Well, it seems Mel Gibson has done it again, shot himself in the foot, or at least vomited on it. His latest drunken emotional tirade aimed at his wife has made headlines. His level of desperation seems to have increased as his reason decreases proportionally. His alcohol problem is long standing without a doubt. He has issues that probably stem back to childhood.  In this he is not alone; most of the world has such problems. His emotional state is being clearly further destabilized by his gold digging wife purposely. She wants custody of their child and all the riches she can take from him and make from the tabloids.

His handling of what has clearly become a crisis is counterproductive, at least for him. Alcohol, as any other addiction is a symptom of unresolved issues that are then projected onto others during his drunken tirade.  Thus, the cause of his feelings are assigned to others, “they are responsible for my feelings”, like Jews, Blacks, or Women in general. While we may not like the actions of others, we own our feelings and are responsible for them. This level of responsible ownership is difficult to stomach for many – Mel being one of them. He surely feels helpless in the face of loosing his child.

Real men aren’t supposed to feel helpless are they? So Mel blames it on Oksana and the system. While the system barely works and she surely is culpable of enflaming him, he uses alcohol to numb his pain rather than express it, cry, talk, etc. Nothing we numb goes away, it only festers. Then the alcohol releases the festered emotions in the form of emotional vomit. Mel is an example of this. Obviously this is not a healthy way to express ones emotions, and therefore, healing does not occur. Further, he causes more issues for himself by his aberrant behavior, like being investigated for abuse, which will lessen his standing as he fights for custody rights of his child. This also lessens self-esteem.  And all of these acting-out behaviors further fuel the fire of his inner turmoil. It is a vicious cycle being fueled by alcohol. Something we’ve seen before in others.

OK, so we’ve looked at Mel, but what about the wife? She has been given a restraining order that prohibited her from releasing her “secretly” recorded tapes. Somehow, unbeknownst and much to her dismay, they got released. She is shocked, shocked, just like Captain Renault in Casablanca.  Liar, liar, panties on fire.  Donald Trump who had met her, said she was a gold digger. She has played Mel well. She will come out with lots of money, her child, and she doesn’t have to fluff him anymore. She has won, and done great damage in the process, but is uncaring having lost her heart way back when. What’s a little more karma?

Because ‘nice girls don’t get angry,’ they learn to get what they want and get even. She is not the first to demonstrate this, or the last. But one of the pawns in their WWE match, called marriage, is the child. How will this affect her? What example does it reinforce? Certainly, this is not one of a wise, powerful and loving female. He certainly is not showing what a powerful and loving man can be either. And life goes on…

An article written by W. Bradford Wilcox, published in the Wall Street Journal on June 18th cites recent movies like “The Switch,” coming later this summer, where Jennifer Aniston plays a forty-year-old professional who has given up on Mr. Right (basically on men) and marriage, but decides her life is incompletely accessorized without a grown-up’s doll (aka: child). For Ms. Anniston, perhaps art is following life. The movie explores, no make it propounds as acceptable, this egocentricity. She will have a baby without a father for the child simply by procuring some crème. At least she is willing to buy it, not trick some poor unwitting fool into ‘naturally’ donating it and being shackled into a lifetime of financial responsibility; a job that they did not sign up for. The movie celebrates donor inseminated single mother families, similar to the “The Back-up Plan” and the soon to be released “The Kids Are All Right.”

NO, they’re not ‘All Right,’ but Hollywood’s holier-than-thou agenda is pushing this perception. This would be an understandable position for an angry woman that blames men for everything, especially failed relationships.

Of course, a child raised by a mother with a ‘sperm-donor’ for a father will survive and most likely be glad to be alive, but the lack of a strong loving father to guide them will be felt. Equally, a child reared solely by their father, with an ‘egg-donor’ for a mother, will fair equally as well, and this child will be equally as thankful. HOWEVER, both mother and father are important factors in the development of a child. DUH! To think otherwise is pure egocentricity. Coming from Hollywood that would makes sense.

I consider the decision to have a child by a donor (male or female) to be completely and totally immature and egocentric. It is nothing more than “it’s all about me.” This is devoid of consideration for the affects of this decision on the child. There are tons of justifications, but none will be really valid for the child, but many will be born anyway. You want a child adopt one from foster care.

How are decisions like this possible? My first book, Men – The Gods of Love, discusses men’s inability to balance their rational mind, the masculine, with their emotions, the inner feminine. My second book, Women – The Goddesses of Wisdom, discusses women’s inability to balance her emotions with the rational mind, their inner masculine. For today’s woman, they difficulty is see in the masculinized woman. As an example, taking decisive action (masculine) to create a child based on emotions (feminine) is the situation in choosing a sperm-donor dad. The true goal for a woman, discussed in my second book, is the paradoxical need to remain feminine, incorporate the inner masculine power and using reason to balance the two. This is having the wisdom to know correct action, not just feeling-based action. The preposterous idea that a dad is not an important factor may be OK for an unfulfilled egg donor (mother), but is wholly unreasonable. This is a premeditate abuse of the offspring. It is based in narcissism, plain and simple. “I feel I am not complete without a child.” “I can’t figure out how to have a healthy relationship (it’s all men’s fault anyway), so I will just create this accessory to my life.” This bypasses the all-important learnings about relationship and self.

Of course, a mother that has not matured her relationship skills will not be able to teach correct relating to her children, but she doesn’t give it much thought. It’s all men’s fault anyway she believes. While honoring people’s feelings is important, acting on them without reason as a guiding factor, or supporting another’s actions without regards for the consequences of their actions, in this case the children, is unwise.

Anger is inherent in this idea. Considering men as sperm donors is the same as marrying one for money. In both cases the men are not seen as humans, or related to, only for how they can be ‘milked’. Women seem to be able to get what they want materially, why can’t they get it emotionally? My above-mentioned book delves into this predicament and it I not all men’s fault. Relationship is a dance, both can change it or stop it at will. Many women think they are wise and men are clueless.

‘Newsflash!’ Both men and women are clueless, yet it has become fashionable to blame men. Ladies, take off the war paint and look deep, you are no better at relating than men. You may be more emotional, but it is egocentric and therefore destructive. This is not a healthy basis for relating, or child rearing. I consider child rearing ‘job one,’ not an addition to one’s lifestyle, or something to get so one can feel fulfilled. Consideration for what is best for a child must be the first thought, not an afterthought. So providing the proper role models on which to base life is tantamount.

Academics from New York Universities, like sociologist Judith Stacey or Cornell’s psychologist Peggy Drexler have propounded these unisex families. They proclaim that mothers do as well with child rearing with donor fathers as they can with real ones. The feminist movement has been teaching emotional entitlement to women, a form of egocentricity, instead of healthy empowered self-care, blended with care of others. Hollywood celebrities are aggrandized for their egocentric actions, instead of being corrected. This harms relationships and perpetuates the concept of entitlement. Entitlement, the concept that I am owed everything, is prevalent in the U.S. and it has hurt us. It prevents gratitude and giving. Just watch a teenager for a demonstration of what becomes adult behavior.

Ms. Drexler wrote a book that declares that what she calls “maverick moms” (a masculine label), includes single women who chose donor insemination. Rather than tackling the task of creating a normal working male-female relationship, they say a woman can raise boys equally as well as mothers who went the ‘old fashioned way’ with, per her thinking, the outdated notion of father. The idea of fatherhood and motherhood in partnership as models for the children is considered unnecessary and therefore moot. Supposedly, only a “caring and supportive” model of mothering is necessary. I guess these academics didn’t have a great relationship with their fathers. Sorry to hear that, but don’t diminish fatherhood as your personal coping mechanism. Especially, as your academic status places you in the roll of authority figure.

These academics’ view ran into a major roadblock this month, with the release of the report, “My Daddy’s Name is Donor,” by the Commission on Parenthood’s Future. The report is a study comparing random samplings of four hundred eighty-five young adults; ages eighteen to forty-five, conceived through donor insemination to five hundred sixty-three young adults conceived the ‘old-fashioned way.’

Mr. Wilcox reported, “Significantly, the single women who chose to have a child by donor insemination were better-educated and slightly better off than the parents who had biological children together. So the study’s results cannot be dismissed on the grounds that affluent married couples were being compared to poor single mothers.” This was an excuse many have cited to dismiss the idea of two parent families. Those that support the sperm-donor father as acceptable, ignore God, nature, universal intelligence or the like who created masculinity and femininity. To them it is just luck, cosmic Three-Card-Monty.

The above study points to a different understanding. It shows that children conceived by single mothers who chose donor insemination are not as “All Right,” as the pundits would have us believe. “Young adults with maverick moms and donor dads report a sense of confusion, loss, and distress about their origins and identity, and about their inability to relate to their biological father and to his kin.”

Our fathers and mothers are our first role models of masculinity and femininity. What sort of model of masculinity would a child learn about a sperm donor? It doesn’t matter if the child is a boy or girl. Both need to learn from a healthy father. No question, there are unhealthy ones, or ones that were absent, just as there are now more unhealthy absent working mothers.

The predicament for the children can be compared to that of adopted children. Many have an inner sense of confusion about who they are, where they really fit in, and why their biological parents didn’t want or care about them. The above-mentioned study says that seventy-one percent of the mother/donor progeny report: “My sperm donor is half of who I am,” and seventy-eight percent wonder, “What my sperm donor’s family would be like.” Half report that they “feel sad” when they see “friends with their biological fathers and mothers.”

OF COURSE THEY DO! Donor offspring are similarly much less likely to report that they can rely on their family. Fifty-six percent report depending more on peers than on family, compared to twenty-nine percent of young adults born to two biological parents. You can’t count on a sperm donor to be there for you, guide you, protect you, set boundaries, or discipline you like a father would. Further, inside these children know something is not quite right with how they were created. “Why would mom choose not to have a husband who would be a father for me?” they might naturally think. “They didn’t have a fight and get divorced, she just chose for me not to have a dad.” Would it be any wonder if a child thought this? Resentment would be a bi-product. This would produce rebelliousness.

I have witnessed families where the mothers resort to bullying by screaming, withholding, and manipulating. They may get what they want including their kid’s attention, but are resented and ultimately ignored. This diminishes what they wish to teach and devalues femininity, as well as masculinity, and the family. In fact, looking at many divorced households without a father present to discipline, one will see an inordinate percentage of discipline problems.

The loss felt by many sperm-donor offspring contributed to the above study’s statistic that one hundred seventy seven percent of them are more likely to have trouble with drugs and alcohol than children born into NORMAL, read that, two biological parent families. Yes, normality is not wrong or bad, no matter how hard you wish to twist it. I think people should be able to do what they wish as consenting adults, but where it affects others, especially kids, I draw the line. Children need male/female role models and peer groups are not a replacement for that learning.

If we find ourselves being “burned,” in the same manner repeatedly, then this is a sign that we are stuck: we need to be aware of this, so we can change. The pain becomes a messenger, a teacher. Everyone can change, but they must be willing. We are but a choice away from change. Some believe that people don’t really ever change, they just modify their behaviors. Not true, unless you choose it by not being willing to look into the depths where the roots of the issues lie. So, sometimes we need to be burned again to make us aware that we are putting ourselves in the same place, doing the same thing again, it just looks different. We’ve placed our hand on another form of the iron, and yes it still burns. OK, so maybe we should look at why we are doing this, maybe make new choices. But often we just find another iron, a new and different one, and we wonder why we are burned again. Like moths to a flame, we are drawn to it and we get burned. Then we blame the flame. So we lick our wounds and find another flame. Sound familiar? I know that scenario from personal experience.

Naturally, this is not in our best interest; yet it may be what we need. Yes, I meant that. Let me explain. We get stuck, we don’t see other options, or we are just plain lazy, complacent. After all, growth is work. There are no magic pills, or quick fixes; in fact it is like exercise. You just get to keep on doing it. “But I don’t want to, or it is too much work, or I can’t, or (fill in the blank with whatever excuse you can come up with).” We all have excuses, me too. I don’t want to write this article, because I will have to deal with myself in doing so. I will even have to admit my failings, failures, and worse, my own culpability in hurting myself, and maybe others. That’s not pretty. The late Dr. Carl Jung called looking at this part of ourselves the “disagreeable part.” He meant that in a big way. But there is something else, and I see this in me, and I don’t like it. What is it?

What we don’t (choose to) see is the pain we cause others. That’s because our pain blinds us to the consequences of our own actions or reactions. We hurt the ones we love, and think (fool ourselves) that we are doing it out of love. Then, to make it worse, we know all this on a deep level; we know we’ve created pain in those we love. I see I have done this, and still am, and I feel deep sorrow for this, and this causes me pain. Then, this awareness creates self-questioning, shame, and more pain. It’s a vicious cycle that if I/we don’t change this all will just continue and add to a world already burden with pain.

This last one is the most damaging because it is running rampant in this crazy, pain-filled world. And we are creating it. For evidence of this, instead of just being ourselves, look at the diversity of distractions and addictions we all have at our disposal. These are used to divert our attention from being, which includes looking within. This harming of others and self comes from our “shadow,” commonly called our dark-side. We don’t see it consciously, so therefore it must not exist we tell ourselves. But inside, deep inside, we know it does. This awareness is somewhere in the background of our being, following us like a shadow we just don’t see. Unfortunately, we see evidence that it raised its ugly head, but only from the damage done. Often, we can excuse it away. We may say we are doing something out of love, but it is really self-serving. “It is their issue anyway,” we may think, or “I don’t know how that happened.” And the shadow has struck again.

Now, the trick to changing all this is allowing awareness to steep, like a tea bag. Summoning up the courage to allow the knowledge to seep in, without, let me reiterate, without making us wrong, without shaming ourselves, preventing the infliction of more pain to others and self. I am not saying that somehow magically we will feel no pain or discomfort looking at our actions. However, beyond a shadow of a doubt we know inside everything we do. It stews inside us, like it or not. I am saying that we don’t need to add fuel to the fire, more pain, the shaming of self, to the pot. But we still must have the courage to look within and be willing to heal what we find. How do we accomplish this?

Forgiveness is the answer. Forgiveness of “them,” the government, the world, God, and anything else we blame, but most importantly, of self. We participated in the harming of others and ourselves unconsciously. Sorry, but we all have. There is no escaping this. This is the present human condition. This includes passively sitting by in one’s own rose-colored world, and pretending that pain doesn’t exist, or is not our problem, nothing we can do about it, “I didn’t cause it.” Deaf, dumb, and blind will not excuse it. It is victim consciousness, “it was done to me.” If, for whatever reason, you did not end the situation, then you participated in it.

The evolved human condition may not need all this and will have learned to release by awareness and forgiving. We’re not there yet. Forgiveness is a process and perhaps an unending one. It is not making wrongs OK. It is releasing our energy that is for-giving-up, it must be given up, our lives depend on it. Otherwise, this repressed energy will eat us alive. Sometimes we must redouble our efforts at forgiving, take it to a new level. Life will tell you when this is necessary. It is necessary in today’s world without question and all of us participated. I clearly include myself. I can’t say I like this. But I must acknowledge this, forgive, grow and evolve.

— And the truth shall set you free.

First, what is “crazy,” what does it really mean, and what are the signs of it? The definition of crazy includes: mentally deranged; demented; insane; senseless; impractical; or totally unsound. To this I would add: being disconnected from reality; living in a fantasy world that may be hellacious or heavenly, but is nonetheless unreal. You can see this in people who are narcissistic, its all about them, or the negative narcissist who makes it all about everybody else, which is really about them in a negative way. Craziness shows up in people’s actions in which they may say or act in ways that are incongruent with their own statements or reality. Congruency, being in line with all aspects of self, is a key indicator. If a person doesn’t “walk their talk,” that is incongruent. This is crazy, but not what would be considered clinically crazy. Lies are a good indicator too. If you can’t tell the truth, that is crazy (pathological). Politicians, celebrities, bankers and Wall Streeters all have displayed their lack of empathy and consideration for others, told self-serving lies, and generally been incongruent in their behaviors except where their gluttony comes into play. This, they are heartlessly congruent about. Tiger Woods had an image that was not congruent with his reality. That is crazy and now has been labeled as sex addiction. It far more than that, it is an underlying incongruency with self.

Crazy doesn’t mean needing to be locked up; it is just not being in line with self. Einstein said that the definition of crazy was doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. The actions and resultants were incongruent with one’s expectations.

Now, using the above understandings, would society in general not be classified as crazy? Nothing is in line with anything else; chaos reins supreme no matter how diligently the powers that be try to change, fix, or cover them up. They are still basing their actions on unsound thinking; the underlying incongruencies are still in place, and so the results remain constant. In fact, is our government not flip-flopping along diametrically opposed party lines, with its inherent corruption and oppositional views of reality.  What the country and world needs will never be resolved from diametric opposition, only union and partnership. What we have is simply a dynamically crazy system, easily manipulated, in our crazy world. Pitting one side against another, with no holds barred, creates the ripples of craziness that last for generations. One example of this is called unbridled capitalism. The opposite is communism/fascism. Neither works, though certainly having liberty is better than not; cooperative guidance is also needed, not unbridled anarchy, or rigid structure. In fact, perhaps the U.S. founding fathers got it wrong in creating polarity with the Bicameral Congress and two party systems. All one has to do to influence, read that control, an outcome is influence one side differently then normal, and the other side, which normally responds in a certain fashion, finds itself responding differently also. It changes the final composite. It also keeps everyone distracted in the battle, while the underlying agenda is accomplished, unnoticed.

In human terms, it affects the effect of the interaction. The dichotomy influenced the resultant. The results will be different and unexpected from those rigidly designed structures we all create, called our perception of our world and lives. I believe a trinity is better than a polarizing dichotomy. This way there will be a fluid ever-changing exchange of ideas. Rigid right or left thinking becomes unlikely and union, what is best for all is possible.

The so-called “battle-of-the-sexes” is another example of this craziness that affects every one of us. This is what my books are based on and seek to correct. In fact, I submit it is the underlying root disassociation for all others. We start out as children and immediately are brainwashed with the beliefs that parts of our  god-given essence is wrong, shameful. For men, it is feelings, the inner feminine energy, which is disallowed, starting with the admonition that “big boys don’t cry.” Men are then taught to replace all emotional needs with sex and expressions of anger. The roots of this and how it plays out, plus how to change all this are clearly spelled-out in my award-winning first book, Men –The Gods of Love.

Women are told, “don’t trouble your little mind, we men will handle it.” This tells a woman she is mentally not equal to men. This is of course nonsense. Add to that, she may see the masculine mental energy as being powerful, but also heartless. This would make it unattractive and further disconnect her from her masculine mental aspect. I have explained this clearly in my recently released second book Women – The Goddesses of Wisdom.

All right, so we have a picture of our crazy world as a dichotomy, the splitting in two of a whole, moving to opposing sides and importantly, making the other side wrong. If part of the world and ourselves is wrong, than the world must be wrong, read that crazy. This is the same principal for individuals, if part of us is wrong, then we must be wrong. That is called shame. Now, if we remain crazy, we are more easily influenced by certain techniques applied to either side, or both at once. Fear is certainly a technique used, and it has been applied with great success recently. We are being shaped into a world of grateful have nots and haves. Splitting these underclasses, us, into opposing forces, getting us to fight amongst ourselves is key. Then getting both sides to fear and blame each other for our crazy world, allows one a lot of leverage. We can see this in today’s world most clearly. Fear is rampant. People will give up rights, freedoms, and even their first-born to ward off the fear. Fear can only exist in polarity, where it exerts the most influence; it is impotent in union. Our corporations were just handed the keys to controlling this country through a recent Supreme Court ruling giving them the unlimited ability to pay-off and further corrupt our political system. This was in fact a revolution; the rich and powerful have now become far more powerful and dangerous. They will keep us distracted and in fear so they can control us, and horde more wealth. It will seem like an even crazier world, until we have given up all our rights to free thinking. But, there will be the illusion that we still have the right. Then, they will dictate order, read that safety and structure, and dole out what scraps we are to receive. And we will lap it up, thinking it is a safer, less crazy world. That is the most dangerous crazy scenario I can think of, and I am seeing it occur right before our eyes.

So what can we do? That is the question. Here is the answer, counter-revolution, taking back our power that we gave up, while looking at how our own greed and gluttony allowed this. This will not be pleasant, but is necessary if we are to retain any power. Bin-Laden was a distracting pawn, used successfully to create fear, so we would not notice how we were and are being raped. “I’ll give up anything to feel safe.” I hope it’s not too late. Awareness is the first step, second is the plan for correcting the situation, and third is taking action. I am not sure what that will look like. But clearly, Big Brother is the corporation, run by the wealthy that control them. Ah, but don’t worry, they will take care of you and your family. Enslave them is more like it. And they are well on their way to create this world of servitude to their greed and excesses.

Celibacy is the culprit. It is the arrogant denial of the divine’s creation. It declares “we know better then the Divine as to what is good and what is not.” One may choose to withdraw temporarily from sex to clear misconceptions, hurts, and pain. But to make it wrong and shameful is missing the mark (sin).

There is simply no reason for the requirement of celibacy. It didn’t exist for over one-thousand-years, and became the rule of the RCC in 1139 CE. It was a rule they manufactured as ordered by the Pope at that time that had two purposes: One, was to assure that all property owned by its clergy was to remand into the possession of the RCC upon their death; Two, there may have been improper use by certain priests who would use their powers to obtain sexual services from parishioners in exchange for forgiveness of sins. “Say three Hail Mary’s and service me.” In fact misuse of sexual powers has been around since time began. But denial of sex actually causes the misuse of it. Instead, they would better serve the divine by teaching sacred sex. This is not likely to be taught by celibates, is it?

But the roots of this “make sex wrong” thinking goes back to even before the RCC’s formulation in 325CE. Its roots begin in the patriarchal thinking of the ancient world, of Paul, and others prior to him, promulgated by the RCC that to this day is incapable of recognizing the feminine part of the Divine. I am speaking of the “Father, Son and Holy Ghost,” the Trinity, the concept of which has been distort for millennia and has distorted its practitioners and followers. Mankind was created in the image of God. So agrees the doctrine of all the faiths that are the children of Abraham, and by many others. By reverse engineering the biological reality of father, mother and offspring; there is obviously the Divine Father and Divine Mother, who produce the Divine offspring. The RCC refuses to allow this obvious truism. “What, a Divine feminine aspect of God? No way!” They disguise her under a veil they have called the “Holy Ghost.”

Denying any aspect of one’s being twists the whole being. This “missing the mark” is the work of the Trickster, the Great Deceiver. This energy must be exorcised from the RCC, or it will continue to spread its twisted malady called pedophilia, sexual repression, and the twisted expression of sexuality. In fact the “sexual revolution” was antithesis of this twistedness. It made sex non-sacred. Sex is not wrong, and it must be see as sacred. It is the union of two souls. Male priests are men, they need to be men, and join with women on all levels. How can they (or we) ever find true communion if we reject what is obviously the Divine creation, male/female? It is true arrogance to defend this stance; this denial is a creation of the Great Deceiver. It is further promoted in the denial of priesthood for woman by the RCC. How can the divinely created feminine ever be anything but divine, and completely equal, and as divine as the masculine? That is God’s will, but there are those that in the arrogance of their minds think they know it better then that which Mother/Father God expressed.

Would these men that must reject the feminine to be celibate, not also need to reject their own natural, normal, divinely given sexuality? Anything rejected (repressed) moves into the shadow and will come up in a twisted form. This is a basic tenant of human psychology, and the buried aspects will be heard! The pedophile, or closet pedophile, and their enablers in the priesthood are all a product of this denial of wholeness. In my books (Men – The Gods of Love, and Women – The Goddesses of Wisdom) I speak directly how men and women are both taught to deny their inner opposite aspects and how this twists us all. Men have an inner feminine (feeling) aspect and women and inner masculine (thinking) aspect. This denial of part of self is the same principle at work on all of society as is perpetrated upon the priesthood. It is the shaming and denial of one’s wholeness. All our aspects are divine and must be honored as such. No man-made laws, or Papal dictates can invalidate God’s truth.

It is clearly time for the RCC, through its spokesperson, the Pope to dispense with this disease that has infected all our thinking. The feminine is divine and should be welcomed as such. Celibacy should be seen as the past mistake it is and discarded. And both sexes should be taught to honor their inner divine, not as something to be doled out by the RCC or any other religion that says it speaks for the Divine. Mother/Father God needs no mouthpiece, only the Trickster does.

Let the RCC recreate itself as teaching all to connect with their inherent divine essence, which is part of the greater divine. We were told, “you shall do as I do,” because we are made of the same stuff. All, including the RCC, must surrender to the divinity in everything, teach and encourage this, not hold itself arrogantly above those that will be denied Divine Grace, because they don’t subscribe to the churches version of the Divine. Arrogance denies Grace.

Newsflash – men want and need the same thing as women. While women are working hard on their careers and the publicity needed for it, where does he, as a man, fit in? The t-shirts proclaim, “It’s all about me,” and “I’m with stupid.” Here’s a new one, “Men are fashion accessories.” Oh how witty! Yes, I know women have felt like this for eons, and that is righty changing. However, if a women thinks for a moment that she can exact revenge on her man for society’s past mistakes, without consequences, fa-gita-bout-it. Yes, I know one says that they are not intentionally doing this. Forget that too, they are. It only is coming from their unconscious shadow, that part not seen. And every man and woman has one. And there are always women looking to experience their power by stealing your man, or at least a piece of him, with not so much as an iota of concern for you. This last part is a horrify statement about the present nature of the feminine, often missed, yet a true one.

Now, as to the men, they’re emotionally like little boys needing constant reassurance, attention, adulation, respect and love. But what woman doesn’t want this too? Oh, that’s right, the men are supposed to be the rock and need nothing emotionally, except sex. If she missed this part, his needs, he will be someone else’s rock eventually. Even if she wins an Academy Award! Men have been well trained and are doing exactly what they’re trained to do, using sex to replace their needs. If a woman ignores his needs because of career, family, outside interests, etc., then she may loose him to another, or the man will withdraw inside and become sullen and or twisted. Are we not seeing this? Sex addicted men, replacing their disallowed emotional needs with sex and the attention that comes with it. Remember, when a woman gives herself to a man, he is the center of her attention. This makes him feel important, manly. Don’t minimize this. Men then become dependant (addicted) to these replacements to true emotions.

If a woman was or is too busy to give them the attention men need, and or the men feel small or diminished by your success, and someone else wants to give them adulation, well there is a good chance he will succumb, isn’t there. And women know how to make their men feel important, but may even harbor a secret desire to raise themselves by diminishing their men, or may simply be too busy to care. And of course, women have egos too.

Men need to be allowed feelings and talk about them. Then, men can find ways that are fulfilling on the long term. But society is not here yet, so I speak and write about of this with the intent of raising awareness, and women must be aware of the limitation placed on a man by society, just as there are limitations placed on women. Then maybe we all can love and be loved.

Now, what are addictions? At their roots, all addictions are the distraction from feeling. Usually a distraction from something we could not or would not handle. Whether it is tobacco, drugs, alcohol, overeating, over-sexing, over-working, over-meditating, over-exercising, over-praying, over-anything. Additionally, addictions like over sexing or over eating have the added dimension of being something needed for human continuance in reasonable amounts, unlike say drug addiction, which would be a great if you stopped. So for example, if you can’t stop thinking about food, this is indicative of an addiction, but if at meal times you thought about food that would be normal. All these addictive behaviors we took on, because they served our purpose. That purpose is and was to avoid feeling disagreeable, unpleasant, and repressed emotions.

So, in my opinion, all addiction therapies must include regression work, which is necessary to identify these hidden disagreeable feelings. This is so we can understand what has driven us, make new decisions (reframe), and release our attachment to these feelings. Yes, we have become attached to our negative feelings. Trance work (hypnosis) is the best way to access them. These repressed feeling are stored in our “shadows,” or dark-side. Talking about the issues (cognitive based therapies) is of use after the access via trance to the root causes.

The error I see many therapeutic settings take is treating the addiction as the main or only focus of therapy, instead of a symptom of an underlying root cause. Certainly, modifying behavior to minimalize the addictive acting-out is beneficial, but will have high rates of recidivism if the underlying issues are not address simultaneously and vigorously. However, the later is not pleasant; it is asking the addict to take a healing trip into their inner hells that they didn’t want to see in the first place. Selling this prospect is difficult, albeit, a required one. And celebrities are the worst clients, as they are spoiled, “make it painless and pleasing,” they demand. “Oh, and can I have a tranquilizer so I can be comfortable.” This will all but deny access to the very place they need to go.

So the question, does sex addiction exist, has the answer, of course it does. We humans can make anything into an addiction. Some like pain, and can’t get enough of it. The pain takes them away, distracts them from what they perceive is the more painful inner pain. This is the nature of addiction. It is a learned behavior used to cover buried feelings. These buried feelings are the culprits behind the addictive behaviors and they must be addressed.

We’ve seen many male celebrities with this addiction to sex. Why, partly because of the above, and partly because women throw themselves at them playing out the role of sex toy. We don’t see men throwing themselves at celebrity women to be used sexually. Nor do these women seem to need it. We have taught women the role of sex object, which ties directly into the addiction many women have, attention. Give me attention at any cost and I will do and be what you want, even if only for a “quickie.” So men’s sex addiction is part of the gender dance with women’s attention addiction. If one gender stopped, so too would the other. But I don’t see that happening. In fact as the “sexual revolution” proclaimed, “if it feels good, do it!” And the dance goes on, and on…

Selling sex and using it to sell promotes and continues these unhealthy behaviors too. But Madison Avenue is not likely to give up that sales tool anytime soon. So it is up to us individually and collectively to address our issues and use of addiction to distract. Let’s turn all this into a sexual evolution. It will feel far better too.

We have a seemingly unending supply of women willing to throw themselves at famous powerful married men, without the slightest consideration for their families. All they want is a piece of fame, “I did it with him,” and maybe I can make some money off it too. Clearly, the men are without question out of integrity for breaking their vows. They could have chosen to say, no thank you, instead of, yah baby. Both are responsible, both at fault, as it still takes ‘two to tango.’ However, enough has been said against the men, as it is always the man’s fault.  And their hoes, well I have said a lot in previous blog articles like ‘Are Women Innocent?’ Both are self-involved and narcissistic. Clearly.

What I want to know is why is the behaviors of these hoes so acceptable, at least from the standpoint that there is little coverage and condemnation against them? Their behaviors were and are outrageous and they know it. They acted like hoes, but don’t want to accept the consequences of their actions. “I’m not a hoe!” they declare, “I was in love.” Liar, liar, pants on fire! The only thing these material girls love is what they get, “show me the money, honey.” But obviously self-delusions are the M.O. for these women, and for the men like Tiger Woods who feel the rules, like integrity, don’t apply to them.

The only innocents here are Elin and her children. They are the ones that were damaged, not the hoes. She should be suing these hoes for wrongful interference with a legal (and a sacred) relationship. Yet, we have legal hoes demanding an apology for their hoe clients, obviously to gain themselves publicity and payouts for all. In my opinion, Elin should sue this attorney also for extortion and frivolous lawsuits, or threats of them, not to mention public embarrassment and emotional stress.

However, I find it funny, that the women they cheated with, even when they show themselves to be clearly calculating, gold-digging, heartless whores are mostly overlooked. Oh sorry, that’s right, we do want to see what they look like, but who they are as humans, and what part they played is unimportant. We squawk about them if the wives are prettier, “How could he when he has such a pretty wife?” Now, that is worth talking about! But the fact that she is a totally unrepentant home-wrecker goes unsaid, as if it is expected of women. And it is. Maybe it is because women are innocent, childlike, and cannot be held responsible? Or are all these women just innocent victims seduced by the evil male sex fiends? We all know it is always the man’s fault and they are all sex fiends. Or is it just that a woman is not responsible for her actions, being after all, chaotic emotionality, which they cannot control, so we just don’t expect them to?

In the not too distant past women were treated like children, or worse, property. I believe this set the tone for modern day women in establishing the very behaviors I’ve mentioned above. Underlying all these obviously ignored actions the mistresses played-out in these now public affairs is an assumption that all women are just this way.

This is demeaning to women, and becomes their self-fulfilling prophecy. Yes, the men were wrong, but so were the women participants. And in most cases, the women were at least as culpable. Many of these women threw themselves at the men knowing they were married. Yes, the men can and should say no. But let’s face it, the men, especially those on the road, are lonely, are told by their training as men they should want sex at every opportunity, and are easily enticed. In a perfect world they would just say no. That didn’t work for drugs and the present prospects for it working for men are not too promising. This may change in the future, but for now, we better work with what we have, men who are taught that their sexuality is a measure of their masculinity and who have become addicted to sex. And women know how easily men are manipulated by stroking their macho egos and other places.

OK, my point is stop making men responsible for all wrongs, and let the women step-up and share responsibility for what didn’t work. Understanding why all parties do what they do is critical. Otherwise, we will never get away from finger pointing. In one of my blog articles Why Men Leave their Children a reader commented on how her husband left the country for work for one year, but two and a half years later has not returned. She didn’t mention why she didn’t go with him, but had a lot to say as to what a bastard he was.

Here is my response to her that I felt pertinent enough to print here:

First, I feel your rage and your pain. I can relate fully. We humans do unbelievable things to each other, and blind ourselves to the consequences. That is no excuse for the blindness, just an understanding. What’s the use of understanding? We can use it to see the why. How could they do what they do? We can use it to look deeper into the other person, and perhaps explore how they’ve “become trapped in a past that doesn’t let them choose” (Sarah McLachlan, I Will Remember You). YES, I hear you shouting in reply, “Horse… they can choose.” My dear Kim, we live in a world trapped by its own perceptions and deceits. To the world, there are no choices. And you’re right these are illusions, but powerful ones. The only choice for you is to understand this, stand in your truth, and stand firm that others should also. But without the understanding, you will never be able to create the change you so deeply desire, nor to inspire others to have the courage to change what so deeply needs changing. Demands and blame just shut others down. Been there, done that. One last thing, what are you or were you pretending not to know because you wanted to believe? Been there, done that too, don’t like it. Sounds like your husband found someone else and is guilty about it. Your understandable demand for him to return just makes him feel guiltier and he withdraws further. This is painful I know. I can’t lessen that for you. I doubt he went away planning on finding someone else, but he did. Time to let go and move on. If you ram down his throat “I thought you were a G-d damn loving father,” which says he is a liar, bad father and husband, all that will happen is you will drive him away further from his daughters out of your anger. Also, why did you not move with him on his job relocation? He was left alone for a year and you are surprised someone else wanted him?

Many think that if you get the correct gift that fits your expectations, then all will be OK. I wish that were true, but it’s not. This leaves many that received what they wanted and expected, feeling vaguely unsettled. They just can’t quite put their finger on why, “Yes, I got the red roses I wanted, but something is not right.” Perhaps the giver will be blamed for wearing the wrong color shirt, or lack of candles. Some fault will be found. Bottom line, you didn’t do it quite right, again! And that proves to the receiver that they are not important to you. Of course, this is their issue, which shows an underlying distrust based in a lack of self-worth.  And you are an inconsiderate lout, who doesn’t care for anyone but themselves! If you’re in a relationship like this, get a blow-up doll, you’ll fair better.

Now, the question is what does the other person really need that is not necessarily what they want? They need to feel important, seen, cared about, honored, and appreciated. Unfortunately, they have often created structures to weigh and measure what they receive based on their ever changing mood, wants and desires (ego-centric). How can one ever be sure they are communicating their intent? You can’t. You can however minimize the effects of ego by communicating.

First, communicate with your partner in advance about what they consider important. I made the “mistake” once of gifting hybrid yellow/orange roses. The recipient had the preconceived notion that this meant I was “unsure.” For her, only red rose would express love. Ask specific questions about what your lover’s needs, wants, and expectations are.

Second, tell them that the intent of your humble gift is to express how important they are to you. Feel it first and say it with all seriousness. This is really what they need. If you have a partner that needs diamonds to feel this, find a hooker, they’re cheaper and at least honest about what they are.

Ladies, honor your men for what they do right, let them know you see them and their efforts. Discuss at another time what doesn’t work for you, and if it is unworkable, move on.

When we accomplish a real communication about mutual importance and love, and allow this to be the basis of our relationships we move to a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. Then, you both can celebrate the true meaning of Valentine’s Day, soul connection.