Sexual Orientation and Negs

[lucid dancer]

I'm not sure exactly what he means by it. In my opinion, negs would give you thoughts. If you see a flash of a sexual image, that you normally wouldn't think of. Anything that differs from your regular activity would be suspicsious. I don't think he would be referring to sexuality in general (gay or straight).

[jilola]

I think that he means that a neg causes the person to go against his/her real nature.
The greatest difficulties arise when a person works against himself thus creating a rift or an imbalance in his soul/totality/existence (kinda hard to come up with a workd for what I'm thinking). This imbalance results in all sorts of dysfunction starting form the simple everyday stresses and apprehensions and ending up in an uncontrolled leak of energy.
So what I'm trying to say probably (hee) is that there is no natural orientation when we view a human as a duality of the physical and the soul. On the physical side one could argue that heterosexuality is the natural state as it agrees with the species' need to perpetuate itself.
But for the non-physical soul, what is the natural orientation? Is there such a beast? I don't think so.

The cause behind all the problems relating to spiritual experiences (especially raising kundalini) is most likely a lack of balance on th epart of the person.

2cents

jouni

[WalkerInTheWoods]

Sounds like "the devil made me do it" kind of logic. If a "neg" can influence your sexual habits then maybe they influence all of our actions. Maybe we are not really responsible for anything we do. Maybe someone's negativity of themself or of views can influence sexual preference, but in all honesty what does it matter?

[kifyre]

This seems pretty straightforward to me:

1. Cause a person to have obsessive thoughts related to the sex opposite their orientation.
2. Combine the above with causing a general feeling of sexual arousal.

I think both of the above are within the ability of a some negs. If this is done creatively and cunningly, I think it would cause a person a great deal of confusion. This confusion would lead to unbalance and added emotional baggage that could potentially come from believing oneself to be of homosexual orientation.

This would probably be a technique to weaken a person for whatever reason. I doubt it'd be just for the sake of doing it.

How to counter something like this? Awareness. In my opinion, don't shy away from images and thoughts that pop up in your head. Consider them and experience them fearlessly. You don't have to act on them. Then weigh the evidence. (And practice PPSD to see if this has an effect too, of course.)

Perhaps it could go deeper and darker, but I think the above is the most likely scenario.

Mark

[seekenergyaz]

Hello,

The gay movement, if you will, teaches typically that a person who is homosexually oriented was basically meant to be that way, just as a heterosexually oriented person is meant to be that way.  What I wonder is if the possibility of neg influence should cause people to rethink that one in any big way.  

One cannot go about conquering something if he's not sure that there is anything to be conquered.  But if he isn't sure, he will always wonder, and this one just doesn't seem like a good thing to be left wondering about.  A person needs to know about something like that.  Sexuality is too much a part of life and social identity (quite apart from matters of actual sexual practice) for ambiguity of any long duration in this matter to be healthy.  Indeed the damage could begin long before a person knows what a sex act even is.  If one is left wondering about this one indefinitely, it is going to cause trouble in his life.  If there was ever "a need to know," this would surely be a case of it!

The question would have to be what was a person meant to be in the physical world.  There not being a natural orientation in the spiritual wouldn't mean a lot in this matter since a physical living person is still left to deal with it as a physical entity.  

This thing about "It sounds like that Devil-made-me-do-it excuse" is ridiculous when one applies it strictly to the presence of an orientation.  One does not "do" an orientation, one "does" a sexual behavior, and there is a definite difference between the two.  That is one of my problems with fundamentalist religion, while some do acknowledge that difference, others get so caught up in the emotion of the thing that they seem incapable of doing so (and those among them who DO understand that rarely make much of an attempt to set the record straight on the matter when the ones who don't shoot off their mouths).

seekenergyaz

[Leyla]

Sounds perfectly ridiculous to me. This theory originated in the dark ages when it was the held belief of the church that everything physical or earthly was sinful, to suffer was to be Christlike, all enjoyment was to be shunned, bathing and colored clothing were sinful vanities, etc. etc.  Out of this came the belief that demons wanted to possess humans so they could do earthly things like dance (a sin) enjoy good food (a sin) make love (another sin) and it made a good excuse -- "the devil made me do it." So yes, I can see it being offered as excuse for homosexuality. Except that homosexuality needs no excuse, only tolerance.
Spirits don't need to come here to seek sexual pleasures. There is plenty of sensuality on the astral. I know this for a fact. There is even sexual violence- I was once the victim of an attempted rape on the astral by an ex-boyfriend who was out of body - I had broken up with him all of five hours beforehand.
Any hoo- the Christian view of the astral or "heaven" as a place of harps and celibacy is false.

[jilola]

What I was going for is that if you're gay it's cool. If you're straght it's cool. You wnna dacne ok, you don't that's ok as well.
But when you know that you're something and for some reason go against that nature then that's when the trouble start.
And any outside infuence notwithstanding we are always responsible for our actions. We are, not the guy next door, not devil, not God. Us.
And that is a pretty hard fact to accept and incorporate into our lives. These days it seems that people will do anything but.

2cents

jouni

[seekenergyaz]

The more I think about this one, the more I think it goes back to a statement I made on another subject, which was something like: When it comes down to it, what one hasis his instincts.  Pray that your instincts are good.

This would have to do with the accuracy of our instincts, which raises a question or maybe more, but they might be better asked under a whole different subject line, as they would be about so many other things as well.

By the way if anyone is getting the idea that I'm a bigot against gays, I'm really not.  You have no idea how not.  My questions are simply very serious.

What does seem to belong here is a new subject, but related.  WHOLESOME lifestyles are spoken of by Mr. Bruce as well.  When I think of wholesome lifestyles, I think of healthy lifestyles and habits, and lives containing healthy relationships, with family (or at least people that "become" family to a person), loyal friends, and if there is a lover in the romantic sense involved then that would be healthy and constitute loyal relationship too.  The sexual orientation part of this I think is meaningless when it comes to what is POSSIBLE.  However, when it comes to what is POPULAR, PROBABLE, or READILY FOUND, then I have a problem with much of what is known as the gay community.

Let's first separate the word "lifestyle" from "sexual orientation," at least for the purposes here, otherwise emotion might make us miss the point...

Many homosexual people grew up to be very bitter about everything that "heterosexist society" taught them about what was good and wholesome, and seem to reject the whole lot of it by association, and have adopted an extreme counterculturalist view.  There seems to be a great split in the making within the gay community between these counterculturalists and those who believe that not everything that takes root in a heterosexually dominated society is necessarily bad.  I believe this division may become bitter.  Ultimately, it seems to me, a more emotionally secure and moderate gay community will have to win out, since that is what is more likely to survive long term.  (As far as I can see societies will always be dominated by heterosexuals by force of pure numbers, only makes sense.)

But, since negs seem to prey on less than wholesome lifestyles (again, I am trying to be careful with this word lifestyle when broaching this particular subject), it behooves any individual, hetero or homo, to surround himself with a climate that is wholesome, healthy (particularly in the arena of emotional health), and generally repugnant to negs.

I'm afraid I must confess, I believe it will be harder for a homosexually oriented person to find this situation while still having many friends who are personally aware through their own experience of what it is like to be oriented homosexually.  Since homosexuals, understandably, crave association with a group with that understanding, then it seems only realistic to say that they do have some challenges in living a neg free existence.

Mr. Bruce also comments on the negs taking advantage of sex as a way to spread themselves.  Since promiscuity is cosidered central to the protest against heterosexism among the extreme counterculturalists, and many more homosexuals just sort of fall into it, herein lies another challenge yet.

[anteus]

I find it possible that the followings may hold at least for some of people following homosexual practices.

They may shift away responsibility for their lives.
Instincts can be misprogrammed by many lies and then it is possible to forget the misprogramming and the lies. What remains then? Just the result of programming, the desires. It is true once instrincts are misprogrammed, not easy to wake up from the programming. (It is like hypnosis)
Also, many programming may produce a web, a self-sustaining pattern that may be changed by investing extra energy and right effort.

Denying responsibility may involve:
-being a victim (denying one can do anything.Denying how one provoked or took part in creating the situation)
-blaming other (even silently)
-denying actions, thoughts, experiences,involvement

One may also pretend that
-One is  responsible
-it is one's choice as if this were final and irreversible.
-everything is ok

So the way out may be taking responsibility.
Eg. Asking questions...
-is it true that I can do nothing?
-What could I do NOW?

It is good to know that being victimized has its own attraction(pleasures,escapism, illusions that seem to be true, e.g.not having to do anything, )

It may be a difficult stuff.

[seekenergyaz]

I'm curious if anyone knows about Robert Bruce's particular views on this.

He says in one of his books that negs can "even change a person's natural sexual orientation" or something along that line.  What I don't know is whether that means he believes that sexual orientation could naturally start out at any point then be changed by negs from one to the other or from the other to the one,  or if he means that everyone's natural orientation is straight and that negs can make them gay, or something else yet.  

If it is coyness on his part, that's understandable given what he would like to accomplish vs. all the side issues he could get sucked into.  I'm sure it could get real hard to do what he's doing now if he says something too politically incorrect then has to start warding off accusations of being the next Fred Phelps (you know how it is with knee-jerk emotional accusations and the way they spread through vociferous groups of people).   But darn, I would like to know what he actually thinks on this.

If a person is meant to be straight and is gay, and a neg was involved, then it seems it could be reversed.  There are homosexual oriented people out there who still are not sure whether they were meant to be that way or not.  They may not be as vociferous as the ones who would not appreciate hearing something politically incorrect,  but they are out there, and if a neg made them what they seem to be, then they might wish to know that they can get back to what they are.

So many people have strong opinions about this subject, and most are more than happy to express them.  But being convinced takes concrete evidence, which is hard to come by on this subject, a lot harder to come by than opinions.  But some of us might value Mr. Bruce's opinion in full all the same.

Does anyone know that is willing to say what it is?  Send a private message if it seems the right thing to do.