BDSM / Polyamory And The Positive Path

[Diana]

Hi TheSeekersLighthouse.

I have some thoughts on your post. First, here is the quote Minyatur mentioned from Ra regarding monogamous relationships:

99.10 ▶ Questioner: In that case I will just ask one additional short question as we terminate for this session. May I ask if the Logos of this system planned for the mating process as possibly depicted in Card Six— I don’t know if this is related— by some type of DNA imprinting as has been studied by our science. In many second-density creatures seem to have some sort of imprinting that creates a lifetime mating relationship and I was wondering if this was designed by the Logos for that particular mechanism and if it was also carried into third density?


Ra: I am Ra. There are some of your second-density fauna which have instinctually imprinted monogamous mating processes. The third-density physical vehicle which is the basic incarnational tool of manifestation upon your planet arose from entities thusly imprinted, all the aforesaid being designed by the Logos.

The free will of third-density entities is far stronger than the rather mild carryover from second-density DNA encoding and it is not part of the conscious nature of many of your mind/body/spirit complexes to be monogamous due to the exercise of free will. However, as has been noted there are many signposts in the deep mind indicating to the alert adept the more efficient use of catalyst. As we have said, the Logos of your peoples has a bias towards kindness.

So you see from the quote that Ra says that 3rd-density entities have very little influence, including DNA, from 2nd-density regarding monogamy.

I am really not sure, but I think those of Ra, when they mentioned "kindness," may have been referring to the idea that monogamous relationships, being simpler, do not involve the complications born of distortions within a self, such as insecurities or childhood wounds of abandonment or other such things. Perhaps the kindness is to sacrifice a bit of free will for the sake of loving another person and not sharing the sexual and emotional energy with another. I would love to hear others' thoughts on that part of the quote.

------------------------------

My thoughts on monogamy, polyamory, marriage, etc. (which are my thoughts only and not meant to supersede anyone else's ideas):

I don't really align with monogamy, polyamory, or any defined and labeled relationship between people. For me, a relationship is what it is, and that derives from who the people are who are involved in it, where they are at consciously, where they are at in the growth process. Your committed relationship involving 3 people+ to me is no different than a monogamous relationship, as it has stated boundaries. I like the idea of no boundaries. For example, I have been in longterm relationships, but they did not last because I was committed to making them last, they lasted because for that time I and the other person were in alignment. On the other hand, that is not to say I did not work to understand, be kind to, be honest with, and honor the other person. 

Monogamy, or any relationship with set rules and boundaries, often involves staying with a person(s) out of a commitment, which may outlast its usefulness. This to me is not being of any sort of service to the other person. To me, you stay with a person not because you have to (commitment, rules, contracts) but because you want to. To me, that is unconditional love—allowing self and the other-self free will while at the same time directing your sexuality, heart, and honesty toward that person in its full expression for that person, asking nothing in return. That is the problem I see with marriage and committed relationships—they seek outcome. 

The self, in this reality, as I see it, must have the freedom to move through life with the greatest opportunity for experience and growth. Therefore, acceptance of self, the self's desires and prompts, the widest view possible of all there is to experience, while balancing this with self-honesty, discernment, detachment from outcome, and a sense that all life is sacred and worthy of love, is the lens through which I view relationship.

------------------------------

My thoughts on BDSM:

I have a good friend who has been in this culture for many years, and she is also very spiritually minded. I am very familiar with the culture. I even helped her edit some books she wrote on the subject and make some videos for them. I found her accounts interesting and informative, since the typical narrative in popular media was mostly skewed on the subject.

I think for some this lifestyle is a way to develop trust. But it must be said that it is about control. There is no getting around the idea that the Dom/Domme controls the sub, and the sub controls the scene (in the contract and in the safe word). I also get the idea of subspace, wherein a person can get into a sort of meditative space. So, there can be aspects of this play that raise the practitioners into a higher level of experience than is otherwise done with some normal sexual encounters.

Even though this play is consensual, and it may have more consent and direct honesty than an average encounter between traditional partners, it is still based on contrivance and control. By saying this, I do not in any way mean to judge BDSM. But I do think at some point, that the acquisition and realization of trust would be complete, and might flow from the self naturally—from self-knowledge, self-assurance, and self-growth. 

One more thought I have on sexuality in general. The way I interpret a sexual-energy transfer is that this exchange happens from the heart, and the physical body and its functions are incidental and just what is of use here in this reality to accomplish its full expression. In other words, instead of starting with the idea of sex to express love to another, I see it more as starting from the heart, and then expressing it (as one of various ways) through a sexual encounter with the added effect of offering different energies to each other deriving from that act.