Category: Uncategorized

Mini Encyclopedia of EcoSexuality – EcoSexuality (2 of 2)

Entry: Ecosexuality

Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio, PhD

Cont’d

As an emerging movement, Ecosexuality sustains the initiation of the human species into a new phase of its evolution: from a needy child accustomed to depending on a mother’s resources, humanity is called to evolve into a responsible adult who treats the planet that generously hosts human life as a lover deserving all reverence, equality, and reciprocity in love. The scientific origins of the movement can be traced to what is known as the Gaia Hypothesis: a new epistemological paradigm that establishes the interconnectedness of all life forms as a new foundation for knowledge or episteme. This integrated, self-sustaining web of life is made of interconnected ecosystems and generates its own homeostasis. A key principle in this new style of amorous expression is that bodies are ecosystems, ecosystems are bodies: equally deserving of love, care, and affection.

As a new galvanizing force in cultural transformation, ecosexuality also means different things to different people. Two avatars of the movement, performance artists Beth Stephens and Annie Sprinkle, expressed their ecosexual vision in LoveArtLab, a seven-year project involving a series of ecosexual weddings where the artists married the sun, moon, sky, rocks, coal, snow, sea, a lake, and other nature entities. In these 17 performative events around the world, they “changed the metaphor from Earth as mother to Earth as lover,” and vowed to “love, honor, and cherish the Earth until death brings us closer together forever.” This work seeded a number of cultural environments with the intent to “make the environmental movement more fun, sexy, and diverse.” The bride-artists integrated activism for marriage equality with the affirmation of ecosystems, natural elements, and forces of nature as participants in the generation and fruition of the force of love. The practice of ecosexual weddings extended to the 1^st EcoSex Symposium, which was organized as a honeymoon after the Purple Wedding to the Moon in 2010 in Los Angeles. More symposia have come together in subsequent years, along with convergences, workshops, festivals, courses, digital discussion groups, more weddings, and intentional communities dedicated to the exploration of ecosexuality as a central trope for the organization of cultural action and energies.

A definition of ecosexuality would be premature at this point, and would limit the cultural trope’s transformative potential, which is largely untapped yet. One way in which ecosexuality has been described is as “the style of love that reaches beyond genders, numbers, orientations, ages, races, origins, species, and biological realms to embrace all of life as a partner with equal rights.” This description has been adopted in the introduction to a forthcoming reader tentatively entitled Ecosexuality: Notes for an Orgasmic Earth. It has the effect of supporting amorous practices that interpret ecosystems as bodies, and bodies as ecosystems in an interdependent network of interconnected nodes that auspicate a new planetary consciousness.

Sources

Anderlini-D’Onofrio, Serena. Gaia and the New Politics of Love. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books, 2009.

Anderlini-D’Onofrio, Serena and Lindsay Hagamen eds. Ecosexuality: Notes for an Orgasmic Earth. Contributed volume. Forthcoming.

Anderlini-D’Onofrio, Serena and Robert Silber. “Ecosexuality: A Course in the Arts of Conscious Love.” Varallo, Italy. July 16-21, 2011. Poly Planet GAIA. http://drserenagaia.wpengine.com/?p=324, November 28, 2013.

Anderlini-D’Onofrio, Serena, et al. “Ecosex at U Conn. Course Production from Spring, 2013 Seminar in Ecosexuality and the Ecology of Love. Storrs Campus. http://drserenagaia.wpengine.com/search/label/EcoSex{a9d64f7890d157e71e6efcce19e215a5f853c7f4151cde0b7bf7aada464173f6}20at{a9d64f7890d157e71e6efcce19e215a5f853c7f4151cde0b7bf7aada464173f6}20U{a9d64f7890d157e71e6efcce19e215a5f853c7f4151cde0b7bf7aada464173f6}20Conn: November 28, 2013.

Bernard, Tinamarie. “Fundamentals of Eco-Sexuality: Is Conscious Love the Way Towards Global Peace?” Green Prophet, May 22, 2011. http://www.greenprophet.com/2011/05/eco-sexuality-conscious-peace/: Novemebr 28, 2013.

Cordova, Gabriella. “EcoSex Symposium.” Portland, OR. June 29, 31, and July 1^st, 2012. http://www.ecosex.org/index.html: November 29, 2013 Dixon Luke, Annie Sprinkle, and Beth Stephens. “1^st International EcoSex Symposium.” Colchester, Essex, UK. July 14-18, 2013. http://ecosexlab.org/, Novemebr 28, 2013.

Ecosexual. Definition in Macmillan Dictionary. http://www.macmillandictionary.com/buzzword/entries/ecosexual.html, November 28, 2013.

Ecosexual. Definition ins Wikitionary. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ecosexual, November 28, 2013.

“Ecosexuality, a new sexual identity where you are lovers with the Earth.” Examiner.com. April 10, 2012. N. A. http://www.examiner.com/article/ecosexuality-a-new-sexual-identity-where-you-are-lovers-with-the-earth, November 28, 2013.

Iris Weiss, Stefanie. EcoSex: Go Green Between the Sheets and Make your Love Life Sustainable. New York: Ten Speed Press/Random House, 2010.

Sexecology. Wikipedia definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexecology

Sprinkle, Annie, and Beth Stephens. “Ecosex Symposim I.” Highways Performance Space. October 24, 2010. http://www.loveartlab.com/PDF/ecosex_sym1_program.pdf, November 28, 2013.

Sprinkle, Annie, and Beth Stephens. “Ecosex Symposium II.” Center for Sex and Culture, San Francisco. June 17-19, 2011

http://sexecology.org/ecosex-symposium-2/, November 28, 2013.

Sprinkle, Annie, Elizabeth Stephens. LoveArtLab. www.LoveArtLab.org, November 28, 2013.

Stephens, Elizabeth. “Becoming Eco-Sexual.” Canadian Theater Research: 144 (Fall 2010): 13-19.

Windward Community. “Surrender: An Ecosexual Convergence.” June 14-16, 2014. Windward, WA. http://www.ecosexconvergence.org/, November 28, 2013.

Wagner, David. “Beyond Tree Hugging.” San Francisco Chronicle. 7/16/2011.

Our Mini Encyclopedia of EcoSexuality is complete for the moment. But everything always already is a work in progress. Would you like to add an entry? Let us know. . . .

Sending much love and all good wishes to all of you and your loved ones. Thanks you for listening and opening up. Stay tuned for more coming. With all good wishes for a happy spring and summer. Thank you!

Namaste,

SerenaGaia

Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio, PhD

Author of Gaia, Eros, and many other books about love
Professor of Humanities, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez

Poly Planet GAIA Blog: http://polyplanet.blogspot.com/ Website: www.serenagaia.com

Become a Fan: www.facebook.com/GaiaBlessings
Go to Author’s Page/Lists all Books:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B001JS1VKA
YouTube Uploaded Videos: http://www.youtube.com/SerenaAnderlini
Be Appraised of Ecosex Community Project PostaHouse

http://polyplanet.blogspot.com

Mini Encyclopedia of EcoSexuality – EcoSexuality (1 of 2)

Entry: Ecosexuality

Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio, PhD

Ecosexuality is a new sexual identity and the cultural trope that is likely to galvanize a movement of movements that places love and its infinite modes of expression at the gravitational center of cultural formation, dynamics, and organization. As a sexual identity, ecosexuality denotes a desire to organize practices of love around well-being, care, and ecosystemic health rather than any given oppositional rhetoric. As a catalyst for cultural transformation, ecosexuality offers a new interpretation of love that aligns sexuality with ecology and inspires a cross-pollination of the ideas and metaphors contained within these two traditionally distinct discourses.

The term “ecosexual” initially emerged in the personal ads as an environmentally conscious correlative to “metrosexual.” Regardless of sexual orientation, an ecosexual date connotes as somebody who would likely enjoy a visit to a farmers market or a raw-food meal. Ecosexual have been described as an “environmentally conscious person(s) whose adherence to green living extends to their romantic and/or sexual life.” Ecosexuals made their appearance at a time

Remove featured image

when sexual fluidity and amorous inclusiveness were largely accepted in open-minded online dating forums, and when “eco-living” was rising in acceptance and popularity. In the capacity of a tool of discernment in the current dating system, the practice of ecosex helps to guide consumers toward practices of love and products thereof that respect the ecosystemic balance of the human bodies engaged in them. Sexecology is a correlative that “seeks to make environmental activism more sexy, fun, and diverse and to involve the LGBTQ community” in such activism.

As a trope of cultural transformation, ecosexuality galvanizes action in the arts, activism, theory, and practice to effect change in the metaphors by which we humans interpret the relationship with our hostess Gaia: the planet who, thanks to four billion years of symbiotic processes that began with bacteria (our first ancestors), has evolved a biota capable of sustaining the life of our species. How do we imagine this relationship between Gaia and our species? Are we friends or enemies? When we see nature as an enemy to be controlled, we produce the exact opposite of what we want, because, as Gaia science explains, the Earth is sovereign and its powers are supreme. All species are subject to being welcome in Gaia’s existence.

EcoSex Flag, by Cindy Baker

But then suppose we want to be friends: suppose we do have a desire to align with Gaia’s power, to second her will, as in all styles and practices of the environmental movement. That’s when metaphors for this relationship become significant. Is our relationship with Gaia based on kinship or is it elective? When we say “mother Earth” we inadvertently endorse the assumption that terrestrial resources are available to us ad infinitum and no cost. Mothers are our kin: they don’t choose us and we don’t choose them. We are all too often culturally programmed to simply exploit them with no price tag or return. When we imagine Gaia as a lover we begin to realize how much we have been taking for granted. Are we humans a respectful partner in the relationship or an abusive one? If our behavior is abusive, wouldn’t Gaia do well to end the relationship? And what would that scenario look like for us? Life on Earth started with bacteria. In Gaia science, the existence of these simple, fun loving microorganisms also marks the beginning of consciousness, choice, love. In this perspective, we humans as a species are just a new kid on the block: we could very well be the first one to go. Gaia is a Latin word that literally means gay. The Earth is sovereign and happy to exist in and of herself. As a cultural trope, Ecosexuality brings awareness to the possibility that life could very well happily continue to thrive after we, as a species, are gone.

To be continued . . . . . come back next week, same time.

Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio, PhD

Author of Gaia, Eros, and many other books about love
Professor of Humanities, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez

Poly Planet GAIA Blog: http://polyplanet.blogspot.com/ Website: www.serenagaia.com

http://polyplanet.blogspot.com

2 of 4: EcoSex @ U Conn – Ryan and Jetha’s Sex at Dawn – Student Responses: Michael’s Take

Dear Earthlings:

The EcoSex course at U Conn is complete. It was a great experience. We spent time reading amazing books. And here we resume posts to be shared with you. Thinking out of the box and across disciplines. Students had been sending their responses in, with discussion questions. In class, we did connected the dots: a holograph of what we’ve read together, the “required readings.” Multiple perspectives and good synergy. Here, we offer a glimpse. Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha’s Sex at Dawn was one of two cultural-theory theory books. We got five responses: from Adam, Michael, Alissa, John, and Rhiann.

Here is Michael’s take:

Response to Sex at Dawn

I enjoyed Sex at Dawn as it provides an interesting bridge point between a lot of the ideas discussed by authors like Margulis in terms of evolutionary history and the history of

cooperation and those of authors like Diamond and the broader readings about eco-sexuality, polyamory, and sexual fluidity.

One aspect that permeates the book though that I don’t necessarily agree with is their arguments about selfishness and cooperation and their criticism of Richard Dawkins’s seminal work The Selfish Gene. While Dawkins certainly does extrapolate his arguments about genetic evolution to explain selfishness in individuals, I think they misrepresent his article. The fundamental selfish actor in Dawkins hypothesis is DNA. He sees the ever-increasing complexity and superfluousness of genetic sequences in organisms as being the selfishness of DNA. He isn’t saying that humans possess a gene that encodes selfishness, but rather that life is the consequence of nucleic acid bases wanting to propagate themselves selfishly and that any selfishness we exhibit is a consequence of that.

I further disagree with their notion that selfishness and cooperation aren’t both engrained into us on an evolutionary basis. Early humans had to cooperate within their clans but ultimately treated competing clans in a manner we’d deem selfish. I think ultimately it would be most beneficial if we treated everybody as a clan member and cooperated, but a selfish desire to propagate our clans DNA over that of another clan is something I think that has been a part of our nature for a long time and that we cannot escape.

Do you agree with their interpretation of jealousy in popular music?

Mchael Maranets

Published with permission

WGSS 3998 – Ecosexuality and the Ecology of Love

Prof. Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio

U Conn, Storrs, Spring 2013

Course Announcement and Description

Dear Earthlings:

Let “nature” be your teacher in the arts of love. Education is the heart of democracy, education to love. Come back for more wonders: Students Responses have resumed, to appear now every Tuesday. More Book Reports to be scheduled soon, every other Thursday.

Namaste,

Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio, PhD

Gilf Gaia Extraordinaire

Author of Gaia, Eros, and many other books about loveProfessor of Humanities

University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez

Poly Planet GAIA Blog:
http://polyplanet.blogspot.com/

Website: www.serenagaia.com

Be Appraised of Ecosex Community Project PostaHouse Become a Fan: www.facebook.com/GaiaBlessings

Author’s Page/Lists all books:

http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B001JS1VKA

YouTube Uploaded Videos: http://www.youtube.com/SerenaAnderlini

http://polyplanet.blogspot.com

5 of 5: EcoSex @ U Conn – Diamond’s Sexual Fluidity – Student Responses: Rihann’s Take

Dear Earthlings:

The EcoSex course at U Conn is complete. It was a great experience. We spent time reading amazing books. And here we resume posts to be shared with you. Thinking out of the box and across disciplines. Students had been sending their responses in, with discussion questions. In class, we did connected the dots: a holograph of what we’ve read together, the “required readings.” Multiple perspectives and good synergy. Here, we offer a glimpse. Lisa Diamond’s Sexual Fluidity was one of two cultural-theory theory books. We got five responses: from Adam, Michael, Alissa, John, and Rhiann.

Here is Rihann’s take:

Response to “Sexual Fluidity”

The section I chose to respond to in Sexual Fluidity regards attraction as unbiased by gender schemas. I’ve always thought that I was more attracted to people’s souls and the mental connection

that I have with said person. However, I had never listed the things I like about my intimate partners before and analyzed the characteristics in terms of gender neutral. Many of the characteristics I consider myself attracted to are gender neutral as well as personality based. However, I have never found myself sexually or romantically attracted to a woman even though the things I like about the men I’ve been with are not specific to men. This concept really made me think. In my life time, could I one day find myself interested in a woman? I had never contemplated this before. To be honest the question makes me a little uncomfortable that I do not know the answer. I wonder if my peers had similar reactions to this section or have experiences with being attracted to the person not the gender.

Additionally, Sarah’s story really struck me. There’s something special about female best friends that live together. I do have a very deep connection and relationship with my roommate. Although, I have never been attracted to her sexually, the things I like about my lovers and intimate partners I also like about her. I also recognize that she is an attractive woman. It’s weird to think that these premises match the premises of Sarah’s story. Again, it makes me uncomfortable to relate our relationship to Sarah and Nadine’s. I assume that this is because I come from a very heteronormative background and have never considered being anything else. Ultimately, their story made me think and look at my relationship with my best friend and roommate. I noticed how much our relationship resembles as dating relationship minus a sexual aspect. It’s interesting to me to contemplate our bond in concordance with attraction. These were my reactions to the text and I look forward to elaborating on them. I’m very curious to hear about my peers relationships and attraction to their best friends and lovers.

Rihann Peterson

Published with permission

WGSS 3998 – Ecosexuality and the Ecology of Love

Prof. Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio

U Conn, Storrs, Spring 2013

Course Announcement and Description

Dear Earthlings:

Namaste,

Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio, PhD

Gilf Gaia Extraordinaire

Author of Gaia, Eros, and many other books about loveProfessor of Humanities

University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez

Poly Planet GAIA Blog:
http://polyplanet.blogspot.com/

Website: www.serenagaia.com

Be Appraised of Ecosex Community Project PostaHouse Become a Fan: www.facebook.com/GaiaBlessings

Author’s Page/Lists all books:

http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B001JS1VKA

YouTube Uploaded Videos: http://www.youtube.com/SerenaAnderlini

http://polyplanet.blogspot.com

4 of 5 – EcoSex @ U Conn – Margulis and Sagan’s Mystery Dance – Student Reports: Adam’s Take

Dear Earthlings:

The EcoSex course at U Conn is in process. It’s a great experience. We are reading amazing books. Thinking out of the box and across disciplines. Students are sending their responses in, with discussion questions. In class, we connect the dots: a holograph of what we’ve read together, the “required readings.” Multiple perspectives and good synergy. Here, we offer a glimpse. Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan’s Mystery Dance was one of two theory-of-science books. We got four responses: from John, Alissa, Rhiann, Adam, and Michael.

Here’s Adam‘s take:

Response to Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan’s Mystery Dance: On the Evolution of Human Sexuality

I thoroughly enjoyed “Mystery Dance” by Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan. These women proved to me, once again, that they are competent, brilliant story-tellers, as well as scientists. I was captivated from the start; the interdisciplinary nature of the book, touching on biology, feminist perspectives, paleontology, microbiology, psychology, etc. appealed to my intellect and made it impossible to label the book as too one-sided or bland.

As an evolutionary biology major, I am fascinated by any news or information on evolution and all the process entails. “Mystery Dance” took an approach to the concept of evolution that I had not deeply considered before; the ‘stripper’ motive endowed the concept of evolution with an air of sexuality and, just as importantly, layers. As a child, I viewed evolution like links in a chain – mutations that resulted in the beginning or end of a species. As I have grown, I have learned that evolution if far less cut and dry than that, and this book articulates that superbly.

Another thing I loved about this book was how Margulis and Sagan focus on the human sex organs, and their relation, in comparison, to our fellow primates and, more broadly, to the other species in the various kingdoms and phylum. I had a decent understanding of these concepts before my reading of this book; I had done my own novice research because of interest on the subject. However, “Mystery Dance” took what I already knew and vastly expanded upon it. Why female Homo sapiens have permanently distended breasts after puberty, why male Homo sapiens generally have much larger genitalia than those of our fellow primates, how we associate sex with the primal, and therefore uncontrollable, dirty parts of our bodies – all are questions that I did not even know I had, now answered.

My question: Looking at current trends, can one predict how human sexual physiology will change in the future, assuming we continue existing as a species?

Adam Kocurek
Published with permission

WGSS 3998 – Ecosexuality and the Ecology of Love

Prof. Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio

U Conn, Storrs, Spring 2013

Course Announcement and Description

Dear Earthlings:

Let “nature” be your teacher in the arts of love. Education is the heart of democracy, education to love. Come back for more wonders: Students Responses to appear every Tuesday. Book Reports to be scheduled soon, every other Thursday. Check out our summer offerings: Ecosexuality in Portland, OR, July 17-21. Info and Registration here!

Namaste,

Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio, PhD

Gilf Gaia Extraordinaire

Author of Gaia, Eros, and many other books about love
Professor of Humanities

University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez

Poly Planet GAIA Blog:
http://polyplanet.blogspot.com/

Website: www.serenagaia.com

Be Appraised of Ecosex Community Project PostaHouse
Become a Fan: www.facebook.com/GaiaBlessings

Author’s Page/Lists all books:

http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B001JS1VKA

YouTube Uploaded Videos: http://www.youtube.com/SerenaAnderlini

http://polyplanet.blogspot.com

1 of 5 – EcoSex @ U Conn – Margulis and Sagan’s Mystery Dance – Student Reports: John’s Take

Dear Earthlings:

Here’s John‘s take:

Response to Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan’s Mystery Dance: On the Evolution of Human Sexuality

I came across the same problems with this book as I did with her last one. Lynn Margulis seems to know what she’s talking about scientifically (I assume, I simply don’t have the scientific background to vouch for it) but she can’t, or won’t draw conclusions. The bookend theme of Mystery Dance is the image of the ouroboros: the serpent that curves around and eats itself, creating more of itself in the process of destruction. She ends her introduction with a note on time, and ends the whole book reminding us that sexual evolution hasn’t ended. But I think the overarching theme of her book is on page 11: “The slang word for coitus simultaneously means making love and an act of aggression.” Margulis seems to imply that between modern human society and our bacterial ancestors, there was a lot of rape that wasn’t necessarily a bad thing because it contributed to human evolution. I’m not sure I agree with that.

This theme of “rape has its benefits” might not be exactly what she was aiming for, but it’s clear that Margulis believes her science leads to that conclusion, even though she doesn’t want to outright support rape (not that she, or anyone, should). She writes,

According to John Alcock, the feminist hypothesis that rape is solely an instrument of social oppression against women – a violent means of male domination without biological basis – cannot be completely correct. Alcock points to the fact that raped women are not usually in positions of social power, but, rather, they are young, often poor, and relatively defenseless women in the peak of their childbearing years… Perhaps women of childbearing age are most often raped because the mothers of rapists, perceived by the weak infant to be Godlike in their power, were also usually young women… Nonetheless, the question lingers as to whether sexual violence is partially the result of the reptilian brain developing – or misdeveloping – in sexually arousable young people. (132)

The problem I have with this isn’t so much the evolutionary implications, but that she tries to connect it to human terms. Margulis makes the connection that rape as any sort of mental activity is reptilian, base, and as close to biologically or genetically wrong as can be said, but she also says that nature has no morals, and the whole point of this book is to show us how undifferent from animals we actually are.

I have no problem with learning from animals, personifying animals, and treating animals with kindness and dignity. Those are all of the marks of an evolved culture. But evolution is kind of the point. Two mating alligators don’t view what they’re doing as sexual violence, it’s just mating to produce offspring. There is a significant lack of animal perspective in her writing on sexual violence.

I don’t have a problem with what Margulis writes, I just have a problem with the implications of the way she writes it. I think Mystery Dance is a little obsessed with the stripper allusion that she can’t draw a significant enough distance between viewer and viewed. Going to a strip club is supposed to excite and entice someone. The stripper is supposed to draw you in, not repulse you with the thought that all of her negative qualities are yours as well.

Questions for Discussion:

1. Does sexual violence have a significant role to play in human evolution?

2. Can it even be viewed as “violence” or even “sex” outside of biological terminology?

3. Is there anything inherent that separates us from animals? Or are rapists just alligators in human skin?

John Nitowski
Published with permission

WGSS 3998 – Ecosexuality and the Ecology of Love

Prof. Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio

U Conn, Storrs, Spring 2013

Course Announcement and Description

Dear Earthlings:

Namaste,

Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio, PhD

Gilf Gaia Extraordinaire

Author of Gaia, Eros, and many other books about love
Professor of Humanities

University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez

Poly Planet GAIA Blog:
http://polyplanet.blogspot.com/

Website: www.serenagaia.com

Be Appraised of Ecosex Community Project PostaHouse
Become a Fan: www.facebook.com/GaiaBlessings

Author’s Page/Lists all books:

http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B001JS1VKA

YouTube Uploaded Videos: http://www.youtube.com/SerenaAnderlini

http://polyplanet.blogspot.com

2 of 3 – EcoSex @ U Conn – Margulis and Sagan’s Symbiotic Planet – Student Responses: John’s Take

Dear Earthlings:

The EcoSex course at U Conn is in process. It’s a great experience. We are reading amazing books. Thinking out of the box and across disciplines. Students are sending their responses in, with discussion questions. In class, we connect the dots: a holograph of what we’ve read together, the “required readings.” Multiple perspectives and good synergy. Here, we offer a glimpse. Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan’s Symbiotic Planet was one of two theory-of-science books. We got three responses: from Alexandra, John, and Adam.

Here’s John‘s take:

Response to Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan’s Symbiotic Planet: A New Look at Evolution

I’m horribly science illiterate. It was hard for me to focus on passages like this:

No one claims to have “solved” the origin of life problem. Yet although we cannot create cells from chemicals, cell-like membranous enclosures form as naturally as bubbles when oil is shaken with water. In the earliest days of the still life-less Earth, such bubble enclosures separated inside from outside. As Harold J. Morowitz, distinguished professor at George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, and director of the Krasnow Institute for the Study of Evolution of Consciousness, argues in his amusing mayonnaise book, we think that prolife, with a suitable source of energy inside a greasy membrane, grew chemically complex. These lipidic bags grew and developed self-maintenance. They, through exchange of parts, maintained their structure in a more or less increasingly faithful way. Energy, of course, was required. Probably solar energy at first moved through the droplets; controlled energy flow led to the selfhood that became cell life. By definition, the most stable of these droplets survived longest and eventually, at random, retained their form by incessant interchange of parts with the environment. After a great deal of metabolic evolution, which I believe occurred inside the self-maintaining greasy membrane, some, those containing phosphate and nucleotides with phosphate attached to them, acquired the ability to replicate more or less accurately. (71-2)

I have the vaguest idea of what any of that means. And there were at least two solid chapters that went pretty much like that.

That said, I really do love the general philosophy of the book Margulis outlined in the beginning and ending chapters. The thing is, I feel kind of gripped. Gaia Theory is beautiful, but it’s hardly unique. Margulis struggles to really define the theory outside of the context of the personified goddess “Gaia” but not so clinically in the field of science. Even though it’s a poetic and beautiful description, Margulis “regrets” the personification of Gaia because “many scientists are still hostile to Gaia, both the word and the idea,” (118). I suppose this is probably a mistake because by choosing the name of a being that has a distinct personality and mythology attached, the movement became personified. It’s impossible to think of “Marxism” without reference to Marx, though his ideas are far from unique.

This is why, when I initially heard the term “Gaia” I was also a little skeptical of it. Things are so Eurocentric already, why not K’un Theory? The Chinese ba gua (see below) is a model of the universe. It associates (among many other things) north, winter, earth, receptive, and mother energies under the same symbol (seen at the direct bottom of the diagram):

Unlike Gaia, there is no personal connotation ascribed to K’un. It is a force, an energy, not a deity. This seems like the sort of thing Margulis wishes could come across in Gaia Theory because she, “cannot stress strongly enough that Gaia is not a single organism. My Gaia is no vague, quaint notion of a mother Earth who nurtures us,” (123).

The Ecosexual movement could profit greatly from infusion of Eastern thought and philosophy. Referring to sex as more than just the act of copulation, sex has a special place in a lot of Eastern systems of thought. Tibetan mythology contains a symbol called yab-yum (lit. father-mother) which shows a male deity in sexual union with a female consort. The male deity represents compassion, while the female partner wisdom. It’s a rather common tantric symbol, but it doesn’t just look at sex as sin or a matter of procreation (as contemporary Christianity does, and science seems to be a simultaneous extension and reaction toward). Here, sex is the universe. Margulis seems to come very close to this opinion on page 103, “Sex, like symbiosis, is a matter of merging. But it is also a matter of periodic escape from the merger… cell symbiosis is a deeper, more permanent and unique level of fusion. In the great cell symbioses, those of evolutionary moment that led to organelles, the act of mating is, for all practical purposes, forever.”

This reminds me of Osamu Tezuka’s biography of the Buddha. As a monk in the Forest of Uruvela, Siddhartha meditated and was visited by a young girl Sujata. Gradually, Sujata fell in love with Siddhartha but since Siddhartha was not only already married, but was also on a path to enlightenment, he refused to marry or sleep with Sujata. Since she couldn’t handle unrequited love, Sujata allowed a poisonous snake to bite her. Sujata’s father found Siddhartha and demanded that he heal his daughter. Not knowing medicinal arts, Siddhartha was once told he had psychic powers to use. He entered Sujata’s mind to bring her soul back from the brink of death and instead was greeted on the edge of reality:

The Brahma: Now look around, Siddhartha. These are all pieces of life.

Siddhartha: Pieces of life…?

The Brahma: Mm-hmm. And that huge ball is the universe.

Siddhartha: Universe? And what’s the universe?

The Brahma: All of heaven and earth.

Siddhartha: But that thing is moving… it’s always changing shape…

The Brahma: Indeed. The universe is alive.

(Buddha 4: The Fores of Uruvela, 210-1)

I guess this is why Gaia Theory doesn’t shock me or isn’t particularly hard to understand: because Buddhists have been aware of this concept for 2,500 years. Looking at Deborah Anapol’s Seven Natural Laws and Margulis’ SET theory, it reminds me of how to put it into practice in the finale of Tezuka’s biography of the Buddha:

If you are rich, you can give to those who suffer. If you are strong, you can support those who suffer. If you are neither rich nor strong, you can listen to them and offer your sympathy, telling them you are sorry. That is good enough… [for] you will have suffered for another. Let us call this spirit ‘mercy’… Mercy! It resides in every human soul. That is why, when you show pity to someone who is suffering, another will show you pity when your day has come to suffer. If you help someone, believe me, another will help you someday because we are all connected to each other, every living thing.

(Buddha 8: Jetavana, 320-2)

If we replace “mercy” with “love,” I think the quote still works for the Ecosexual movement.

Questions for Discussion:

1. How does the science promote (or does it just confuse) the social movement?

2. Should the social and cultural aspects be separated from the science?

3. Can they?

John Nitowski
Published with permission

WGSS 3998 – Ecosexuality and the Ecology of Love

Prof. Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio

U Conn, Storrs, Spring 2013

Course Announcement and Description

Dear Earthlings:

Let “nature” be your teacher in the arts of love. Education is the heart of democracy, education to love. Come back for more wonders: Students Responses to appear every Tuesday. Book Reports scheduled every other Thursday. Check out our summer offerings: Ecosexuality in Portland, OR, July 17-21. Info and Registration here!

Namaste,

Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio, PhD

Gilf Gaia Extraordinaire

Author of Gaia, Eros, and many other books about love
Professor of Humanities

University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez

Poly Planet GAIA Blog:
http://polyplanet.blogspot.com/

Website: www.serenagaia.com

Be Appraised of Ecosex Community Project PostaHouse
Become a Fan: www.facebook.com/GaiaBlessings

Author’s Page/Lists all books:

http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B001JS1VKA

YouTube Uploaded Videos: http://www.youtube.com/SerenaAnderlini

http://polyplanet.blogspot.com

4 of 4 – EcoSex @ U Conn – Anapol’s The 7 Natual Laws of Love – Student Responses: John’s Take

Dear Earthlings:

The EcoSex course at U Conn is in process. It’s a great experience. We are reading amazing books. Thinking out of the box and across disciplines. Students are sending their responses in, with discussion questions. In class, we connect the dots: a holograph of what we’ve read together, the “required readings.” Multiple perspectives and good synergy. Here, we offer a glimpse. Deborah Anapol’s The Seven Natural Laws of Love, was one of two introductory books. We got four responses: from Alissa, Rhiann, Adam, and John.

Here’s John‘s take:

Response to Deborah Anapol’s The Seven Natural Laws of Love

–>

Contrary to others’ expectations, I liked this book and not just because it had footnotes and all. (The difference being that Dr. Anapol is talking about esoteric topics here. You can talk about esoteric things all you want without citing statistics or sources but it certainly helps; Weiss was declaring numbers and scientific experiments without actually saying where she got her information from before making alarmist claims). I really like the idea of applying spirituality to solving material problems. Thich Nhat Hanh, His Holiness Dalai Lama XIV, and Aang Sun Suu Kyi are all on board with this idea, all of them subscribing to Engaged Buddhism.

I really have no criticisms of this book. I think it’s an interesting philosophy. It’s one that she not arrives logically and experientially, but also provides Exercises to put her Laws into practice (something a lot of philosophers fail to do).

That said, it was something of an emotional read. Dr. Anapol writes on pg. 20,

… sometimes people have the experience of hearing the words ‘I love you’ but inwardly feeling the words are a lie. Instead of trusting the gut feeling, they believe they should feel loved. They may judge themselves for not being open to the love or decide that they are damaged and unable to tolerate being loved. If they later learn their intuition was accurate, they may go on to become mistrustful of others and doubt that the words and the love could ever be congruent.

I’ve experienced this in different forms. My mother, for example, was so sensitive to the tiny phrase “I love you” that she wouldn’t even allow the word “hate” in the house (in any context) saying that it would invite us to hate each other. She once accused me of loving our dog more than her, which made it difficult to respond, “I love you.” Accusing is typically not a loving action.

The same thing happened with my relationship a year ago. The woman I was in love with encouraged me to say those words as if they held a certain magical power. Apparently the only power they held was to unravel the relationship. As soon as we said them to each other, our relationship fell apart. My friends remember that time saying I was “less than a month away from alcohol poisoning.” I’m still trying to work through the exact definition of “love” and this book helped me move past that incident just a little bit.

Obviously, I found a lot of stuff in this book that directly applied to my own experiences. My most recent relationship ended just before reading this book. We hadn’t spoken in days precisely because we didn’t know how to talk to each other any more. Our conversations always became offensive or taken in the wrong context. We slowly retreated from each other because we were always walking on pins and needles. Finally, when we finally decided that we needed to address our communication issue, we became completely honest with each other, explained our hurts and attempts at communication and why we were so unresponsive, there was a strong connection that suddenly developed and breaking up seemed like a horrible idea, but a necessary one. Then this line on page 78 hit home,

Have you ever noticed that whenever someone honestly expresses whatever they are feeling – with no blame, defensiveness, self-deception or hidden agenda – you feel a surge of love? Even if what’s been said is not what you wanted to hear, the very act of vulnerable self-disclosure draws love like a magnet.

This is the perfect description of what happened between us. It’s something that I’m not sure I would have been able to fully understand without experiencing it first hand, and I’m very happy I did.

I really enjoyed reading this book and feel like I need to go through it a second time to digest fully the experiences Dr. Anapol had with these spiritual masters.

Questions for Discussion:

1. Did you find any quotes that you might not have understood without experiencing them first?

2. Are there “types” of love? For example, is there an inherent difference between the parent/child love and what one would experience during an intimate sexual relationship?

John Nitowski
Published with permission

WGSS 3998 – Ecosexuality and the Ecology of Love

Prof. Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio

U Conn, Storrs, Spring 2013

Course Announcement and Description

Dear Earthlings:

Let “nature” be your teacher in the arts of love. Education is the heart of democracy, education to love. Come back for more wonders: Students Responses to appear every Tuesday. Book Reports scheduled every other Thursday. Check out our summer offerings: Ecosexuality in Portland, OR, July 17-21. Info and Registration here!

Namaste,

Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio, PhD

Gilf Gaia Extraordinaire

Author of Gaia, Eros, and many other books about love
Professor of Humanities

University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez

Poly Planet GAIA Blog:
http://polyplanet.blogspot.com/

Website: www.serenagaia.com

Be Appraised of Ecosex Community Project PostaHouse
Become a Fan: www.facebook.com/GaiaBlessings

Author’s Page/Lists all books:

http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B001JS1VKA

YouTube Uploaded Videos: http://www.youtube.com/SerenaAnderlini

http://polyplanet.blogspot.com

5 of 9 – EcoSex @ U Conn – Book Reports – Polyamory in the 21st Century: John’s Take

Dear Earthlings:

The EcoSex course at U Conn is in process. It’s a great experience. We are expanding horizons with clustered reading: Theory of Science, Cultural Theory, Ecological Theory. We each read related books, then report to group. More thinking out of the box and across disciplines. Students are sending their book reports in. In class, we connect the dots. From a holograph of what we’ve read together, the “required readings.” What’s the connection with our clustered themes? Multiple perspectives and good synergy. Here, we offer a glimpse. Deborah Anapol’s Polyamory in the 21st Century is one of five “Cultural Theory” books. We got John to report on it.

John Nitowski:
A Book Report on Polyamory in the 21st Century: Love and Intimacy with Multiple Partners
by Deborah Anapol

–>

Dr. Anapol’s book Polyamory in the 21^st Century takes a more academic tone than her other book The Seven Natural Laws of Love, but draws from the same sources. Dr. Anapol practices polyamory and has a lot of connections (professional and otherwise) with other polyamorists. Through mostly interviews, with some statistical research, Dr. Anapol presents the full picture of polyamory: the good and the bad.

To clarify, “polyamory” is the practice of being openly intimate with more than one person at a time. It’s different from cheating on one’s spouses (because transparency is always a factor) and from swinging (because “swinging” in current connotations implies strictly physical relationships, though there is a strong connection to classical swinging and modern polyamory). As Dr. Anapol defines it, “I use the word polyamory to describe a whole range of lovestyles that arise from an understanding that love cannot be forced to flow or be prevented from flowing in any particular direction. Love, which is allowed to expand, often grows to include a number of people. But to me, polyamory has more to do with an internal attitude of letting love evolve without expectations or demands that it look a particular way than it does with the number of partners involved,” (1). Many polyamorous people come to the conclusion that, “lifelong monogamy is more of a mirage than a reality,” (2). The “monogamy mirage” is something of a product of modern society. It seems to produce dysfunctional families so while many people actively seek out polyamorous relationships, “most inadvertently discover that polyamory provides a very fertile environment for replicating any dysfunctional patterns carried over from the parental triangle experienced in their family of origin,” (20).

Somewhat shockingly, she opens the book with, “I have always characterized my position on polyamory as pro-choice rather than antimonogamy,” (ix). Dr. Anapol establishes that she is not out to convert us all to be polyamorists. Rather, she is here to show her readers that it is a viable alternative to serial monogamy. Of course a few pages later she writes, “In all honesty, after twenty-five years as a relationship coach, seminar leader, and participant observer in the polyamory community, I’m not at all sure that polyamory can fulfill its potential for sustainable intimacy,” (xv). It would seem that Dr. Anapol is apprehensive about the possibilities polyamory supposedly promises for society (more peaceful, more loving, more open, etc.) but reading the book a little closer reveals something different.

In Chapter 4 “The Ethics of Polyamory,” Dr. Anapol tells a story regarding a foursome under the heading “Unhealthy Monogamy leads to Unhealthy Polyamory,” (82). The story concerns two couples that got together to form a foursome: Vic and Christy met Alice and Jack at a party. They soon started a polyamorous relationship. While Christy and Jack developed “a sexual chemistry so strong that it was nearly palpable,” Vic was concerned that Christy would leave him for Jack, (83). When their foursome broke up, Christy and Vic were fine and had a thriving monogamous relationship. But the jealousy and pain was still apparent, Alice and Jack divorced not long after the event.

This episode highlights one of Dr. Anapol’s realizations about polyamory: “the form of the relationship is not so important… the form can change at any time. What accounts is allowing love to dictate the form rather than attempting to force love into whatever mold the mind has decided it right,” (ix-x). Like Diamond in Sexual Fluidity, Anapol seems to posit a sort of “relationship fluidity.” She includes lots of relationship combinations, for example, polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, group marriages, triads, dyads, Vs (where A dates B and C, but B and C aren’t dating), and Ns (where A and B are dating, but A dates C, and B dates D, but they aren’t dating anyone else). Polyamory is worthless if we can’t take the lessons we assume it promotes: open intimacy (sexual and emotional), a larger realm of love, decreased jealousy in favor of compersion, etc.

The chapter I was most interested to read was 7: “Polyamory and Children.” Whenever I ask monogamists what the purpose of marriage is, they tend to respond, “For the protection of children. Without laws in place, there’s nothing to keep fathers from just walking out,” (ironically, I heard this exact wording from a father). Not only does that sound absolutely absurd, that the instinct of fatherhood is held only in place by arbitrary laws, but I’ve seen too many parents who did walk out on their children. And not just fathers, but mothers as well. This isn’t to say monogamy is inherently bad, any more than Dr. Anapol shows the reader with her book that polyamory is not inherently good. But when it concerns raising children, the only advantage seems to be convenience. Several times in the book, Dr. Anapol expresses how nice it is to be able to go somewhere intimate with a partner and know her small children were well cared for at home. Otherwise, there don’t seem to be any actual beneficial or detrimental effects from raising children in a polyamorous home. Among the many stories Dr. Anapol includes, a woman describes her polyamorous lifestyle’s effect on her son, “I hear of the ups and downs of his relationships, just like any normal young man. So while I would like to say that our sexualoving lifestyle saved him such grief, I see that is not so. On the other hand, he sees the slings and arrows of his love life as part of his spiritual path, and I also notice that he truly honors his girlfriends and maintains friendships with odd lovers. As a mother, then, I do not worry about him,” (135). So really, she’s just describing a well-adjusted young man. Not that these are absent from monogamous relationships, but it stands to reason that polyamory’s emphasis on communication, openness, honesty, and a deeper understanding of unconditional love translates well to children.

This book is a great addition to our list (and I’m somewhat surprised it wasn’t required). I remember reading one story in Sexual Fluidity where a woman, not using any specific label to define herself, said she loved to date men because of the intensity, but loved dating women because of the intimacy. When she was with a woman, she missed the intensity of her male partners, but when she was with men, she missed the intimacy of her male partners. After reading the story, I wondered why she couldn’t have both and just be polyamorous? I think Dr. Anapol would ask the same question.

One of the more unexpected aspects to me (that I believe relates more immediately to concepts of Ecosexuality) is the way Osho looked at relationships. Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, better known by his followers as Osho, was a spiritual guru in the ‘70s and ‘80s. He developed spiritual communes in Pune, India and Oregon. Osho praised “conscious monogamy as a very evolved form of relationship” however, “he was a severe critic of the traditional family, saying that it was ‘no longer relevant for the new humanity that was being born,’” (152). In Osho’s commune, children belonged to the community, and in order to expand awareness, adult sexual relationships were to be shared and free to prevent negative forms of attachment, what we would call jealousy, (93).

For me, this book was an incredible contrast to my own monogamous, Judeo-Christian upbringing. In school, I was told that “sex exists, and here’s all of the diseases you can get from it, also pregnancy.” In Osho’s ashram, the philosophy was that teenage sex, “was the most innocent, the most raw and pure of sexual experiences,” and that it, “could help to blossom people into sexually loving adults when it was not thwarted and laden with fear and moral judgment or hidden in secrecy and shame,” (152-3). Even though our society (as many of the books interviewed subjects have pointed out) seems to be content with the loneliness, despair, and depression that serial monogamy produces, I have not been. I was raised with three seemingly permanent parents who’ve had their ups and downs and saw several secondary father figures come and go. How very different can polyamory be for raising children if that’s our main concern? What is the advantages jealousy produces in a society so already laden with conflict, corruption, and envy?

Dr. Anapol’s book is academic in its approach, but poetic in execution. She is able to show how the philosophy behind having multiple sexualoving partners can open the doors to a more compersive and peaceful society. Dr. Anapol actually references Gaia and the New Politics of Love and describes how polyamory is conducive to the Gaia hypothesis. Patriarchal values (and it should be noted that much of what passes for polyamory is really old fashioned patriarchal polygyny, much of Mormon and Muslim sanctioned polygamy falls under this category) often place female dependence on male hegemony “over symbiosis or interdependence and direct bodily awareness,” (234). If we are able to begin practicing polyamory, not as a method of sexual gratification, but as an opening of awareness and love, as Osho proposed, then we can practice the arts of love in a sustainable way and open the doors to a loving society.

John Nitowski
Published with permission

WGSS 3998 – Ecosexuality and the Ecology of Love

Prof. Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio

U Conn, Storrs, Spring 2013

Course Announcement and Description

Dear Earthlings:

Let “nature” be your teacher in the arts of love. Education is the heart of democracy, education to love. Come back for more wonders: Book Reports to appear every other Thursday. Book Reports to be scheduled soon. Check out our summer offerings: Ecosexuality in Portland, OR, July 17-21. Registration here!

Namaste,

Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio, PhD

Gilf Gaia Extraordinaire

Author of Gaia, Eros, and many other books about love
Professor of Humanities

University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez

Poly Planet GAIA Blog:
http://polyplanet.blogspot.com/

Website: www.serenagaia.com

Be Appraised of Ecosex Community Project PostaHouse
Become a Fan: www.facebook.com/GaiaBlessings

Author’s Page/Lists all books:

http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B001JS1VKA

YouTube Uploaded Videos: http://www.youtube.com/SerenaAnderlini

http://polyplanet.blogspot.com