Why is motherhood worshipped but sexuality demonized?

A deep trend I observe in society is:
Maternal instinct is deified —while— Sexual instinct is demonized.
Are they not the 2 sides of the same coin?
Ultimately isn’t the sexual instinct prior to the maternal instinct itself?
How would the children even happen without sex?
The mother’s urge to play and protect the child, is it not the same as the male’s urge to protect and play with the opposite-sex?
Why is the sexual instinct and mothering instinct treated like they belong to 2 different levels of reality?
Aren’t both of them part of the same nature?
And it is totally prevalent across the entire animal kingdom.
What gives the mothering instinct is also driven by hormones only, just as all of sex-instinct too is driven by hormones.
Why is the mothering instinct elevated to a different level of reality?
It is considered a blasphemy even to think about it.
This is a vast topic, but just wanted to share this as food for thought.

The unspeakable torture possible from the mother

This is to speak about a case where the mother clings to the infant stage of the child’s growth, and actively and violently opposes its development and independence beyond that stage, so as to keep getting great narcissistic supplies from the child of “adoration/respect/desirability/admiration/grandiosity/greatness/praise” and enjoy a god like feeling of power and omnipotence in comparison to the child.

Remember, all power is relative.
So the power differential between the infant and the mother is the greatest possible difference.
The mother can get instantly addicted to THIS level of narcissistic supply from the child, and this will esp. happen if the mother did not have any life of her own and had a dependent personality before the event of child birth.
Once deeply addicted to this care-giving and protecting role, the mother may actively oppose the child’s independence, be hostile to the developing child beyond the age of 2 itself.
The mother can actively reinforce the dependence again and again ad infinitum, conveying that “you need me, you cannot live without me” in a million ways said and unsaid.
Such a mother focuses the child only on itself, and the child sacrifices its own self-awareness to please the mother developing codependence.
Really after all the origins of codependence is the narcissistic parent who purposely enforces dependence in subliminal, indirect, and direct ways, and actively opposes the child’s developing separation and independence, so that they can have an endless source of narcissistic supply and meaning from the child.
Often they also cleverly hide it by programming the child to believe, it was its own choice to be that way, and that it can’t help it.
They may even keep telling the neighbors and friends things like “my child needs me for everything, they are such a burden, I keep telling them to do things by themselves, but they keep coming back to me, what can I do?!”
This is just the narcissists game.
This is a microcosmic version of the game of training a slave to believe that he is actually not a slave, but is choosing from his free will.
It all starts at this level.

Just like doctors who save patients are considered to be doing a divine profession higher in value and weight than most other professions, mothers are given this kind of deification and supreme value too.
So a mother can exploit this for a long time, by actively working to keep the child dependent on her and opposing the child’s development/independence in every crooked, unspeakable mystical way possible.
I can elaborate on all those psychic techniques but that may detract from the main points I want to convey in this post.

This can be experienced as extreme suffocation, stifling, and pain, for the child.
But since it is programmed to idolize the mother, it can never imagine going against the mother.
So it condemns itself, and thinks it is the real problem, and the god-like omnipotent mother is always right.
It thinks if it is pained by the mother, it is because, it is defective and needs to be fixed.
And later in life this may slide to depression if it loses all hope after trying out everything and failing.
In truth, this whole thing was really engineered and transmitted from the mother herself.
In the progression of this myth, from this child’s point of view, total powerlessness and despair and depression is an EXPECTED stage that has to be passed.

The mother’s relationship has to keep evolving as the child evolves/grows/matures/separates/independent-izes itself.
So for different people this happens at different times, depending upon the stage of development the mother herself is in.
If the mother herself identifies with being a helpless infant, then she resonates with the child only at that stage, and the child cannot grow beyond that, because it directly faces the threat of losing resonance with the mother.
So the child is then forced to stay infantile even in its later years.
It may be successful in society, but internally its egoic climate is still at the level of the infant only.
So the child may find himself/herself as helpless, powerless, at the mercy of circumstances, unable to establish any identity, and constantly wandering aimlessly.
It may find itself as hyper-sensitive, easily hynotizable and living in a dream-like feeling all the time, and many other such feelings.
It becomes like a Bonsai(miniature) tree, that has grown but not been allowed to grow at the same time.
Often, the child may feel this as a global feeling of being trapped in an incredibly oppressive world, and may become apathetic and depressed from the impossible struggle it would take to change anything in its favor.
Really, this projection of such a tyrannical world, has its roots in the tyrannical mother herself, because it was the mother who was tyrannical in the sense of opposing the child’s independence, and that is later felt by the child as a tyrannical world view itself.

What I speak about here is of unspeakable depth.
Things far less deep, are spoken about so much in society, as so called deep issues.
Real power is always invisible, and the power that is visible is always much lower.
For example here, the mother-child bond is done in secrecy, in the darkness, in great trust.
Nobody ever questions it, and you are shamed even if remotely begin to investigate.
This is a giant taboo in society, because any questioning of it breaks its supremely sanctified and sacred status.
My point is, great wonders and horrors can happen at this stage, at intensities even beyond the most powerful psychedelics.

There has always been extensive talk in society about abusive husbands etc.
Imagine a hyper-possessive husband who keeps his wife like his possession and pet, and pleases her when he wants, beats her up when he wants.
Basically keeps her like his trophy wife, seals her from the outer world, prevents her from having any life outside of him, and controls her like a pleasure-giving slave.
Does this horrify you?
Now, this example I gave above is a weak analogue of the mother-infant situation I describe.
Think about it: What is power? Isn’t all what we call power, a relative concept?
The relativity comes from the power difference.
What is the difference of power between this man and woman living as husband and wife?
And compare that to the difference between a mother (say aged 25+) and an infant(age 0-2)?
The mother for the infant is like an omnipotent god-like being and giant.
But you know what, society will speak endlessly about male violence against women etc.
And this mother-infant dyad, is shrouded, kept under wraps and wraps, sanctified, deified, and any torture that you faced here gets buried as YOUR shame, unspeakable shame of phenomenal intensity.

My point here is not to entirely blame the mother.
The mother herself maybe unconscious of her real power, and how much she affects the infant (the other developing being).
I might have pushed some buttons in this article, but this is in the interest of really looking into this territory of deep psyche experience.
Even if you are a woman, you were also brought up by your mother, so this is not gender-specific.
The purpose of this article, is to illuminate this realm, and to awaken people to it so that they can heal themselves and gain their own insights about their own deep psyche.

True communication is from connection

I used to ponder, what does it take to be a good public speaker?
I often face this issue of blanking out on stage and at times even blank out even when speaking 1-1 with someone.
On contemplating on the root of this, I realized the ultimate element is CONNECTION with the audience.

Connection is another name for ATTUNEMENT/RELATIONSHIP.
To speak to an other, we have to tune ourselves to their frequency.
Only then can we FEEL them.
And only in that ALIVE FEELING can a true alive communication happen.
Without that connection/attunement, the communication will seem rote/contrived/robotic/artificial/divorced/disharmonious with the actuality of the other person at that time.

This applies even when we listen to music.
Haven’t you noticed? – sometimes we tune into the feeling of the song (we are able to do that or naturally in that mood), and that is when we really feel it.
If we do not feel it, we hear the words/sounds but not the music.

Our mother forms the first connection in life.
That connection also illuminates your self (illuminated through the relationship).
If your mother is totally misattuned to you, then it would create enormous shame, unworthiness, undeservingness, and feelings of being bad/ugly/guilty.
It pushes the true self of the child in shadow, and the child develops a mother pleasing self to survive.
It also creates co-dependence (that misattunement is the basis for co-depedence, because the child then stays hyper-vigilant of the mother expectations out of fear)
It also creates a primal wounding/primal heart-break/primal separation and loneliness from the void created by the lack of attunement.
Then later in life, if we continue to relate to people based on what they want us to be and simply mirror that, it leaves us permanently in the shadow.
Real connection never happens, and as a result real communication also never happens.

The catastrophe of a devouring oedipal mother

An [overprotective/overbearing/over-soliticious/smothering/suffocating/oppressive/intrusive mother] is [giving/dominant] = so she creates a [submissive/receiving son].
Who only receives [pleasure/pain] from [others] and then [withdraws/hides] and then plays touch and go with this firey one-directional intrusive force.
So then the whole task for the boy is to create a wall and direct the intensity of force entering.
But this also totally [suppresses/inhibits] and growth of [independence/self-structure/relationship-structures] because then the only relationship is with this [super-pushy other] who given a chance will penetrate everything and vanquish all independence.
The boy is then a hostage.

He lives in a [secretive/reclusive/hiding/withdrawn/defensive/protective/prey-like-stance/invisibly] because if spotted, the mother is ready to smother him totally at all levels and [absolutely enslave him] from the perspective of his [developing independent self].
The mother becomes a [mortal threat] to the [developing self].
The boy is perenially concerned with:
1. How to develop an independent self (which is super difficult anyways) and
2. How to keep the mother out of this process because her [total interference and destruction].
She is a [mortal threat] to these [selfing-efforts].
And so this becomes an extraordinarily hostile and hostage situation because the boy’s self is vastly deficient compared to his peers who suffered no such [oppressive continuous suffocation].

Not only must he [survive/negotiate with the world] but he also has to [survive/negotiate with his mother].
And since it is impossible to negotiate with an [smothering mother], because there isn’t enough enough self formed to have such [assertion abilities and analytical power], the boy is in a trap.
It is like if you the [mother] prevent a [cheetah cub] from growing up, can it ever fight you? You have prevented it from even [growing teeth] (metaphorically speaking) to defend itself from [YOU] or [ANYBODY] for that matter.
The cheetah will be [helpless/harmless] and [unfit to survive] in the wild and now it will have to [stay with you] in [your DEN] for the rest of your life.
This is the [reality and seriousness] of this situation.
A crippling oedipal mother issue.

The boy has been [crippled/stunted in arrested development] much like the cheetah cub is rendered a prey in the wild because of the continuous [unwanted intrusive suffocating smothering interference] by the mother.
Here the problem is not winning the mother’s interest in him.
Rather it is to allow the mother to leave him alone and allow him to breathe, which is impossible to do when he is a child.
So from the boy’s perspective, this is a [continuous mortal threat from a giant omnipotent other] he has to defend against, to retain a slightest amount of independence which he maintains by [hiding/withholding] from the mother AS much as possible and living his life in 90% secret.
Also the care given by such a mother is [BLIND] and [INHERENTLY dehumanizing] too.
Because she reduces him to a [helpless infant] and [absolutely actively represses/suppresses/thwarts/prevents/and literally attacks] any development of him beyond that stage.
Because his [growing up/becoming self-sufficient/independent/and her training you for that] is seen as the greatest threat for the mother because her whole meaning in life is now him, and she will fight his development forces to death out of wanting to cling to this new purpose that has come as a huge break from her probably otherwise empty unfulfilled life.

The mother literally guilts the son, and communicates:
“Don’t grow up, don’t become independent, because if you leave me, I will die.
You staying a helpless infant and me taking care of your every need is my only purpose and meaning for existing. Don’t make me lose all meaning in life by growing up, NEVER do that please, FOR MY SAKE!!”.
On the other hand, the mother might reject every need expressed by the boy outside of her “blind physical need focused infant time table rigid schedule” and may constantly speak about the boy being a burden to her whenever he asks her for ANYTHING with the message of: “Oh god, can’t you even do this much, can’t you take care of yourself? I am already burdened, please deal with your stuff by yourself”.
Imagine putting a child in such a double bind.

This is archetypal and very similar to the situation of [RAPUNZEL and the WITCH], where the witch convinces her that the [world is unsafe] and that [she needs the witch to protect her] and that [she must serve the witch] and [never leave the tower] at the same time.
(only here there is no prince who will rescue, the boy will die in the tower in absolute disgust and hatred towards his mother who used him like a rag-doll)
What is he going to do?
Not only will he [never express his needs] to the mother, he will have to [silently handle his own problems] and also be a [giver of meaning] to the mother by being her [cute/helpless infant/pretending to need her] that gives her [meaning and pleases her] in the way she wants.

This is a role reversal.
And he is literally [bringing himself up] and [TAKING CARE] of the mother, and tackling all his [needs and developmental problems] alone with no help whatsoever because the mother has made it clear that he must be [loyal and never betray] his mother by INVESTING/depending on [someone else or anyone else but her].
He is trapped in an unspeakable double bind.
He cannot tell anybody about it from the unsaid contract.
He has to also bring himself up alone in the [shadow and hiding].
He has to please the mother and be her [confidant/support/emotional helper] which is in actuality him being the [caregiver] for the mother.
The mother here is the child and the infant now has to play mother and take care of the real mother and bring himself up alone and never take any help outside because of the mother’s blackmail about loyalty breach.

And also the mother is never pleased with him, because her expectations are that the boy-infant must fulfill all her needs that her spouse is not fulfilling, making the boy her husband.
As you can see, this is an extraordinarily difficult oppressive and extremely hostile condition to grow up in.
This leads to the son wearing out very early in life, from having to shoulder [unbelievable amounts of responsibility] and [impossible goals].
He grows up with [enormous guilt] and a [sense of crippling failure], with a [deep fear of the world], and with a [lop-sided ruined relationship-matrix] and an attraction to women who would torture and smother him in the same way repeating the trauma endlessly.

Such a boy was never allowed to be a kid, never allowed to grow up, never nurtured, never understood, never seen.
He lives in the shadows and lives like a touch and go slave in his avoidant relationship to the world.
He was just a servant of this mother who was supposed to take care of him and also had to bear the brunt of the world without ANY support, and ALONE.
And adding to the pain of this, this boy will never be understood by anybody because all this is deep shameful secret.
Nobody would ever believe him, even if he explained it super well.
He would become a [psychologically cripple] still trying to [rescue others] so that he can [atone his guilt and failure] and get back [his honor], and attract the [very same impossible people] into his life and keep repeating the efforts until he drops dead.
Such is the fate of such a boy, unless he wakes up to the true ghastly reality of the situation.

Transition from child to woman to man

manwomanchild

The symbology I attribute to child, woman, and man is as follows:
Child = Spirit
Woman = Heart
Man = Strength, Character, Action, Definition.

My hypothesis here is that (also based on my own experience):
We start off as spirit (infant/child)
Then our relationship with the mother (woman) forms our heart.
This also determines whether we will have a good heart or a dark heart, a closed heart or an open heart.
Thereafter once this process is complete, we go on to become the man via. the father and embrace the larger world/community.

So, every man is a woman (symbolically speaking, the way I described it above).
He grows into a man from the bed of the heart of a woman.
Similarly the woman then grows into being a man, which is like the plant emerging tall from the soil (symbol of phallus/obelisk).
That is why, if a child splits off the relationship/love with his mother, the results are disastrous.
He may try to kill himself – because of seeing himself as the creation of the mother, and the idea of “If the creator herself has rejected it, then I must reject it too”.
The child here is barred from loving anything, and is imprisoned in the dark night of soul, the dragon of chaos, because he/she needs love to emerge into form.
Whereas when the child splits off from the father alone, he may be filled with love, but have no direction of how to be or what to do in the world.

There are many other interesting branches opened up in this intuition.
For instance, if the woman hates/rejects the outer world in general, then that prohibits the child too from loving the world.
Because the osmotic transmission from the mother is that – “The world is terrible, you are better off hiding from it”
That imprint stays, and bars the child from bringing the world into his consciousness.
If the mother hates her body, then that imprint too gets across to the child as programming.
These programs get projected outward and the whole world and all the other physical people simply act as props for the manifestation of this deep metaphysical programming that has occurred.

We believe everyone lives in the same world? Really? Think again.
Each one of us lives in the unique artistry and tapestry of this programming and we literally live in different worlds entirely.
We understand each other from a deep connection to a shared being.
Somewhere the entirety of the collective human heart/mind is present within us, and we understand others to the extent to which we ourselves are connected to this.

Knowledge is the substitute for love

Knowledge is needed when you cannot see the thing/person, when you are not connected to the thing, when you are not ATTUNED to that thing.
So in such a state, you are essentially blind, and you’ll therefore need all kinds of memorized knowledge, facts, rigid methods and theories about the thing and use that to RELATE with the thing, which looks like a “black box” to you.
Knowledge is not required however when you can directly SEE the thing/person.
I could say, DIRECT SEEING = LOVE = DIRECT KNOWING/APPREHENSION.
For imagination sake, it is like a superior sense organ that directly sees/perceives/knows instantly.
How is this achieved? – By ATTUNEMENT.

I read a very interesting fact in psychology which now makes a lot of sense:
“The overly solicitous mother is that way to her child, PRECISELY because of her inability to LOVE/CONNECT/SEE the child which makes her resort to such a behavior as a SUBSTITUTE.”

Imagine the situation of the blind men and the elephant.
The blind men are blind from their lack of willingness to SEE (in this analogy).
So each of them explores different parts of the elephant and makes up complex theories on its structure, say.
But supposing you come along and you are in the KNOW/SEEING, then you can directly see the elephant, you can also see the blind men, you can also see their strange theories/deductions and last of all, you can also see the entire elephant and its structure instantly and clear as daylight.
That is the difference that connection/attunement/love/’direct seeing’ make.