What I Like About RC

In order to be able to cooperate with other streams and movements for bettering of humans or humanity or the human situation, it would be good to have clarity about what is unique about RC and what we like best about it. It’s not enough to be able to wave Harvey’s The List. We need to know such a list by heart. Preferably our own personal list. (When we agree with others, it becomes our thinking but not if we just parrot others.) For inspiration, I’ll give you a list. Please, make your own.

RC saved my life. I hate to think about what would have become of me if I hadn’t stumbled upon RC.
RC stands out in that it’s not a philosophy or method but a discovery. Therefore, it’s timeless and eternal.
RC is for everyone and against no one. And the One Point Program should make sure that dissidents are not ousted.
The distinction between the Person and the Pattern is almost unique and certainly no other group has ever suggested this difference as radically as RC.
RC Theory is developing. It’s not just insights from the past.
The only reason RC does not work is when it’s not applied. And the only one to blame is the counselor, never the client. There is great respect for what client are and do, the human brain. No one is “crazy” or “faulty ” for having been hurt and trying to recover from it.
In RC, “talkers” learn to listen and “listeners” learn to talk. And everyone is a born leader. There is no division between “important” and “less important” people. RC leaders have extra responsibilities, not are more important or talented.
RC tries to get the most oppressed people in a group to lead so that the group often is the best for everyone in it. Leadership is for the group, not the leader. But also a safe ground to learn it.
RC is very brainy and still embraces feelings and emotions.
RC is against all ways of humans hurting humans.
RC’s Theory on Internalized Oppression makes very clear why people stayed oppressed so long.
RC reaches out to all people, no matter what their background, position or oppression.
The more you do RC (clienting, counseling, leading), the better you’re at it.
There is a wealth of Theory. We never need to be lost for good reading.
RC Theory sets the bar high. No timid goals. Though, to get there, it advocates taking realistic baby steps or many people cooperating. RC is optimistic.

How do you see RC as very special?

How to Communicate at the Same Time that the Situation is Dire and that All is Well?

Harvey suggested after asking the above question: At least when we suggest that all is well, the patterns will object that the situation is dire. Something like that. Have we come any further than that? Maybe.

Listen to Al Gore communicating about all our lives hanging in the balance. His message, information and reasoning have all the alarming information while his tone is absolutely light, calm and confident.

No doubt, that’s the reason that his YouTube clips drown in a rising sea of fake news’ videos denying climate change. He’s a very effective communicator that the big polluters don’t want you to see or believe.

US actor/film star-turned-president Ronald Reagan used the same airy composed sonorous sure tone.

They didn’t take out a copyright on this. Let’s practice it in our sessions and use it. It’s like rehearsing a good joke. Once we told it enough times, we stop laughing about it and are better able to make others laugh with it.

Let’s train ourselves saying the most alarming (and true, and therefore most alarming) things good-humoredly calmly and confidently. If people can do this without RC, we certainly can reach this while discharging.

(It’s scary that one’s power increases with one’s improved tone. That should “obligate” us to also work on our integrity and on being an ally with all oppressed groups (and all people) – not to abuse this “authority.”)

(But those who learned, as (children of) agents of oppression, to fake confidence, a reassuring tone while they’re either numb or terrified really, they should do sessions on being real.)

We can walk and talk to groups as if we are the emperor while we talk with any individual as their best friend. If have seen someone do so.

It’s not true that we get more followers or students when we sound sweet and vulnerable all the time. Now – that’s for most of us something scary to internalize.

How Does RC Relate to Other Methods of Taming Humans?

In the first decades of RC, we needed to say that there was nothing like it and it’s the best. And that is still a pretty actuate statement. But there are many people who developed and execute different methods for human progress. It would be good to seek alliance with such groups, learn from each other and become one even more powerful gang.

This could also give us a better understanding of our strong and weak points and the true value of what we are calling RC. Only insecure people need to say all the time: We are the best. Ours is the only way.

NB: I do not advocate at all to mix different methods. That’s not the same as learning from each other. But it’ll help us to become humbler, as advocated before, and so, be able to teach more Blue Collar Workers.

We need to quit being so insecure (see also: HERE) that we must be haughty.

What is unique of RC is that it is not a method but rather a discovery of natural recovery processes that in the end, will give people greater mental capacities than anything else ever before. All people must have access to this to become their fullest self. That should be a right like to clean air.

What’s not superior about RC is that it’s, like lots of therapies, a slow process. It may be faster than most therapies but it’s still slow. It may take years before participants get a clue about their chronic distresses (if they’re under 60). This is a bit compensated by our solid Theory (most religions too have better theory than practice) and our Liberation work.

There are methods that are more hands-on than RC. Quick results. But their disadvantages are that they are less inborn and less fundamental.

For instance, there’re methods to learn to communicate empathetically. That gives quicker results in cleaning up bad relationships. One could say that most people learned an aggressive way to speak and listen, and this is then like learning a new language that doesn’t short-sell anyone. Learning speech to relate well is not as fundamental as learning to heal all distress, but both could certainly be applied in tandem.

It certainly helps to have free attention when connecting to people but it can also help to know how to talk and listen in a friendly way.

It reminds me a bit of the old discussion in RC if we should work on our oldest distress connected to sexuality in any way at all or on the most hurtful experience connected to sex in any way at all. The outcome of this “dispute” was: whatever the client prefers. In the end, the rape survivors will also want to clean up the earliest stuff; the early worker will certainly encounter later giant blocks of distress that s/he will be happy to clean up too, maybe even before all the early stuff is gone.

We need RCer who are good at other methods to share their other expertises and compare them to RC. Where they conflict, where they supplement each other, where they says the same thing, where one is better or less good. Lifestyles, religions, therapies, action programs for Wide World Change, etc. We may need to discharge a lot before we can do this, but many of us have done this when we first learned RC.

It is kind of arrogant to say that we only learned to clean up our other knowledge, as if one can only learn one worthwhile thing: RC.

I’ll give you one example. Massage. I asked an excellent experienced professional masseur who also learned RC about it. He told me: “Muscle massage is fooling the brain. You mislead it about the tension in the muscle and then it stops tightening it. But you heal no trauma at all.” Further, I noticed that some RCers claim that “The body remembers trauma. So when we touch, it can bring up old memories for healing.” Well, we know that the bodily cells don’t have that kind of a memory. Rather, our touch sends a signal to the brain and that does the recalling.

In other words, there is a place for massage but not in RC. We do healing of old stuff. After a good session (but sometimes a great number of sessions), no one needs a massage. And restimulating old memories in the client we also don’t do. If you want a massage, get it outside of RC. Harvey was right not to include it.

We can acknowledge to masseurs that they do a great job helping people to feel better. And we can offer them to learn another method not necessarily always instead, to heal all old pain and understand emotional discharge.

What can we learn from Greenpeace? From the AA? From Islam? From Rogerian Counseling? From Danish culture? From the awareness and outlook of Aboriginals? Etc. Some of this we do already in our Literature.

In the medical field there is progress from healing to prevention, new is an ambition to heal all major illnesses, which will no doubt be followed by repairing and preventing of aging and eventually an aim to prevent death. How does this relate to the work we know so well, to heal all distress and even explore the possibility of physical immortality?

What rightful place can RC take in the whole collection of attempts to better humanity and the entire range of human excellence?

Of course, we do not need to embrace what we found already to be outright harmful methods like hypnosis and biological psychiatry.

The goal of these comparisons is only to inform each other, not to pronounce judgment or advocate. Each RCer can draw their own conclusions.

Are we ready to do look at these comparisons and at RC’s place in the whole, to get off our Rational Island? Harvey would be pleased.

Did Harvey’s Later Adjustment of the Basic Theory Stick Enough?

RC’s Basic Theory is laid down in The Human Side of Human Beings. It was very well put and reprinted dozens of times. It was exp ended on in a dozen or so hefty books by Harvey, which were basically articles from Present Time, which were often transcripts from lectures at workshops. The Theory must have been pretty solid to be able to carry so many deep additions. But one time, after 30 years, Harvey announced an adjustment of the fundamentals of his fundamentals. It was a small correction but a correction nonetheless and a meaningful one at that.

The old Theory said that when we had “too much” distress, our thinking would slow down or get distorted until we had discharged “enough.”

The correction said that nothing obscures our fresh thinking but an often unaware but nevertheless deliberate attempt to restimulate some old distress recordings and dramatize some of them all the times in the hope to receive help to discharge it all now.

We only had to decide to stay in the present and postpone “the session of our life” to a more conducive setting, in order to function rationally and flexibly. We were no victims anymore. We only had a “bad habit” to pay attention to our old distresses all the time.

It is my impression that he said the old thing so many times and that we heard and said it so often ourselves, that the correction didn’t really stick. It was written but not really absorbed or put to use enough.

Or maybe (also) this change in Theory got eclipsed by another novelty that followed three years later. That revision was more a change in practice. Harvey then proposed to make all direction that we suggest to clients to reflect the Benign Reality, to focus away from distress. (See here.)

Examples

I’ll give you an example. The Commitment to break the habit to pay attention to our old distresses begin with the words “It is logically possible and certainly desirable to end this ancient habit-pattern of paying attention to my old distresses all the time and substitute for it a new attitude of paying attention to interesting concerns.”

The old idea of “I couldn’t do any better because I was restimulated” became “I couldn’t do any better because I have this old habit to not pay attention to the present.” Not really a change. The real truth is that, as soon as I decide to not pay attention to the old junk, there is no habit.

There is nothing holding us back to be our best self but a bad choice right now to prioritize getting a good session. Just decide to not do that right now. Look, listen, feel, smell, taste and smile. I’m the right person in the right spot at the right time to make a difference in the universe.

Likewise, one Commitment begins “Since thinking is necessarily fresh thinking, I hereby decide that I will never again let any distress from the past influence the way I act in the present or future.” But distress from the past never influences what we do or don’t. We give it that voice – or not.

Another example. Three years after revising the Theory, but reprinted in a 2018 Present Time, Harvey said “If a human being has been hurt in an area where she was formerly very wise and skillful and flexible, and not been allowed to get rid of the hurt, she will, from then on, be compulsive, unintelligent, and often destructive.” The old Theory all over again.

It should read: “If a human being has been hurt in an area where she was formerly very wise and skillful and flexible, and not been allowed to get rid of the hurt, she will, from then on, usually choose, day in day out, to be compulsive, unintelligent, and often destructive in the hope to get help to discharge.”

We are never restimulated – we chose to restimulate old hurt. No one could make us angry – we angered ourselves. Etc.

Same 2018 Present Time quoting Harvey from 1981: “human beings do no evil … except in the grip of distress patterns that were put on them from the outside.” This putting the blame outside of us helped to understand our innocence but now we know for 35 years that we intend no evil when we freely choose to follow a distress pattern.

The same with “I now decide to deny past distress any credibility in the present, any influence, or any operation in my life. And I will repeat this decision as often as necessary to free my life completely from the influence of past distress.” We are free already.

And “I will never again act on any of the distortions that my distresses have tended to impose on my thinking.” We impose on ourselves only.

One last example from the newest Theory (2018). “We have been forced into the role of supporting the exploitation …. We’re not to blame for the distresses that have been inflicted on us . … take responsibility not to let them play themselves out.” Rather, it is us who chose our chronic patterns back then – as the best strategy to live with so much distress – and are unconsciously but deliberately dramatizing them every second, hoping to get a session on them. We – not our patterns – confuse ourselves, we don’t notice and don’t remember, we make ourselves feel guilty – etc. We may acknowledge this, not to assign blame or in order to become worthy of revenge or punishment. It’s the best we’ve been able to act so far and we should not feel bad about doing our best. But we can take responsibility for trying to improve from now on.

A Chronic Pattern is thus not a habit but a repetitive choice, to act and feel like that. As soon as we stop that, the “Chronic Pattern” is gone. (If we don’t keep deciding against it, it will be back the next second. But not because it “is” there but because we put it there in the new moment.)

Re-framing Early Powerlessness as an Untrue Recording

We were never victims who got overpowered and defeated. We only told ourselves, not to feel guilty. But in fact, we recorded our distress and pretended to give up, only to get back to it later. An example.

Recently, I counseled someone who told me about a very early memory of her giving up, as she described it. “There was no support, everyone wanted me to surrender, so I gave in and became docile – so much so that everyone noticed.”

I asked her how the following re-framing would sit with her. “There was no support. Therefore, I made a strategic decision to create a pattern, elegantly absorbing and symbolizing all the details of any hurt of this type that I ever would encounter. Then, I would ignore this pattern and the underlying detail. But meanwhile, I would still constantly repeat the distress for everyone to see. Others so could tell me when there would be attention and safety to give me a hand. Here’s my hand.”

She found this fresh way to put it empowering. Maybe you like it too.

So we never gave up, though we may have included such distressed thoughts into the recording. Rather, we made a strategic decision to postpone dealing with this. This jives with our awe for the human brain.

In any case, this way to describe it, is confirm RC Basic Theory for decades already. Saying that we were overpowered or have been made restimulated may be the literal content of a pattern but is inconsistent with RC Basic Theory that teaches that we choose and are in charge all the time – and also disagrees with the best picture we now have of the Benign Reality.

Real Democracy – No to Suppression and No to Permissiveness!

We all want a better world. We would like to improve society. Especially, after we get a glimpse in RC of human potential and harm from the present oppressive society. But are we developing a vision of what a better society could look like? One of the early RC scrolls with a quote from Harvey rimes something like:

On foot or on horseback
Per rocket or rowing
It makes a difference
To know where we’re going

We could fancy the slow way. We make sure that every person gets rid of most of their distress recordings and then we’ll have a humane society for all. That might be difficult if not impossible. Especially to get all people to be more rational while present society hurts and kills us. But difficulty and possibility aside, it sure will be slow and costly to many. It might be better to first try create a society that doesn’t set out to hurt, maim, kill and exploit.

But what should it look like?

We know that simply changing the system of rule or the group in charge will not do it. Many revolutions were of good will at the start, only to become oppressive and murderous soon after. We need to discharge on oppression because most oppressed people put in charge but not discharging their old victimizations will quickly flop to becoming oppressors themselves. So, people must “change” for society to really change. But as I suggested above, not in that order.

Then, what should a new society look like? Sometimes the question is better than any answer available? I want to invite more people to turn our attention to building a vision to what we are striving for.

Crying about the past and the present is good and needed. But there comes a time that we must also think about the future.

So maybe we should admit that currently we don’t have such a great view on what society should be all about.

For inspiration I would add a few principles of a better society, but not pretending that this doesn’t need a tremendous amount of more thought by many people together.

Society should not be repressive of people.
Society should not be permissive towards patterns that hurt people (including themselves).
Society should be for the good of everyone, sacrifice no one.
Society should replace obedience and enforcement by listening to each other, negotiations (between spouses, parents and children, boss and workers, etc) and free choice for all.
Society should pay people to take time to discharge.
Society should work towards abolishing punishment, oppression, police, jail, army, hospitals and death.

Something like that.

We know how to brainstorm. We have the format of Think and Listen.

Let’s build a dream together to get to a better reality.

Regaining Humbleness, What Took us so Long?

We’ve worked a lot on Pride. It’s crucial. But Arrogance is very different from Pride and we must do away with any pattern of superiority ASAP.

In the last presidential elections in the US, according to the polls, Clinton was as much hated as Trump (just by different people), by half of the electorate, which no doubt cost her the victory. I can see easily why. To me, she comes across as way too full of herself. No doubt, it’s hard to be a woman in national politics, but arrogance is not the solution. (This is not to blame her. Being a millionaire probably is also not very helpful.)

Since so many RCers live in the US and understand the importance of Wide World Change, two years before the next national elections, learning, teaching and spreading genuine humbleness is most urgent.

Pretense

Harvey created this beautiful commitment against pretense:

“I’m obviously completely inadequate and completely incapable to handle the challenges reality places before me. Fortunately or unfortunately, I happen to be the best person available.”

Memorize the text. Never leave home without it.

(The word “me” should be shrieked and be followed by a big sigh. Jews may add: Oy way. This first part should give most of the discharge. The tone should be as if one is the town’s fool. Don’t forget to take time to discharge on how that makes you feel.)

Let me add a text and some ideas. Nothing written in stone.

“I give up on all prestige and self-respect, which would ….”

Arrogance

(Not my text – just an illustration.)

Having been viciously humiliated by oppression is no excuse to hold on to arrogance. All arrogant people were.

“Better angry than depressed” might be good as a short-term solution in emergencies but not more than that.

Arrogance is camouflaged insecurity, fake self-importance. Someone who really feels secure will not act superior to anyone, will not try to make anyone else feel inferior. Arrogance is isolation. Arrogance is just a pattern.

Don’t attack people who carry arrogance patterns. Get close to them. Show them that you like them. Don’t flatter them which would strengthen their superiority recordings. Rather, just share that you like them. They may not immediately hold you in high esteem but they will never forget you.

Being Humble

A fear of humbleness is of course a fear that we’ll be seen as insignificant as we feel and would stay crushed. But one needs to have a notion of self-worth to feel humble. If we were really inferior, we could never be humble. We would just be worthless. Only those who’re humble show their worthiness and look impressive (though they may be overlooked by the haughty).

Hang out with humble people. Learn from them. Also why they are right to be humble. And how it makes a deep connection with most people.

See their greatness. See their pride. See their power. Power is with the meek masses, not with the puffed-up theorist.

Being Friendly

One more thing that surprisingly seems a non-issue in RC: friendliness. Most people outside of RC seem uninterested in if not outright wary of unfriendly people. With applying RC, people get more jolly, flexible and able to cooperate but friendliness doesn’t seem on the list.

Harvey supposed that bitchiness was just a passing phase between being beginning counselors who can’t speak up well for themselves yet and being not overwhelmed anymore with one’s own distresses. That’s a nice idea but not what I found. Generally, it starts but doesn’t pass.

I dislike in unfriendly people whom I meet their self-centeredness, their arrogance, their lack of generosity, their aggressiveness.

I understand a lack of interest in RC in politeness, which is often just a Classist excuse for not being frank. But that’s different from friendliness, no? Is being friendly not: I see you as not much different from me? That you’re approachable, interested in others, eager to be close, easy to talk to, open to negotiation. To me, that sounds a lot like humbleness.

And then there is friendly condescendingly talking down to people, which is not really friendly but rather fake. Friendly not taking someone seriously is being arrogant too.

We have collectively such important and urgent work to do, have so far been so insecure and disconnected despite all resources consumed, that we’d better shape up quickly and humble down as much as we can!

I’m not more important than anyone else

What is and How to End Jews’ Oppression? A Reminder

To use correct words is not always so important. But sometimes that can be an advantage. Harvey insisted never to use anti-Semitism because that has a strong association with the Holocaust and makes Gentiles defensive. But of course, he would use the word Jew and not talk of “Jewish people.” He would use “Jewish Oppression.”

In fact, I want to suggest that that is a wrong word. I don’t know why we never noticed. Sexism is also called Women’s Oppression but not female or feminine oppression. So the correct expressions are: Jews’, Gays’, Lesbians’, Bisexuals’, Italians’ Oppression. There is nothing gay about Homophobia (“Gay Oppression”) and nothing Jewish about Jew-hatred (“Jewish Oppression.”) Would you agree?

Harvey had two more central ideas about ending Jews’ Oppression. Jews’ Liberation is everyone’s concern. And no matter how it feels, when the Jews are isolated, that is the Oppression of Jews.

Quite soon after that came the idea that Jews and Palestinians are played against each other by imperialists who want to make money from wars and test and showcase their newest weapons; but that in fact, both Peoples have no long-term contradictory interests.

Quite late in RC Literature comes a very important idea for ending the Oppression of Jews that I want to expand on because I feel that it’s overlooked lately. Jews’ Oppression has strong roots in Class Oppression. That can be explained quite simply.

The Owning Class hijacks the Jews. If they serve them well, they would protect them. But when social unrest comes, Jews are thrown under the bus. Now, for that to work well, Jews need to be hated by the Working Class. So, Working Class Gentiles not standing with Working Class Jews (and Middle Class Gentiles being distant from Middle Class Jews) enables the Owning Class to employ Jews visibly, only to let them be blamed when things would go wrong for the Rulers.

In other words: instead of blaming Jews for trying to get rich and curry favor with the establishment for their safety, Gentiles should focus on how they lack solidarity with their Jewish fellows, forcing them to throw their lot in with the rich. Just automatically connecting Jews and money is already coming from an oppressive place. What still stops you from complete solidarity with the Jews of your Class background?

Between nations the same thing: instead of blaming Israel for relying on friendships with reactionary and totalitarian regimes for its survival, the other democratic countries should focus on how they lack solidarity with the Jewish State, forcing it to rely on shady ones. Routinely bringing up Palestinians when discussing Israel might already come from an oppressive place. What still stops you from total solidarity with Israel, no questions asked? (You’d wish that your country was such a vibrant democracy and had such moral citizens. Some 150 countries at the UN, most of them dictatorships and oligarchies, yearly condemning the only Jewish democratic parliamentarian democracy in the world, must have little to do with Israel and much with Jew-hatred and lies. It would be nice if it were an expression of solidarity with Palestinians but it is not.)

When being critical of Jews or Israel, it is important to watch out for not actually blaming the victim of Jew-hatred.

Of course, Harvey taught that every oppression is rooted in Classism. But what we discussed here is something more. Let me try to explain.

Sexism and Racism play a powerful role in Class Oppression. But it could very well be that there would still be Sexism and Racism without Class Oppression and Classism without Sexism or Racism. But without the Working Class rejecting the Jews, there will be no more Oppression of Jews. And without Oppression of Jews, Classism would be gone fast.

We can Save the Planet – I Promise

We must make sure that some huge problem doesn’t wipe us all out while we take care of minor problems like war, murder and oppression.

Decades ago such a colossal crisis seemed an imminent nuclear war. We counseled on it while the threat went away. No such luck in sight with global climate change.

Most of the actions that are needed to limit and turn around the disastrous destruction of the environment, imbalance of nature and annihilation of species need to be at national and international levels. (That one of the richest countries, the US, bolted the Paris Accords is a scandal that the American electorate needs to address in its upcoming presidential elections, two years from now.)

Meanwhile, international efforts to reign in pending disaster while implemented new goals turn out too little too late already and all rich countries need to step up the endeavor to set and reach even more stringent targets all the time. Well, being on our toes prevents boredom. And we need to increase public protest and pressure on especially the rich countries to make an even greater attempt for the survival of all. Never before has it been so clear that we’re all in the same boat.

(Not my text – just an illustration)

However, may I suggest that just public protest and pressure are not enough. We need to start at home. We are setting bad examples as long as we just continue eating whatever seems tasty (meat, milk, eggs and transported foods mess op the ecology enormously) in un-thoughtful amounts, commuting for work without looking for an alternative, frequently traveling long-distance to vacation destinations, etc.

It is true that many industries pollute more than most individuals, but how can we teach our children, our friends, our communities, ourselves (!) to stand up for saving the planet while in our own lives we are careless in our choices?

Let us do our next prolonged sessions on ecological health about how to change our private lives. When we start progressing there, our impatience with politicians not moving swiftly enough will follow automatically.

Not just charity starts at home. Sustaining the milieu does too.

I once heard from someone who visited Harvey’s living quarters that he cut open used milk cartons to give them some further use instead of just throwing them out. So, if we start at home, we’ll be in good company.

Is Rational Sex a Human Need? Without Distress Patterns, Would we Still be Sexual?

Harvey worked a lot on his Early Sexual Memories and you could tell. You can tell someone who systematically cliented and counseled others on any distress connected to sexuality in any way at all. It’s often easy discharge and plentiful. But persistence and diligence are crucial.

Read his writings about sexuality – they are pure gold. (Read the original English if you can as it’s very hard to translate this well unless one has done much work in this area.)

I would like to add something to Harvey’s work on sexuality. It will not deal with morality (good or evil), only with choice (intelligent or ridged).

Harvey did not live to answer the question: When we’re completely Rational, would we still have sex? Is there a real need for sex after we discharge and abandon all ridged sex or is sex only to have children and for the rest, Frozen Needs and addictions that should be discharged about, and not acted upon?

My words will not contradict or replace anything Harvey every showed, said, wrote or discovered about sexuality. They are merely a small addition.

It seems that sexuality has the unique ability to deeply cement our connection to other human beings and that that alone is our best way to combat existential loneliness. (Many people, after one deep connection, even if that ends, seem to have had their loneliness broken for good.)

In other words: Without a steady sexual relationship, most people must feel unbearably lonely. Just like the solution to thirst is drinking and to hunger is eating (or when these are frozen needs, the solution is discharging), the solution to loneliness is a proper sexual relationship.

By “proper” I mean a steady friendship. It must be emotionally close. And physically close (massage, cuddling) too. While trying to give each other sexual feelings and climaxing is a cherry on the cake.

Only eating cherries and no cake just will make you nauseous – just like eating from loneliness instead of for nutrition. Sex with strangers-who-leave-us-immediately doesn’t solve our loneliness. Sex-on-our-own connects us to nothing and increases our loneliness and sex obsession.

Most people seem to be able to connect so deeply only with men or with women. Early in life, this preference is neuro-biologically engraved in the brain and not up for choice or change later. Only some people are truly bisexual in that either biological sex of their partner would suffice.

Most people can have pleasant sex with both sexes but not bond deeply with both.

Rational humans then, should not be interested in engaging in sex on their own, in recreational sex or in sex outside their preference, even when consensual.

Our description of a rational position on sex does not imply that we think that society should outlaw or oppress people who use consensual sex differently.

Frozen needs and fears around sex (ready for discharge) should not have the final word if we have sex or not. But just as patterns around food should not make us stop eating, patterns around sex do not need us to cut out sexuality. Just use it in a good relationship that is steady, already close emotionally and physically, to bond and unite.

My suggestion: sex is a rational need. All grownups need a sexual relationship to dissolve loneliness. It’s worth it to discharge thoroughly on all distress connected to sex in any way at all to have the real thing.

PS: As a bonus, this clarifies that there is more to sexual orientation than what people are feeling, wanting or doing. Sexual orientation says with which biological sex you can have deep sexual feelings and bonding.

If we are right, we also answered another question Harvey worked hard to solve: is it Rational to be heterosexual/homosexual? Sexual orientation seems as fixed as gender identity. And most people need either a man or a woman to break isolation. That sounds rational, no?

And that’s why a monogamous contra-orientational (the opposite from in accordance with your orientation) sexual relationship will almost never hold. It does not resolve your existential loneliness.

Towards a Clearer Vision Onto the Role of Men in Women’s Liberation

First of all, we should not have to go over all the points that men should pay attention to as Allies to women. Maybe just a few issues.

Men should listen, not argue and discharge about our feelings with men.

Men should take a direction of relaxed pride and reject guilt feelings based on the insight that men are not the problem. The real problems are internalized sexism in women, sexist patterns in men and institutionalized sexism in society. Men can choose to take pride and honor in helping a weighty problem getting solved.

Generally, oppressions target oppressed people most viciously, often taking their moneys, their healths and even lives. Yet, people put in the position where they can act as agents of the oppression and Allies to the oppressed, they often have more damaging distress recordings than the oppressed. They also have a harder job discharging them, both because of recordings of guilt and of confusion. Therefore, it suffices to be Allies because it fits us and will benefit us and our loved ones. We don’t need to “help” the oppressed from a position of (fake) superiority or pity.

After these general points, let’s say a little about male Allies to women.

Many White, heterosexual, Middle-Class men feel a need to be good Allies to the women in their lives. Yet, they have serious problems doing so elegantly, consistently and persistently. Some of the reasons are:

Many of such well-meaning men are not finding counselors who can help them discharge well, fooled as they are by our facade of doing well.
Many of them often feel isolated, numb (with as only escape: anger and sexual feelings), intimidated and confused.

Quite naturally, such men have been longing to client with women on these things which works well for too long for neither the women nor the men. The alternative to be stuck is not so hot either.

Maybe there is another obvious easy way, hiding in plain sight. There are many men who are unusual compared to most White, heterosexual, Middle-Class, cis-gender men because of ways they are oppressed themselves. The former could have the slack to coach the latter easily. Those are (I said, hiding in plain sight) non-White, non-heterosexual, Working-Class, transgender men. Let them lead Men as Allies.

What does it mean to let them lead? Give up being a know-it-all and control freak. Hand them the keys but stay close to support them. Ask for their thinking. Ask what they’d do next. And do as they suggest and ask them how they think it’s going. Ask them to ask everyone what they think and to integrate it into one idea that would help everyone and tell everyone. Say that you don’t need them to be perfect. Smile at them. Let them discharge and tell them there’s plenty of time. Tell them of their brilliance and caring that you see them put into practice. Love them.

Now, at first thought, this may seem disingenuous. Having difficulty being Allies to women would be solved by being also Allies to non-Whites, non-heterosexuals, Blue-Collar Workers and transgenders? That seems more like complicating things than solving them. But on second thought, how far have we come trying to solve this as dominating White, heterosexual, Middle-Class, cis-gender men having little space for non-Whites, non-heterosexuals, Blue-Collar Workers, transgenders and ourselves? How could we further slowdown from being stuck already?

Bonus: Not only will this help us to end sexism, but also racism, homophobia, classism and transphobia. Try it. You’ll never look back.