Lovescape Novels, an art project exploring the wide 'invisible world' of the landscape of love in which unfolds the light of civilization


Homosexual versus Heterosexual Love

Brochure #1 at the Chatter Station 

of a literary art project exploring the wide landscape of love
 by Rolf A. F. Witzsche

Painting a living garden of
 invisible shapes
that shape

In painting the wide landscape of love one cannot imprison ones vistas into the small frame of narrow issues and iron-cast singularities that may be perceived as the New Enlightenment, but which are conceptionally as invalid and confining as the concepts of the Old Enlightenment that has been long left behind in the pages of history for its lack of truthfulness.

So, what is truthful about love, or for that matter about anything? Truth isn't opinion, or a fad dictated by what is set up to be politically correct. In such an environment the terms homosexual, heterosexual, and lesbian, as related to love are abused and distorted in meaning, which is largely invalid as their usage is too narrow. One could write books about this narrow environment without braking the confinement, and this has been done for countless reasons and for countless objectives, but they typically do not enable society to embrace and cherish its universal humanity that is not narrow, but is wide and precious; that is something worth celebrating; something that can bridge the countless divisions that is tearing the world apart. 

Sex is at the root of some of the deepest divisions. But if we look closer, many of the sexual myths that divide us don't stand the test of truth. The myths are often paper thin. Homosexuality is one of these myths. The term "homo," means "same." The term homosexuality simply means, same sex love. Under this truthful definition, without myths attached, it is one of the most widely practiced aspects of our love for one-another as human being. In fact, we can't get away from it, and we would loose a great deal of our love for one another if we were successful in getting away from it. Fortunately we haven't succeeded yet. Unfortunately, most people are unaware of this factor of their love for our universal humanity and tend to deny it. 

This phenomenon is illustrated in the chapter "Unity" of the novel "Winning without Victory." It is brought out in a conversation of the protagonist with a Japanese man on an airplane. The protagonist confesses that he is intensely drawn to women in his love. The Japanese calls him a liar for making this statement. - "How can you say such a thing?" the protagonist counters. - "I can say this with certainty, because what you say is impossible," answers the Japanese in essence... "Just give me the name of the person you routinely seek out if you needed some deep questions answered." - "The name is, Steve," the protagonist replies. - "And that tells me that you lied to me before," said the Japanese. "You lied to me, and you lied to yourself, and you didn't even know it."

Aren't we all a bit like that? We've been trained in narrow perception rather than looking at the truth. In this environment the protagonist never realized that he had a deep homosexual relationship with Steve. He had a deep feeling and respect for another man, for the beauty of his character and his intelligence. He actually had fallen in love with the man during the first moments when the two met, through he would never see it as a homosexual relationship, because there had never been any direct sexual contact involved or ever even been considered. Nevertheless, a deep loving relationship unfolded between the two men, and continued to unfold. It remained strong even in the challenging environment in which the protagonist turns out to be deeply in love with Steve's wife. In this environment Steve simply steps aside and lets the unfolding love affair continue. He goes as far as giving up his own bed, camping out on the balcony for a night. While Steve is a scientist, exploring the dimensions of love, and sees his response as a matter of scientific imperative, he is unaware at the time that a deeper factor is involved, a factor of love and respect between two men. Without that love such giant strides would not have been taken, certainly not for merely a scientific imperative. This single vista brings to light a profound aspect of the homosexual dimension and paints such relationships in quite a different color. (see, Discovering Love, chapters 9, 11, 12, 13)

The wider horizon also uplifts the heterosexual scene. A profound example of a heterosexual relationship on this wider plain is found in Erica's Flower Garden, a chapter of the same novel. A rich heterosexual relationship unfolds there even though Erica and the protagonist never end up in bed together. They explore together the wide dimensions of love that could unite mankind across the great sexual divide, a kind of 'continental' divide, which stands so imposing between men and women that it hinders them from reaching their hands across a table like human beings, except in a few permitted cases that are narrowly circumscribed. 

The irony is that many men and women may sleep together and still are unable to cross the 'continental' divide. In the case of Erica and the protagonist the scene is reversed. They don't sleep together, while the 'continental' divide is put out of the way by them in a daring protest against small-minded perception. 

Which of the two cases then best defines the wide world of heterosexaluality? Is the physical sex act the defining factor, or is the defining factor the dimension of the strands of love that bind human beings together across the great divide, and with it bind them to their humanity?

This daring to allow strands of love to cross the 'continental' divide is taken one step further in the protagonist's encounter with a woman named Helen who comes to light as a healer (see chapters 5 and 6 of Discovering Love). One would call the resulting affair a heterosexual relationship, but Helen comes to light also as a 'universal' woman who is equally comfortable in an intimate relationship with other women. One would call her a bisexual woman? What a silly term that is! She is a living, breathing, human being who is a woman in love with herself and with her humanity that is so wide in her view that it includes all aspects. She has many people in her life and shares her life with them culturally, socially, and in numerous other ways, including in the bed. Also, in this wider sphere she has become a healer, so much so that the healing aspects of her discovery of the nature of love becomes threaded through the entire serious of novels in different ways, here and there.

The protagonists affair with Steve's wife, Ushi, continues gradually in the background. It pops up again in the third novel. The protagonist meets Ushi for a brief holiday on the island of Cozumel, with her share being paid for by Steve (chapter: Gentle Winds). The affair unfolds into a full heterosexual affair that is far wider than what the term implies, and so it continues in stages throughout the rest of the series of novels, as does the protagonist's relationship with Steve. Both relationships become deeper and wider and increasingly more 'universal' in nature.

The series of novels, The Lodging for the Rose, has numerous types of sexual relationships threaded through its twelve volumes. None of these might be described as 'normal' by the narrow standards that are applied by society as to what 'normal' means. There is no point in writing about this normality as most people live by what is deemed 'socially correct' according to the normal standards, just as it makes no sense to waste one's time in exploring what is 'politically correct' or 'religiously correct' or 'scientifically correct' thinking. The world is filled with examples of people being rigidly 'correct' in all of these areas, who typically all respond coldly to anyone who deviates from their specific narrow points of view. But it does make a lot of sense to explore the vistas that unfold when the narrowing limits are removed in all of these areas. Corresponding vistas of these wider perceptions are therefore interwoven with the various types of unique sexual relationships that are threaded through the novels, many of which may appear rather strange and most unorthodox for this reason, like the sexual relationship of the protagonist with Antonovna (Anton).

Anton is a woman from Russia, and her friend is Nicolai, a high ranking Naval security officer. The affair with Anton starts out as a paradox. She hates sex. She hates the very notion of it, even while she values herself as a woman. It takes her a dozen years to put aside this hate . After the breakthrough is made she becomes deeply involved heterosexually. But soon she hits another barrier. "Is this all there is?" she asks. "Where do we go from here?" 

The answer comes in part from Nicolai who had an 'intimate' intellectual relationship with the protagonist quite early in the series. In the second-last book of the series Anton presents Nicolai's answer to the question, "where do we go from here?" She conveys Nicolai's proposal for a triple marriage bond - all three of them in one bond together. (see: Sword of Aquarius, chapters 1 and 2) The proposal takes place in the background of a crisis, a potential world-crisis caused by a far-flung political marriage of traitors who unleash a catastrophe that threatens the entire world. The staged catastrophe seems like a counterpoint to the openness of Nicolai's triple marriage proposal, the kind of openness that in its innocent potential poses an existential threat to the closed society of empire. 

In the vistas of their ever-widening social environment Anton encourages the protagonist, even in what might be their honeymoon, to reach out with his love to aid another woman who is starving for human intimacies in the cold military environment where they both meet her as a valuable ally in their fight against the empire's threat that seems intended to eradicate much of mankind. In this environment the protagonist responds with his love and the scene become brighter (See the chapter, Reindeer Research).

This widening kind of multifaceted relationship is totally impossible to circumscribe within the narrow concepts of "Homosexual versus Heterosexual versus Lesbian Love." All three might apply in a massively expanded sense of perception which is no longer determined by role playing. We certainly need the equivalent in the world today, culturally, economically, and politically. We need this equivalent to break through the currently deadly stalemate that has gripped society on the numerous fronts on which mankind faces utter defeat and a new dark age under the thumb of empire. Society has so far failed in the development of its inner power as human beings to confront and step away from the war of empire versus civilization and to step up onto a renaissance platform that must seem as strange in today's world the triple marriage platform is meant to appear in the novel. Still the actions that are needed in the real world today are no less dramatic than those in the novel, Sword of Aquarius.

Another totally unorthodox sexual love relationship is staged in the novel, Glass Barriers. What unfolds there might be called a science based sexual relationship that unfolds with ever-expanding dimensions as some of the most rigid religious barriers are shattered. And all of that unfolds in a land of long-standing narrow traditions on many fronts. However India is unique, and in its long past appear some traditions that reveal a time of an amazing openness to wide horizons, even on the sexual scene. These horizons, strangely have been almost forgotten, so that when they are rediscovered in the novel they appear almost incredible in comparison with today's narrowly circumscribed world.

A rich family relationship unfolds in this novel centered on India. This higher-level family relationship is brought to the foreground once more at the very end of the 12-volume series, in the last book, in the chapter of an abduction. The story raises the so-called homosexual dimension to a still higher level where the homosexual dimension remains almost unseen. The protagonist, now living in China, received a death-threat against his beloved in India, with the demand that he surrender himself to the empire for his execution with the promise that this would save his beloved's life. He is fully prepared to comply with the empire's demand. But he isn't allowed. In this extreme crisis a love unfolds in the background that stops him. Several men instantly act on his behalf and put their status and position on the line to resolve the situation. They go as far as to engage the power of China and and its foreign relations to assure that the abducted woman is not only released unharmed, but is treated with respect and is given a first class ticket to China and to her freedom. All of that happens with such care and such finesse that the woman remains unaware that she had been abducted until she arrives in China. The men justified their dramatic intervention on the simple platform that the protagonist is too valuable to China for him to be allowed to sacrifice himself for any cause, by which the woman is likewise so recognized for similar reasons. In this case a profound male to male love carries the day in a powerful love-environment while not a single notion of the slightest physical sexual contact is on the horizon or even imagined, while the men's wider love is intertwined with their love for their entire nation. Why shouldn't the love between men unfold universally in this life-protecting fashion?

Here begins a new kind of homosexuality that is sorely need in the present world. 

And even in the other extreme, on the smallest scale, we need this higher sense of sexual relationship. One example of this type is found in the novel, Flight without Limits. It is found in the chapter, Miracle Images. In this chapter a gentle affair begins in which the woman is described as a jewel! She come to light as a jewel of a universe that is a jewel itself.  Sex drifts into the background while the affair remains nevertheless entirely sexual. Eventually physical sex happens in the course of an inspired movement, although its part is brief like the blinking of an eye while the tipsy joy that unfolds from the unfolding love-affair remains a light that glows-on for days and thus far outshines the brief elation of physical sex.

Something similar happens also in the novel, Brighter than the Sun. A long lasting affair unfolds in its pages between the male protagonist and his friend Igor.  In the chapter, Time Zones, a homosexual dimension comes to the foreground within the small space of a sailboat on a voyage across a dozen time zones. The budding relationship opens up new horizons, though it stops short of physical sex. To begin with, in the light of the now expanding horizons Igor expresses his longing for a relationship of his own with Jennie who has been the long-time beloved of the protagonist all the way through the novel. As the protagonist love for Igor as a human being deepens, he steps out of the path to let Jennie and Igor find their way to each other. This 'homosexual' aspect of love in respect of another man, resulting there in a three-way love-relationship, soon expands again and also involves Igor's father, Sergei, when a strong male to male tie is forged between them, though sex is never on the horizon there either. The great strength of this unfolding tie becomes evident when Sergei needs to be rescued and taken out of Russia in a daring operation staged against the whole weight of the Russian State apparatus. The operation seems almost too dangerously precarious to be rational, but as there is no other way it proceeds and ends with success,

Many people wouldn't call this expanded male to male relationship a "homosexual" relationship and include any other aspects of same-sex love, even if it doesn't involve direct male to male physical sexual encounters. And in the same breath, common usage defines the entire wide scene of male to male love, as utter depravity. But does one aspect of a profound love invalidate all aspects of it? Can we speak of a perversion of love in the shadow sex?  How can one separate one from the other when the most profound aspect of it is so beautiful and valuable to civilization that a loss of it would be tragic? Should there be no male to male love? Is love a heterosexual exclusive quality. Shouldn't the beautiful in human character be projected forward regardless of sex, and its value be recognized and honored so that is love pertains to all aspects in which love brightens the scene and its value and its light is celebrated?

Let me ask you this: Would an American airline captain, in the shadow of a devastating nuclear attack by Russia on the USA, put his own life at risk to rescue a Russian man from an angry crowd that is crying for revenge? Would it be possible for a man's love for his fellow man to reach across this wide gulf filled with all the hype of hate-filled political and ethnic divisions in order to save the threatened man's life? I don't think such an act would happen, or be possible, unless there was a bond built in the instant of the unfolding crisis on a man to man basis where nothing enters the scene except our universal humanity as human beings. On such a basis that human kind of a response would be a natural one, and the love that would flows on this platform where the two men meet, would supply the power to accomplish the necessary feat of great daring. So it happens in the novel, and Igor is rescued by the protagonist and is pushed into an elevator with the doors fast closing behind them while the first bullet is being fired that becomes lodged into the rear panel of the cab, though hurting no one. (see the chapter: The Chess Player). I know of no platform that is built merely on physical sex between men that could come even close to matching this kind of power that the higher-level homosexuality can open the doors to.

And here comes the surprise that renders the entire gallery enormously important for civilization, because homosexuality is evidently an important element also for children in their self-development.

The surprise is that homosexuality is a vital factor in civilization and is therefore a necessary element in the process of family formation. 

The series of novels, The Lodging for the Rose, brings homosexuality to the foreground, because of the importance of male to male bonding, and by the same token, female to female, bonding, which are important though they rarely ever lead to physical forms of it. For millennia the family formation in the union of a man and a woman have provided a basis for the children of the upcoming generations to develop their homosexual bonding tendencies in a protected environment, as well as their cross-sexual bonding tendencies.  The union of a man and a woman in the marriage bond creates a family unit that is of vital importance as it enables both of the homosexual and cross-sexual development in children, and enables them both simultaneously. The often sited father to son bond is an example of this vital same-sex bonding, as well as the son's cross-sex bonding with the mother. After all, half of humanity is made up of men which must work together in a harmonizing relationship for civilization to be advanced, And the other half is made up of woman which require a similar harmonizing relationship. Also, they both must function together in an harmonizing union. We are presently far from that and are moving apart further and further into ever deeper forms of self-isolation. A rich family environment would go a long way to bridge that gap on all of these fronts. In single parent families, or in same sex parent families, many of the opportunities for these kinds of developments are blocked. Society becomes monolithic when this happens, and 'sterile,' and 'brittle,' and cold, even violent.

In the imperial world, which has now become largely globalized, the traditional family formation has been discouraged. The trend might have begun already in 1951 with the launching of the Congress of Cultural Freedom in Berlin. The project appears to be intentionally destructive, to judge by the forces that organized it.  Freedom from culture is destructive, since culture is freedom. The outcome was as expected. The changes occurred gradually. One associated landmark policy stands out that began in the 1980s, which intentionally reduced the housing standard for families so as discourage normal family formation. Another cultural development was put on the front burner even before that time, with the promotion of the same sex family unit. The single parent family might have had the same root. All of these developments together might a part of the policies set in motion in 1951, which would have affected the baby-boomer generation in a big way and also subsequent generations. While none of these links can be proven empirically, the timing of the modern phenomena of an evermore monolithic society suggests the existence of such a link trailing back across two or more generations.

In the sequence of novels, The Lodging for the Rose, these political historic details and their effect on children has been omitted in favor of exploring the underlying principles. The one place where the question of children comes into view in principle, and in a surprising way with a much wider dimension, is located in the novel Roses as Dawn in an Ice Age World, in the chapter Gentle Winds. Here the question is explored, whose children are the new offspring anyway? Since our personal contribution to the process of procreation is so absolutely minuscule, and the foetal development results from processes and principles deeply imbedded in our humanity, shouldn't we be more inclined then to regard all children as the offspring of our common humanity instead of some personal creation? If we were to do this, one might expect a wider basis of support forthcoming, which would result in a far greater security, both for the children and for civilization. 

Right now society bows to the imposition of an environment in which children are deprived of some vital developmental opportunities. In addition, in many cases, most families don't really care if other families' children have shoes on their feet and food on their table, and much less whether they have the required social environment. Even among the children themselves to care for one-another, and for their own existence and their future, is fading and getting thin as the isolation deepens. But if we were to regard the children of the world as the offspring of our common humanity, the offspring of something great, and profound, an valuable, we might see the folly that society clings to in denying their identity, ignoring their real status and their needs, as an act of self-denial. Then things would change.  Perhaps in the future things will change.

A daring proposal for such a revolutionary change is put forward in the novel, Glass Barriers, in the chapter: A Course on Hamlet. The proposal is to build a larger family base. The proposal is not just to prevent the breakdown in the small, but to also enable the homosexual and cross sexual development of the adults in the family, by providing a more ideal environment for them, and as well for the benefit of the children. Shakespeare's Hamlet was chosen, because the fault in Hamlet is society's own fault in not providing for itself an environment that is essential for its security. By this fault the nation is lost in Hamlet. We still face the same kind of challenge, and the consequences of us failing in this vital arena in today's world might be far more dramatic than the limited tragedy that Shakespeare had put forth in the case of Hamlet where only a single nation was lost and not the entire world.

Perhaps the novel becomes too dramatic as it conjures up the ghost of Hamlet even though the apparent deep link between civilization and the family foundation exists but is downplayed, especially its size, . However, history supports the scientific perception that a larger family unit is an important factor in the development of civilization, and not just for economic reasons. In many cultures large families have been a long standing tradition. The value of this factor has obviously not remained unrecognized as the forces for downgrading of the family unit appear to be originating entirely in the imperial camp of the age-old war of empire versus civilization. In this context the ghost of Hamlet might be justified.

So what is the bottom line then in the gallery of the novels exploring the unseen shapes that shape us in the landscape of love?

Must we focus our love unto upgrading civilization? Is that the purpose of loving? Of course not. Love is its own gem and powers our passions for the glow of its own light. Civilization is but the outcome of it. We enjoy the light itself for its warmth and its brilliance. Of course, brining a lighted candle into a room makes the room more liveable. Naturally we also find it fascinating to discover what we can accomplish in the light. I think both aspects belong to the bottom line and they are both found in the novels.

Helen once asked the protagonist what he wants most in life. He answered her that he didn't really know? Did he want a house, a car, a wife, or an exiting job? No, he didn't. He had all of those. Did he want sex, then? Not really, because if that's all it was, he could buy it for $20 on the street corner. So what did he want? He couldn't really tell her what it was. Helen accepted that answer, because he lacked the foundation for the real answer to be formulated, which she hadn't revealed to him at this point, and wouldn't reveal until the next day when she outlined to him how she came to recognize human existence pictured in her mind in the shape of a vast lateral lattice of human hearts, all arrayed laterally, all standing side by side equally, binding one-another into a vast lattice of human bonds by countless strands of love that unfold from each one's love for the humanity that all mankind shares. She saw the strands of love extending outward, flowing to all the other hearts, binding all in universal unity with the threads of our common humanity. Helen suggested with that, that what the protagonist really ever wanted and needed was to discover himself in this all-embracing lateral lattice of a single humanity that reflects the reality of our being. (see: Discovering Love - The Lateral Lattice of Hearts - P.S. In archaeology we are rightly called the "homosapiens" - a sea of people of the same humanity.)

The bottom line in the gallery is also be summed up in the response to Anton's question in Caracas: "Is this all there is to love?" 

In this case, as if it were an answer to that question, Erica is brought back into the novel where she intervenes and raises the platform to a level of a higher 'sexuality' where the human being comes to light as a profound creator, scientist, technologist, and economist, with a capacity for turning the Earth into a garden of plenty, building an isotope world powered by nuclear-fusion power, hydrogen fuels for transportation, in a richly built-up world constructed with basalt and with minerals reclaimed from the rocks of the planet, the very rocks that litter the Earth which offer to become the cradle of plenty by technological processes that enable mankind to release their minerals from their molecular bonds. (see: Endless Horizons - chapter 10: Here Begins a New World.)

A third bottom line in the gallery can be found in the last chapter of the last book, in the story of Lianhua, a story that describes in broad human terms the path of civilization with a future that is bright and inevitable, because we are, after all, all human beings, and thereby the 'brightest' entities in the universe.

A reader has posed the following profound question in regard to the above.

For heterosexuality to be a unique institution, men and women
must be cognitively different, rather than differing merely in physique.  If
the LaRouchian perspective on evolution holds, then the animal instincts
must have been not merely transcended and discarded, but, adapted to deeply
colour respective cognitive action.  If this is not so, then there is no
reason for us not to auto-evolve ourselves into hermaphrodites.

If men and women really are identical, then the Marxists win because there
is no way to defend tradition.  If they are different in principle, then
we'd better figure out how, or everything goes.  Without the nuclear family
we lose it all: race, religion, culture, nation-state, the future itself.
No amount of preaching or poetry reading or crime statistics is going to
convince anyone of anything valuable if the fundamental, agapic, breeding
and education unit is erased as an ontologically real principle.

It is, I suggest, that lack of definition which leads you to conflate eros
with philios and agape in your article.  For heterosexuality to be the
optimum means that other forms of physical sexual expression are
perversions.  We may find, as you suggest, and which I in a manner concur,
that perversions may be tolerable and useful under certain circumstances,
but, either the optimum exists or it does not.  We may hold up Plato's
Greece as a counter-case, but, as I recall, Greece fell.

I am all for developing a higher understanding of the universal nature of
the many forms of affection, but, its foundation needs to be solid as
marble, and for that we need to figure out what "men" and "women" really are
in principled terms (presumably principles of art, not science).  Only once
we have that foundation can we dare seriously entertain wild fantasies of
"universal sexuality."  Such things cannot be without firm structures to
control their imperfections and the Darwinian games-playing that arises as a
result.  Surely the 1960s taught us that.

I value this comment because of the deeper question it encompasses as to what the principled differentiation is, or might be, between men and woman.

Before presenting my reply I would like to suggest that society's general perception of what is perversion in this case is somewhat shallow and largely hypocritical.
People say that heterosexual love is beautiful, because it is an element of procreation, and anything else is perversion? That standpoint is hypocritical, isn't it? It would render 99.9% of heterosexual sex a perversion as well as it is not pursued for procreation, including the gentle kiss which isn't an element of procreation at all. Nevertheless, the general perception is that a male to male kiss is perversion. From this view the question does indeed arise as to whether a distinct principle of heterosexuality exists that covers the whole sexual scene and becomes the determinant for what is beautiful and what is perversion.

On the other hand one can also set a different standard for determining perversion, such as when what is deemed love drops below the level of affection and becomes depravity. The moral domain is inherently a transitional domain that is as widely open to our ascendancy to the beautiful and the sublime, just as it is open to the perversion of sex into depravity and a whole sewer full of smut, such as rape, abuse, violence, cruelty, exploitation, within and without marriage, and a whole lot more, much of which is also a part of the heterosexual scene. The sewer on this scene that so many men and women have been drowned in leaves one to wonder if heterosexuality really is that optimum in sexual relations that renders all other forms as perversions. So, where does the truth really reside? Will we ever know that for certain? Of course the truth is located in what does actually elevate civilization. But even that is hard to measure in a world that is deeply overlaid with learned perceptions and age-old traditions.

My answer:

From 1866 onward the American religious leader Mary Baker Eddy used the term "Father Mother" in unison to refer to God. She defended her adding the term Mother, saying that "Love" most clearly defines deity. She seems to suggest that the female principle is most primarily represented by Love, and the male principle is most primarily represented by strength and creative economy.

Indeed the mothering female takes on a role that few men emulate, and that by the same token the economy of providing a healthy environment falls into the court of the male. History suggests that this specialization is built into the human psychology. However, I cannot see that this specialization that became a necessity in primitive cultures where the division of responsibility was critical to survival, can be elevated into a categorical, principled division. I have seen caring fathers that would put many mothers to shame, and industriously creative woman who would stand as an inspiration to many a man.

I have searched long and hard for the existence of a principled distinction that categorically sets a woman and man apart in a profound way. Sure, women chatter ten times as much as men do and find relaxation in endless conversation with other women, which the researchers tell us is highly uncommon in men, and that men are several times more focused on sex then women are. It appears that the researchers are right on this count, though I cannot see that this differentiation, when brought together, can elevate civilization. I rather think that as we human beings move away from our animal distinctiveness onto higher ground we aspire to spiritual qualities that are common to both sexes, rather than forging divisions. History supports this view. We have seen great female scientists as well as great male scientists, or artists, or musicians, etc..

So what about the heterosexual optimum that is deemed to be the decisive factor? Personally, I find a great satisfaction in seeing the higher qualities reflected in women that I value also in men and in myself. Nevertheless I do recognize a beautiful and extensive distinction between men and woman that is reflected not in a qualitative way but in modes of individuality shaped by differences in the way we look, dress, do things, are motivated, and by differences in what we enjoy and what we love. I find it fascinating how these modes of individuality are becoming evermore emphasised rather than being diminished like they were in Mao's China. There are roses and carnations in the garden of life, and other things as well. But those are but shades of color rather than principled differences. It is enriching in this sphere for a man to be associated with a woman, just as it is enriching for a man to be associated with another man such as in a father to son relationship, or a woman in a daughter to mother relationship, which involves a sharing and joy in the distinctive shades of color of our humanity. I am not suggesting that these relationships should include physical sexual interaction, as in real life they rarely ever do. I suspect that the strength of the nuclear family lies in the richness of its sharing across the whole ground of distinctiveness as wekk as in the richness of the cross-sexual distinctiveness.

As for physical sexual interactions and intimacies, I think people's experience indicate that these are rarely the climax of personal relationships but are subsequent to the higher nature and distinctness in beauty in which we find our joy as individual human beings. Still, in these 'little' things we find our passion, and the passion is needed. It's the fire that keeps the world moving, and of course assures our continuity in procreation. But procreation isn't everything, and as we dig deeper into our humanity and take off the sexual garments we find ourselves "clothed with the sun" meaning our profound intelligence, creativity, truthfulness, honor, love, care, etc., that neither men nor women have a monopoly in. Here we reach the level of the sublime that is neither male nor female in individuality.

Many explorers in art and music, for example, have stated that in spite of their searching they have not found any such thing as a specific female art or specific female music. I believe they have not found a single case in which they can say that a certain work is an inherently female symphony, or an inherently female painting, or art-form, or scientific discovery, or technological creation.

In this sense it is not scary to regard the world's children as offspring of a common humanity, because the higher elements that define our humanity are not sexually defined but are defined by all those aspects that are specifically human and unfold on a higher level that lies above the animal sphere. This doesn't mean that we scrap the animal sphere and its distinctiveness. The moral ground is where our development of love begins. But it also means that we have no cause to let the distinctiveness become a division and a barrier for isolating ourselves behind. It also means that in the ultimate sense the real sex of mankind is neither male nor female (except perhaps to a small degree) but is reflected in the complex domain of the discovery of principles, scientific recognition, and in creative and intelligent processes.

I have focused in my novels on the boundary between the two types where the sexual divisions diminish and the universality of our humanity unfolds. I have also focused on the great challenges in the sphere of love that we face as we leave the lower aspects behind.

An addendum

It may be useful in the above context to consider the function that heterosexual sex fulfills and does so extremely well. Its function is to enable procreation with a near infinite diversity. The biological sex-principle provides for 'cross pollination' as it were. What comes out of it is as rich in genetic diversity as can be achieved. However, there are many aspects built into the sex process that assures that the proliveration actually happens. Researchers have discovered that a large portion of the brain is devoted to facial recognition in which the recognition of beauty is built into, which no doubt also includes the recognition of specific sexual characteristics, and that those are subsequently 'wired' into other areas that evoke social responses. In real terms the procreation process begins long before the fertilization of the egg happens. It begins with a process by which we've become drawn into reactions with one-another that are rarely completely voluntary. We literally become pawns in a process that assures the survival of our species. The process has worked well of course, for millions of years, without which we probably wouldn't exist. That's something that is worth celebrating for what it is, isn't it?

But there is more to it than that. There may be a secondary 'intention' interwoven into the human sexual design, which may be an intention designed to bring us together, to create an effect termed, unity. This sense of unity appears to be rooted on a higher level than the emotional forces that facilitate the procreation process. The intention of the process of developing unity appears to be focused onto assuring  the survival of the child after birth. Many men and women have reported that this union built on sexual unity is special to them. Also, they have recognized that it is built on a much higher basis than mere sexual attraction. In other words, as we move away from the physical to the spiritual the cross-sexual attraction becomes something that is elevated beyond the animalistic form. We may term this higher unity still "sexual attraction" as we respond to aspects of our humanity that we deem beautiful, exciting, and inspiring. Maybe some day we will coin a special word for this higher form of sexual attraction, other than eros and philios. Countless love songs and arias have been written about this higher-level theme, and they are evidently all justified, because we respond to them. On this account maybe the term, love, is sufficient to describe what begins to unfold here and embraces both men and women on a wide platform of affections.

When we talk about love, still one more dimension comes to light that is wrapped up in the question: where is the beauty located that we see in another? It is located in the object we behold? Or is the beauty that we behold with joy not rather located in our own humanity? 

When a gardener cherishes a rose, does he not respond to the sense of beauty that he holds within his own 'heart and soul' as we say? The beauty of a rose means nothing to a rat, and to a deer in the forest it only means one thing, food! But to a human being a rose is beautiful. 

This vista tell us that the lodging for the beauty that we behold resides within, which we then see reflected with joy in the world around us and in one another. But should women only see this beauty reflected in men, and men in women? I don't think we can say this, even though we've been trained for centuries to think that way. Why should a man not be inspired with joy by the beauty of his own nature that he sees reflected in another man? Not to respond with joy in that case - responding with love to another man - would be an act of self-denial. Why shouldn't a man or woman not love his or her own sexual characteristics and deem them beautiful, and so find joy in seeing them reflected in others? Do we consider ourselves so 'empty' that we can feel no love for what we ourselves are in sexual terms? 

Obviously that kind of wide and universal love is important for the social development of mankind, for after all, half of the world is made up of men that a man has to deal with, and the other half is made up of women that a woman has to deal with. Isn't that why the father to son relationship is important, and mother to daughter relationship? 

We deal with each other in this sphere in a deeply sexual context, although on a higher level than physical sex. And even as we do, why should we not reach up higher still, and from that still-higher platform embrace each other with love for those spiritual qualities that are not at all sexually defined, such as intelligence, honor, ingenuity, generosity, integrity, and so on, that are common to both men and women, and across the whole world? Maybe the term, spirit, describes best mankind's third sex, a universal sex that pertains to all mankind and which best defines our universal humanity as human beings.

Return to index

Rolf Witzsche
researcher and author




Rolf Witzsche home page

Other Rolf Witzsche Websites / Pages

novels exploring the dimensions of love in spirituality, humanity, life, sexuality, marriage, romance, relationships, politics, and in economics

Thank you for visiting - Rolf Witzsche

Published by
Cygni Communications Ltd.
North Vancouver, B.C.

(c) Copyright 2003 Rolf Witzsche
all rights reserved