, much less enriching and ennobling them by cultivating truly wholesome masculine or “manly" qualities.

Sure, there's been a nonstop stream of male rulers at the top—truly male 'members' in every respect, if you know what I mean—but their behavior and their power overwhelmingly has served their own interests, that is, the cadre of power-brokers at the top of society (including more than a few blue-blooded women, by the way).

This is to say, what we have witnessed hasn't been an authentic "Patriarchal Model" so much as a "Self-Serving Patri-Oligarchical" model, which some friends and I have henceforth christened as "Archonarchy," which is to say, rule by rulers, that is, people, male or female, who pursue and exercise of dominion over other people, whereby being the best always means being first... at the expense of others.

In summary, history has witnessed an "Archonarchy" (i.e., rule for the sake of the rulers and their rulership, almost exclusively in the form of alpha personas, if not alpha males), but certainly NOT a "Patriarchy" in any benevolent sense.

Big difference.

Nonetheless, we routinely assume that the word "Patriarchy" accurately describes our history rather than a far more exacting word, "Archonarchy." We then espouse our opinions accordingly, as well as behave accordingly, never mind the sad fact of innumerable tragic male experiences throughout history.

To that end, the monstrous lie that's implied and embraced by the casual adoption of the "patriarchal society" model is the essential fantasy that “every man is a king.” No doubt, that's the propaganda de rigueur, and it’s far too often the reality at the upper echelons of society, but it doesn’t remotely resemble the historic and existential facts on the ground.

The truth is that for every dick-endowed General, Pope, King, CEO, or President, not to mention their inner cabals (i.e., the proverbial "one-percenters"), there’s always been a male army of servile servants, dead male soldiers, abused male miners, robbed male farmers, debt-ridden male factory workers, destitute male beggars, and on and on and on.

A few guys (especially small boys) are even routinely beaten by women... physically.

All of these pathetic males are examples of people who rule over... nothing.

Fact is, they, themselves, are ruled over.

Thus, if we persist in using the word "Patriarchy" rather than "Archonarchy" or “oligarchy” (take your pick, or by all means, come up with something new and better), the latter of which work much better, we'll be guaranteed to use language inaccurately.

How inaccurately?

Oh, I dunno, maybe 99% of the time, since 99% of men have been victimized by this very same "Patriarchy" (which, ironically, is far more accurately described as an "Anti-Patriarchy,” since it assaults the interests of most men, or worse, it turns them into alpha dicks themselves.

Mind you, I’m not suggesting that men should turn into limp marshmallows. Quite the opposite. They simply need to put their parts where they belong. 

In any case, I don't know about you, but it sounds pretty cruel to me (and patriarchal) to carelessly toss 99% of mankind back into the same box as their victimizers.

This is no small consideration if our words are to mean anything. In this case, "Patriarchy" refers to male, i.e., “patri,” plus rule, i.e., "archy," that is, like an arch spanning over one's head, or an Archon that rules over your soul.

Throughout history, at least as we know it, the vast majority of men have been ruled over. They have NOT been rulers.

That alone just might incline a fellow to act out in anti-social ways. 

No doubt, many of these poor abused souls have turned around and lorded it over their wives and families, such is the circle of violence in our world, but my no means does this apply to all men. Some guys actually break out of the cycle.

I’ve met and know more than a few men in my life who’ve been abused and bullied by the prevailing royal-corporate-oligarchical system and its rulers, and they have silently “rebelled” against it in the best way possible… they truly love and empathize with other human beings.

Don't expect to hear any of this on CNN, CNBC or Fox or any other ruling entity.

And don't expect any politician to give voice to this reality. As you might suspect, none of them, regardless of their ideology, want to encourage this sort of behavior, although they're happy to pretend to embody this ideal.

After all, they're our rulers (or, ruling puppets, truth be told).

As for the 'good men' among us, they express their divine masculine energy in all kinds of ways, including, yes, some of the cliche forms of behavior, from being protective of their loved ones to fixing the machines that everyone in the house will rely upon for shelter and comfort to taking on plenty of other “dirty work,” and so on.

Surely these fellows deserve something better than to be attacked as patronizing male monsters, perhaps along with a supplemental kick-in-the-crotch.

Some blokes act countless other kind ways, too, big and small.

Truly hEROIC ways, bearing in mind "eroica" or love / eros is the true mark of any hero or heroine.

As such, heck, a good man might even act in a downright feminine way.

That’s because true love knows no gender.

As for characterizing "male" or "masculine" behavior, well, if we want to stick to the “active principle" stereotype per the archetypal yin-yang pattern, sure, masculine behavior usually amounts to relatively interventionist approaches and actions, or dare I say, yeah, they tend to be penetrating motions. But in a good way, or so one hopes.

Besides, if it's truly in their nature to act this way, then is it right (or truly feminine) to condemn them without also condemning "Mother" Nature for making them this way?

Now, imagine if these very same poor boys of the past lived in a society that actually supported their best instincts and good qualities? Imagine if they had better role models, even going straight to the divine top of the chain? 

What if we extolled the virtues of male divinity?

But, alas, males still do not live in such a society.

In fact, it seems we're headed in the opposite direction.

Granted, God used to be a man, at least in the unsophisticated minds of cartoonish people of the past, or so modern people like to think, and while there's a good case to be made that this orientation cultivated a superiority complex in far too many males, let's not forget that it also reminded more than a few guys that they had to be good because, well, their God was good.

Say what you want about the Victorians and their many blind spots, but they at least attempted to cultivate virtuous behavior in males, no matter how misguided or patriarchal their "gentlemanly" assumptions might have been.

Nobody is suggesting that we go back to those days, but we needn't toss out the baby with the bath water.

Meanwhile, today, we live in a society that is more likely to assail the “Average Joe" for being the hopelessly sexist ruler that he not only isn't but never really was (more likely, he's just a guy trying to make a living while being ruled over by junk food and junk media like everybody else).

Worse, not only don't we seek to cultivate any male or masculine virtues today (unless you buy into sports cliches), it seems that we've come to believe that the very idea is preposterous. After all, look at history! Look how evil men have been!

(Never mind the 'whole' of history.)

Indeed, it appears that the only possible virtue left for a man is the ope that he might eventually acquiesce to a one-sided Matriarchy.

In other words, it's rather suspiciously convenient for the Archons of this world that the criticism of modern males is but one more way to keep the Average Joes in their place (and by extension, their female counterparts), if not bludgeoning them into, oh, I dunno, maybe another aeon or so of peasantry and servitude, catering to the big dicks that rule the roost along with all of their elite clucking hens.

BTW, as no small footnote here, I believe that there’s a reason why the good men that I’ve described above somehow manage to behave so well, and it’s not because they're genetically good men, period, or else good men with respect to their upbringing and related ability to practice only the best male behavior.

Personally, I believe it’s because they have integrated the divine feminine to the fullest possible extent.

That’s the secret.

I also believe that the same holds true for good women, only in reverse.

That is, the best women are most fully feminine when they have integrated the divine masculine unto themselves.

In other words, we bring out the best of either gender quality when we make the two into one... the male into female, and vice versa.

If I sound like a Jungian psychologist, I've heard worse insults.

Anyway, none of this suggests that one or the other gender quality won't or shouldn't emerge as dominant, but IMHO, this should be according to our unique individual natures and relative to our unique individual conditions in life, as well as our choices as to how we shape our identity.

As a side note, none of this mandates any given sexual preference, and none of it means a “man can’t be a man,” or a “woman can’t be a woman,” or else that men should be come sissified snowflakes. 

In fact, it’s so-called "Alpha males" (and females) who are weak precisely because they can’t handle the existence of other human beings who are likewise strong, not to mention happy, prosperous, etc: People who realize their full potential.

I guess they can't handle the competition.

At any rate, whatever our choices might be, I submit that they will prove to be less of an expression of the fullness of our individual natures, as well as our psycho-spiritual potential (whether male/masculine or female/feminine) to the extent that they do not integrate ‘the other” unto ourselves.

Maybe it's a bit simplistic, but it seems fairly axiomatic to me that we're more likely to make the most of ourselves when we integrate as many of the essential aspects of ourselves as we can.

Per those aspects, while we might be relatively more or less male/masculine or female/feminine to different degrees, and in different ways, I'm convinced that these are different sides of the same coin of being, and where we find one quality, we likewise invoke its opposite.

Or suppress it.

And thereby make less of ourselves.

So it is that, for example, when we see an authentically protective male, he’s invariably nurturing, just as when we see an authentically nurturing female, she’s invariably protective. The two are thus bound into one.

Alchemically speaking, you might say that it’s necessary that a tincture (or more) of one aspect of being needs to be included in the other in order to realize optimal results.

On a related note, I don’t think it’s an accident (even if it was unconscious) that the alchemists of yore, as well as followers of the Hermetic tradition, and, well, practitioners of wisdom traditions in general, were somewhat obsessed with the images of hermaphrodites and/or other depictions of duality transmuted into unity, such as the Cadeuceus, which not so coincidentally symbolizes the medical field or "healing arts," whose purpose is to "make us whole."

And yet, in practical everyday terms, as well as in the ugly realm of politics, the above proposal is something of an abomination to the average guy or gal on the street, to say nothing of the gender warriors who advocate what is tantamount to an exclusively male (usually macho, such is its imbalance) form of masculinity, or else an exclusively female form of femininity, which has its own cliches (so much the better to predictably conform to, right?).

Per the above sentiments, it's worth noting that not so long ago there was a counter-movement to the suppression of authentic divine masculinity, such as we’ve seen with guys who attend “all male” drumming retreats and the like, and while this might stem from a genuine feeling of marginalization in some way, frankly, much of it comes off as a tit-for-tat excuse for some New Age hucksters to make some money by spiritually misguiding earnest blokes.

As always, whatever works for anybody, more power to you, but count me as suspicious about any one-sided, single-minded venture or cheerleading.

As mentioned above, IMHO, if it turns out to be nothing more than a new pendulum swing, or counter swing, it won’t cure our ills.

What will cure our ills?

I’m not sure anything in this world will, at least not entirely, since we live in an inherently imperfect world. 

That's no small thing to consider in this discussion, lest we (or me) fall to the temptation of thinking that "if only" everybody would follow the dictates of our proposed revolution, we'll reclaim Adam and Eve's Paradise.

But that doesn’t mean that we can’t strive to make this realm, and ourselves, better along the way.

That is, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t aspire “to be all that we can be” as we move towards the goal of realizing our full potential, which, I’m guessing, won’t see us belonging to a male-only or female-only club.

For that matter, I’m guessing that in Heaven we won't be ashamed of whatever parts and related gender qualities we might retain, if any. Why, even the word "dicks" might not be an obscenity, and the concept of "divine dicks" might not be laughable.

Meanwhile, here in the 'real' world, while I fully understand the practical need for political movements to correct past imbalances and skewed perceptions, I hope we don’t get so caught up in the political pendulum swing that we create false targets out of each other while overlooking those Archontic forces and factions that are targeting us as a whole, hidden in plain sight, blunting and stunting any behavior that move us towards greater wholeness.

Or maybe just a bigger, fairer paycheck and decent benefits, regardless of our gender.

As for what those adversarial energies might be in your individual life, as well as society at large, each person has to answer to their current condition, or what theologians like to call “ finitude,” which is to say, that which our corporeal incarnation is lacking, and then strive as best we might to become better and more whole persons within a better and more whole society.

Nobody said it’d be easy.

I’m pretty sure our attempts at individual and collective self-improvement will come down to one's own unique integration of divine masculine and divine feminine energies (not merely one or the other), and to the extent that you willfully ignore these critical aspects of your being, it will be to the detriment of the whole of you.

As the ancient Gnostics advised, a kingdom awaits if you can make "the male and the female" into one, which, by the way, doesn't require sexual reassignment surgery.

Anyway, do this and you’ll be that much closer to the Heavenly Gates of your best possible destiny, whatever that might be.

If you take up this challenge, I can’t promise that you’ll ever experience a world where “every man is a king” and “every woman is a queen,” but as far as I’m concerned, you’ll already deserve to wear a crown.