Delve a bit deeper.

People are like stained-glass windows. They sparkle and shine when the sun is out… (however,) when the darkness sets in, their true beauty is revealed only if there is a light from within. – E. Kubler-Ross

The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or touched. They must be felt with the heart. – H. Keller

If you want someone thoroughly beautiful, you are simply going to have to delve a bit deeper.

Are women attracted to men physically, or, just their perks?

I was asked: Are women actually physically attracted to any men, or, is it really just about ‘everything else’?

I live in a town where men and women are obsessed with jogging. In the warmer seasons, both men and women run with literally nothing on but their sun block and running shoes.

Several years ago, I was driving in town when I was suddenly distracted by a very attractive (almost naked) man running in front of my car. I momentarily lost all higher-level brain function, my eyes became completely fixated on him, and, I nearly drove off the road as a result. It was a truly primal reaction of sexual attraction.

After regaining my composure, the control of my vehicle, and, as the blood slowly returned to my head, I suddenly remembered why men have such a hard time when an attractive woman wears physically revealing attire. It is literally impossible not to look; literally impossible not to be attracted.

Because of that embarrassing confession: I can state that without a doubt: Yes, (hetero-) females are physically attracted to men, without “everything else”. That being said, I am also attracted to men (with clothing) that have a great mind, have a big heart, make me laugh… anyone who is happy and harmonious I find just as mesmerizing. In addition, I can honestly say that I have never been attracted to a man for the car he drove, the watch he wore, the private clubs he belonged to… This is not due to any greatness on my part, but the simple fact that I have been fortunate enough in my life not to have needed a man to provide me with nice things, or, security.

So please, don’t criticize those who instinctively do look for men with material strength. Remember, we are sexual animals first — conditioned to be a part of civilized society second. When we first see a person (of the gender we are attracted to), our first reaction is primal. Men innately are attracted to the woman who appears most ready to mate (bear their children) & women are attracted to the strongest male (who will be able to provide food, shelter and protection for her young).

In our modern world, physical attractiveness/health in a male is no longer enough to secure the well-being of children. Quite often, the male who is best able to provide these primal needs does not appear (if you were to strip him of his fine clothes) physically strong. Thus, our culture has changed what many women are attracted to in a man. One should not judge too harshly the women who are attracted to wealthy men for the material perks they can provide; anymore than you should judge the men who can’t help but look at a woman that is dressed provocatively. Instead, blame the industrial revolution.

Do not despair though, since WWII more and more women are able to provide for themselves (and their children). They have recently done studies on wealthy powerful women. It appears that they tend to be attracted to men who are the most physically fit. Period. No “everything else” required for these ladies. So, there you go. As culture changes, a woman’s innate primal need to ensure the well being of her offspring also changes. As a result, what she is attracted to in a man changes. Wealthy powerful women are still a small minority… but who knows? In time, it might be the majority of men that are primarily attracted to women with material perks. We’ll have to wait and see.

Meanwhile, I think there are enough evolved people who can look past purely physical or material attraction. Not to say they won’t get an occasional whiplash from either!

Thanks for the question.

Spiritual & Religious: The Case for Both

Oneness    Recently I mentioned “spirituality” to a friend, to which they sent me a post “Religious, Not Spiritual: The Case for Religion” (which you can read at the bottom of my post):

My simple response is:

I have been researching, studying & practicing all the major world (Western & Eastern) religions & lifestyle philosophies for 34 years (yes, I was sent to religious schools). I consider myself both religious & spiritual. I can define spirituality.

It is a belief in Oneness: that one cannot only have a belief in God/Universal Love on a conscious level (through doctrine/mankind’s interpretations), but that one can actually experience Him/Universal Love directly on a spiritual/nonphysical/energetic level.

If you study the ancient texts, beliefs and rituals of all the traditional major world (Western & Eastern) religions/lifestyle philosophies, you will find that in fact their essence is one in the same. They all ultimately serve and worship the one and only God/Universal Energy — they simply have different ways of describing/naming Him/It.

Since traditional religious/philosophical texts are simply man’s interpretation – they are imperfect. Therefore, only by studying (analyzing, practicing, comparing & contrasting over time) all of the world’s great (traditional) religions et al…. will a person find that one sacred text/tradition will actually answer the questions whose answers were lost in another interpretation. Ultimately giving a person a less biased & more global understanding of God/Universal Omnipotent Energy. Once you have this understanding, everything makes sense – which is truly a great comfort.

Many religions ask for blind faith at times, but if other traditions have the answer to the questions you seek… Why be blind? This is the 21st century – not Medieval times. Only together – as one – do they answer the questions of: How does a person Love unconditionally? How does someone find light in their darkest hour? How can humankind, not only believe in God’s Love, but actually tap into it & feel it? How can I find love & peace?

Of course, you are quite correct when you say many people use the word “spirituality” as a politically correct way to say “religion” these days. However, if that instigates conversations like these – I say, “That’s wonderful”. The more we discuss, the better chance the more people will learn & understand religion & spirituality.

In fact, the direct experience of spirituality might actually be the modern panacea for traditional religion. For once you have a direct experience, you have not doubts. With this in mind, you shouldn’t slam the door in the face of spirituality – you should embrace it.

If you are (Western) Christian, and have a hard time digesting the thought that people claim to be spiritual. I suggest you start by studying one or two of the Christian Mystics, such as Saint Teresa of Avila and/or Hildegard von (of) Bingen. All the great Christian mystics considered themselves religious and spiritual as well.

But remember: ‘The Himalayas of the soul are not for everyone.’ ~ Bhagavad Gita

~always with love

A Curious Faith

Don’t get me wrong. I am not some dogmatic crank trying to carve spirituality out of our religious lives. I’m just saying that “spirituality” (whatever that means) gets more than its share of attention today, while religion seems relegated to the scrap heap of history, certainly in popular American culture and among most (yes, most) of the people I associate with. It is not entirely clear what people mean today when they use the word “spiritual”, especially in the phrase “spiritual, not religious”. For our purposes today, let’s assume it means the private, subjective part of what we used to call religious experience, with “religion” being the public, shared part. I imagine that the audience for this blog is made up mainly of Presbyterians from the northeast who are, like me, in many ways sympathetic with the same forces of social liberalism that shun organized religion. So I think it…

View original post 470 more words