Sex: The taboo subject

We came across the following article a couple of days ago – it appeared on the Milestone Two blog. It is authored by Lana Mitchell, and she kindly gave us permission to re-post it on Back-in-Comm. We think it’s an excellent write-up and well worth the read. We’re sure many reading this have had issues to resolve on this subject after leaving the church. 

Enjoy!

Sex Taboo pic

 SEX: THE TABOO SUBJECT 

OK – let’s take up a hot subject that is rarely spoken of.

In no policy or technical bulletin does LRH state that sexual activity is an out-ethics activity.

While I worked in the Sea Org, the subject of sex and sexuality became more and more inhibited and moved further and further from any basic LRH principles.

The change in attitude and understanding of sex moved, over the course of 15+ years, to one where the Int Base Sea Org members were sent to ethics and sec checking (FPRD style) for masturbation, were removed from post or RPFed if they kissed someone of the other sex (let alone fondled or got into any sexual activity), and any time spent with your legal spouse engaging in sexual activity (on your own time) was deemed “other fish to fry” and slagged as being somehow an indicator of a low tone level.

This was something that was pushed from the top down. Anyone in ethics trouble is accused of being involved in some sexual activity, all of which leads to just more inhibition on a subject that is already heavily charged in today’s society.

It has gotten so bad that rumor has it that marriage has been prohibited at the International headquarters of Scientology for some years now.

This bizarre moral code on the subject of sex has walked backwards to the 18th Century — in fact, directly contrary to HCOBs, books and lectures on the importance of communication on any subject.

LRH actually states in HCO PL 11 August 1967 SECOND DYNAMIC RULES:

“It has never been any part of my plans to regulate or attempt to regulate the private lives of individuals.

“Whenever this has occurred, it has not resulted in any improved condition.”

In the same policy letter he goes on to state:

“I have no concern about the second dynamic activities of Scientologists save only where they bring suffering to others and so impede our forward progress.

“Therefore: ALL FORMER RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES RELATING TO THE SECOND DYNAMIC ACTIVITIES OF STUDENTS, PRECLEARS, STAFF AND SCIENTOLOGISTS ARE CANCELLED.” LRH

Heck — how can you be ethical and living across all your dynamics if the second dynamic is heavily inhibited?

In fact — how can mankind as a race continue forward if the second dynamic is prohibited?

The second dynamic is an important part of your dynamics and thus your life. To go OT, you have to be cause over the second dynamic (as well as the others) which does NOT mean inhibited and avoiding the dynamic and what it includes.

It means embracing, knowing cause and willing to play the game as you so choose to play it.

Sex is not a bad, dirty thing.

Society already makes a mess of the second dynamic — so let’s not let group bank add to it further.

By Lana Mitchell

 

Advertisements

62 thoughts on “Sex: The taboo subject

  1. THIS IS OF COURSE, PER LRH, THAT ANY ATTEMPT TO INTERFERE WITH THE 2nd DYNAMIC IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. When Peggy and I were sent on a mission from flag to take over the running of FOLO AF he gave us a briefing which was recorded on tape.

    He told us about a nation tribe that lived on an island who’s king continuously interfered with the 2nd dynamic, killing new born’s and barring sex between “lower standing citizens” of that island.

    He said that it was not long and the people of that island perished and are no more.

    On the flag ship itself nearly everybody was shacking up with someone else however Marysue was very protective of the younger girls.

    He published, in the orders of the day, that if any girl or guy who were shacking up got married they would receive a higher rank as a bonus and there were a score of marriages after he published that.

    So DM is way off course and is steering a sinking ship.

    Travers

    .

    • Wasn’t it always prohibited in the Sea Org for Sea Org members to have sexual relationships with non Sea Org members?
      .
      There was heavy emphasis on marriage. This resulted in lots of quick marriages followed by lots of divorces followed by quick remarriages, etc.
      .
      Children were regarded as a kind of “Dev-T,” and it wasn’t a very happy thing to be a child in the Sea Org.
      .
      And, speaking of children, what of LRH’s (mostly female) child servants, the Messengers?
      .
      And then there’s the Children’s Security Check (1961) and its long list of questions. That was for ages 6 through 12. After age 12, one was regarded as an adult.
      .
      Geez, that was a pretty strange scene.

      • BV Orts – I kinda agree with the rule of no sex between SO and non-SO members. It makes sense. How can anyone possibly have a relationship and even marry someone in the SO if the spouses aren’t in the same group?

        One must bear in mind that at the time of the 2D rules coming out, it was the mid 60’s – a time of “free love” – rampant sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll were the order of the day. My husband (who was 7 and one of the first CMO’s for LRH) said that men & women were shagging like bunny-rabbits on the ship – one would never know who was sleeping with whom on which night. And the resultant “fall-out” from people getting upset with each other was something to behold. Can you imagine trying to live and work in an environment like that? And then the Apollo got the reputation (and bad press) of being some kind of “love boat” – LRH surrounded by sexy little concubines in hot pants pandering to his every need – the implications were loud and clear. (Not true by personal accounts of people who were there). Typical tabloid fodder. Hence the rather strict 2d rules AT THAT TIME.

        Unfortunately this weird attitude to the 2D just escalated, and even led to sexually deviant practices, including attracting paedophilic people and behaviour – there are many attests of this occurring. One such person was Bill Franks who, before allowing anyone into the Pro-TR’s course-room during the 1979 pilot, made all the students stand in the corridors and write screeds of O/W’s – emphasis on anything to do with sex. And then he was caught in his office, with his feet up on his desk salaciously going through each write-up and getting his rocks off (true eye-witness account).

        Of course, today we have a complete psychopath in charge who has disappeared his own wife and is doing God-knows-what with Laurisse. And heavy, heavy enforcement of 2D rules of course. NO sex, heavy petting, and worst of all, no children allowed. So you get 14 and 15 year-olds being allowed marry, then divorced, then remarried, and on and on. And enforced abortions to boot.

        I know of people who have divorced and remarried 4 or 5 times in our local CLO.Trying to keep up with who is married to who is interesting. And rampant out-2d is still the order of the day – like a 13 year-old having a (sexually active) 2D with a 25 year-old (member of my sort-of family).

        And then splitting spouses up from each for years on end – what does one THINK is going to happen? This is the result of putting people in a heavily controlled situation of “CANT HAVE” vs “MUST HAVE”.

        This is the doing of Miscavige – not LRH.

      • Even though the Church does not consider it a crime to lock up someone in isolation against their will, not report pedophiles to law enforcement, not report internal beatings and assault and battery ~~ masturbation is considered a crime !
        Not only is it considered a crime, but at INT Base confessions of masturbation was read out to the whole crew at Musters to humiliate and embarrass the target.
        More recently an OT VII reported to me that it had cost him $3000 to give off one masturbation withold in a session. (session bogged, correction list, on and on = at “Solo Nots auditing rates.”
        Masturbation is monetized !
        Cough up the bucks $$$$$$

    • Thanks for that anecdote Travers. LRH also writes in SOS that the higher tone levels have a healthy interest in and enjoyment of sex. This inhibition of sex comes from DM.

  2. I would like to add to my article above:

    Auditors who report on the PCs 2D to ethics or anyone else has betrayed the trust of his PC. That puts the auditor in a condition of treason.
    The PC would have lost any gains from that session.

    The head of that organisation, to order that auditors report on their PCs is himself in a condition of treason or lower.

    If staff go into session and withold information due to fear of being RPF’d will not make case gain.

    Because of the gestapo rules of DM staff would be in a constant state of fear.

    That organisation is then probably in a state of confusion.

    Travers

  3. The “cancellation of second dynamic rules” assertion from Milestone Two reminds me a little of the “cancellation of Fair Game, Disconnection, and Security Checking in 1968,” a “cancellation” which Mike Rinder and Marty Rathbun have exposed in recent times as not being sincere, and which others, years and decades ago, had exposed as a deceptive response to a public relations flap and not an actual discontinuation of practices.
    .
    It reminds me of that, but was there anything to it? Unlike the Fair Game, Disconnection, and Security Check matter, it’s not something I’ve examined in any detail.
    .
    Maybe there was some sort of change in 1967. Those who were in the Sea Org in the late 1960s and early to mid 1970s would be interesting to hear from.
    .
    Hana Eltringham Whitfield, who was on the Royal Scotman/Apollo from its earliest days, has made a video where she explains that coerced abortions are not something new in the Sea Org, and that they existed in the late 1960s on the ship. That would seem to be an extreme example of meddling in an other’s second dynamic.
    .
    I also recall reading “First real Clear” John McMaster’s SP Declare – from 1969 – and it, IIRC, included, as one of his offenses, homosexuality – although I’d like to see that SP Declare again, since it’s been over 40 years since I’ve read that.
    .
    And then there’s the HCOB ‘Pain and Sex’ which classifies all sex as, essentially, an implant by ancient psychiatrists. Sex, we are told, was designed to keep beings small, etc.
    .
    And let’s not forget Security Checking (circa 1961) with its many intrusive questions on the topic of sex. (After the 1968 PR flap, the name was changed to Integrity Processing until January 1977 when LRH changed it back to Security Checking.) That was certainly an imposition in the area of the second dynamic.

    Curious to hear other views.

    .

  4. Sex is a very charged area. It is an attempt toward attining spiritual bliss.

    It causes much fixed attention followed by aberration and inconsistencies.

    This aberration becomes worse when it is denied. The subject of sex needs to be properly understood and self-regulated.

    I think that there is better understanding of sex in the medical literature than in the spiritual field.

    .

  5. Some other commentary on the second dynamic from a google of “scientology second dynamic definition”:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_sex

    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/second-dynamic/

    remember this definition?
    The second dynamic is the urge toward existence as a sexual or bisexual activity. This dynamic actually has two divisions. Second dynamic a) is the sexual act itself and the second dynamic b) is the family unit, including the rearing of children.

    which is now
    The second dynamic is the urge toward existence as a future generation. It has two compartments: sex; and the family unit, including the rearing of children

  6. From Science of Survival, paraphrased:

    A race which specializes in women for menial purposes, (purposes outside the home and family) or which believes that the contest of the sexes in the sphere of business and politics is a worthier endeavor than the creation and proper raising of the next generation is a race which is dying.

    We have in the modern woman, who is an ambitious rival of the man in his own activities, a woman who is neglecting the most important mission or responsibility she has. The mission she has been hardwired, created for by her Creator. It is her biological purpose.

    A society which looks down on upon (or ignores, or scoffs at) this mission, in which women are taught anything but the proper management of family, the proper care of men, and the creation of the future generation, is a society which is on it’s way out.

    Dio

  7. HCO Policy Letter “Second Dynamic Rules” quoted above also says;

    “No Ethics Order shall be issued by reason of second dynamic activities. All Ethics Orders now in force relating to the second dynamic are canceled.”

    “No staff member may be punished, transferred or dismissed because of second dynamic activities.”

    “No student or preclear may be suspended or dismissed because of second dynamic activities.”

    Further on, in the same policy LRH says,

    “One of man’s primary areas of aberration is the second dynamic.”
    “Processing, not discipline, is the only thing which eradicates aberration of such depths.”

    This policy is on page 780 of Org Exec Course vol. 1, should anyone care to read it. LRH is very clear in what he says.

  8. I think scientology always permeate the moral codes of the place it was in. (excuse my english, very poor in vocabulary)
    In the fifties, scientology was “modern” compared to the mores of US/brit puritan mores. So LRH was not a conservatist. When in Science of Survival he says that homosexuality is an abberation, 1951, the whole world think the same. Actually, at this time it is considered an illness which is cured with E shock. Up to mid sixities, you could be put in jail for being homosexual in england.
    So, scientology (affraid to be considered something crazy) has always tried to look “normal” for PR reasons. Then to take the viewpoint of the ethnic tribe they were in : british, american, pretty much puritan people. And that resonnate on the people as it was the codes they were raised on. But they thought it had something to do with scientology which it didn’t only with their cultur.
    People are ashame not to be “normal” so they try very hard. Hubbard was a non conformist, scientologist, especially english speaking type, are coming from a puritan world.
    But we fuck the puritan world? Is that OK to say that on this blog or are you still a bit straight?
    Fucking or not fucking has certainly nothing to do with spirituality!
    I am not africaner, nor british, nor american, never I shared this code.

  9. When I used to audit, I was always having to pull wh about masturbation. It was plain false reads, not accepted. Awful. This is also the code of DM who is repressing sex and put his idea on scientology. Never anyone had any trouble for sex activity before DM.
    I remember a guy who was denied his eligibiity because he was practicing cunnilingus with his wife!
    But in a puritan society, being a clitoridian is an overt. You only have the right to enjoy “normal” sex. A face to face straight penetration as God wanted!

  10. More from Science of Survival paraphrased:

    When the proper care and raising of children become unimportant to society, that society has forfeited it’s future.

    To paraphrase Thomas Paine: When a woman has so far corrupted and perverted the chastity of her conscience and prostituted her true biological, common sense purpose of true womanhood, true wifehood, true motherhood, so as to subscribe to feminism, women’s rights, and women’s liberation and female narcissism, or “being modern”, she commits the ultimate criminal negligence causing death and destruction, the ultimate crime against humanity, because it is completely contrary to survival of the human race, completely contrary to the well being or survival of civilization. It can only lead to increasing insanity and eventual destruction of civilization. The feminist, the modern woman, the woman with “rights”, the career woman, the working woman is the worst and most dangerous kind of prostitute. It puts civilization on the slippery slope to total annihilation. Ultimately society is only as sane and stable as it’s women.

    The crime against humanity that the mental lying by feminists, women liberationists, career women and the like, can only be measured by the increasing insanity and crime, decay of society and the looming destruction of civilization.

    Deep down there is not an honest person who does not know this is true.

    Even beyond the conceiving and rearing of children, a human being does not seem to be complete without a relationship with a member of the opposite sex. When you have sane, sensible, well adjusted, properly educated Godly men and women, this relationship is the vessel where in is nurtured the life force of both individuals, whereby they create the future of the race in body and thought. It is the factory of society.

    The arts and skills of woman, the creation and inspiration of which she is capable of, and which -still here and there in isolated places in our culture – she still manages to effect, in spite of the ruin and decay of man’s world, which spreads around her, must be brought back newly and fully into life, if humanity is to survive. These arts, skills, creation and inspiration are her beauty, just as she is the beauty of mankind.

    We are all only as good as we have been bred and brought up.

    We are all products of a conception and an up bringing.

    If you have a problem with the product, you have to check with the factory for the cause of the problem.

    Every woman who is not minding the home front, full time, is gulity of criminal negligence, causing the destruction of civilization.

    Deep down there is not an honest and intelligent person on earth that does not know that this true.

    Dio

  11. This is a subject near and dear to me. I practically memorized the 2-D Rules policy and would constantly quote it to the Flag MAA’s.
    I don’t think it is very unusual for men to look at pornography. There are lots of views about this kind of activity, ranging from it being done by degraded perverts who should be shot to it’s fairly normal.
    While in the “church” on OT 7 this became a subject for intense sec checking. This subject has cost me tens of thousands of dollars from the sec checking and FPRD I got on the subject.
    For me it became sort of like the old thing where someone says “don’t think of a pink elephant”, then all you can think about are pink elephants. While on Solo Nots it was like having a little MAA sitting on my shoulder ensuring I reported EVERYTHING. Then it would all come up at Flag on my sec checking and on top of all this I had the three swing f/n to contend with. It was living HELL.
    Since leaving the “church” my attitude about sex is much more relaxed. People have sex, they have sex in all sorts of different ways. As long as it’s consensual between adults I have no problem with it. My morality is that I am a married man and love my wife. What we/ I do is our business. My MAA at Flag was a kid about 18 or 19 who I was having to answer to as a 45-50 year old man at the time. I asked him one time if he masturbated and he wouldn’t answer me.

    If a person wants help on the subject they should be helped, not butchered up because some group wants money or is trying to run some crazy moral code on you.

    While I was acting as a volunteer Chaplain at the Org I was helping a guy who was all worked up because someone at AOLA had told him that pornography was a suppressive group and if he watched pornography then he was a member of a suppressive group and was therefore PTS at best, maybe SP. This was all leading up to ethics/justice actions and the likelihood that he would not be allowed on the OT levels. To me this is an insane viewpoint to take. Even if watching pornography was considered an “abberated activity” then you would at least expect a group that proclaims they can handle any aberration would be able to handle this too. Not inhibit and penalize a person.

    • Good commenting, Tony.

      “… someone at AOLA had told him that pornography was a suppressive group….” and all because one man wrote a tone scale and HE said it was perverted. We all bought it without thinking about it or questioning the writings of one man.
      .
      What ever happened to “What’s true for you is true for you.” After a short while in Scientology, I stopped believing this statement completely because everything was dictated to us – all my LRH. It all had to be standard per LRH. If you it wasn’t, it became an ethics matter. There was no freedom of speech or power of choice – contrary to what is preached in PLs/HCOBs, etc.
      .
      Your style of sex life was not allowed if it differed from LRH’s view of what it should be. You were not allowed to read literature about the paranormal or astrology or have acupuncture or do hatha yoga – anything that LRH said you couldn’t do. And, like robots, we complied.
      .
      So glad I’m out of the cult, not just DM’s cult but LRH’s.

  12. How does the OP relate to L Ron Hubbard’s discoveries in relation to the matter as covered in HCOB 26 August 1982, Pain and Sex?

      • Similarly could you think with Mission Earth series, all the types of sex in that story. I don’t think one can write something without some type of research of it.

      • “I don’t think one can write something without some type of research of it.” – Just Some Guy.
        .
        Or personal experience with it….! Minimully fantasing about it and masturbating at the same time. I wouldn’t go so far as to give it the glory or elevated status called ‘research’! No, it was more base than that.

  13. So we have a development here of an HCO PL written in 1967 “Second Dynamic Rules” leaving it all up to the individual – as it should be. Then we have FO 3739 written in 1978 “2D Rules” applicable to the Sea Org which lays down very strict rules for Sea Org Members. Then we have the HCOB written in 1982 “Pain and Sex” which has not seem to have a good word left for sex. It’s a restrictive development at best, aside from the DM 2D perverse suppressive specialties.
    As for myself, I can and could only ever agree with the first of these.

    • Can anyone scan in the Pain and Sex reference here so we can read it? I read it many moons ago. I didn’t take it to mean we have to give up having sex. I just took it to mean that some people misuse the sex wavelength and use it to harm others with it. But one ex SO member I know was married at the time and read that bulletin and decided not to ever have sex with his wife again. And she agreed! So they lived as a married couple but celibate. Years later when he was out of the SO and wanted to have sex, he couldn’t perform. I guess it is “use it or lose it.” What a shame for him that he misduplicated that bulletin IMHO.

  14. Any current restrictions and taboo placed on sex in the Church of Scientology has nothing to do with its relevance to one’s case or the ethics of the matter. The C of S’s interference in people’s sexual activities is agenda driven. Sex and the strong feelings of connectedness and caring that often accompany it is a distraction which the C of S can not tolerate. Of course it can be expected that such an anti-sex approach will find support amongst the jealous and envious who themselves have never known “Plaisir D’amour”. .

    Based on my personal experience in the SO and interaction with LRH, I can state unequivocally that this sex taboo thing did not originate with LRH. Look further down the line for some impotent – never loved – was never loved – characters.

    The reason I am saying what I am about to say is to point out that so much of current C of S policy stems from current management aberration. I am not and never will be an LRH basher. As I have implied before I not only have disagreements with the organizational structure of the C of S but have not bought into the tech and philosophy of Scientology to the exclusion of all else. I do however have my reasons for respecting the man, LRH.

    Here is the thing, I know that LRH loved woman and understood the magic and wonder of the game. This was revealed to me for the first time one evening in a private conversation while having dinner on the Athena. The main topic was woman. He said; “the grey hairs on a man’s head when he is old are not the one’s he did, but the one’s he didn’t”. It is known amongst several people who worked close to LRH that he had affairs. I personally know of some. To me it was never a big deal – there was no hypocrisy involved at the time..

    My own love and propensity toward the opposite sex was well known to LRH, yet his only reaction, on more than one occasion, was only a knowing smile. Once when called into the Guardians office at St Hill, while on mission, I was told to lay off a particular female GO staff member. I looked the person lecturing me in the eye and said; F…off. This incident no doubt got back to LRH, yet it was never mentioned. Imagine meeting someone who takes your breath away and then keeping your distance because of some stupid notion that loving her will jeopardize the planet’s future. Thank God I had my priorities straight.

    None of this is meant to justify irresponsible behavior on the 2nd dynamic. Not by LRH or anybody else. As those who have overstepped the mark know, there are “penalties”, but they are invariably self-imposed. To bring the sex issue into the domain of an ethics officer is just plain absurd.

    Joe van Staden .

  15. To those who are insterested in the spiritual aspects of sex, should read the Revelatorium.

    It is a unique book. Chapters are called Stargrams.

    I found chapters 13 to about 24 or 25 the most interesting and worth while reading.

    But the way it is written it may not be easy or even possible for some readers to be able to understand what laters chapters are saying, without reading from the beginning.

    Chapter 19 is the chapter that deals with masturbation and unsanctioned uses of sex.

    I have never read or heard anything before on masturbation and unsanctioned sexual practices such as mentioned in this book. But it rang true for me and very mind blowing. And I have to say life changing.

    http://www.revelatorium.com/contents.html

    I would like to know what other readers think?

    Dio

  16. Not trying to stir up trouble here, but let’s not forget one of the last LRH HCOB’s written on 26 August 1982 entitled PAIN AND SEX, which says among other things the following:

    “Thus you see people who are “experiencing” either pain or sex introverting and not producing much.

    “Pain and sex were the INVENTED tools of degradation.

    “Under the false data of the psychs (who have been on the track a long time and are the sole cause of decline in this universe) both pain and sex are gaining ground in this society and, coupled with robbery which is a hooded companion of both, may very soon make the land a true jungle of crime.

    “Go into an asylum or a prison and look at the increasing institutional population and know what you are looking at. In the main, there are pain and sex addicts, decadent and degraded and no longer capable.”

    This is what good Scientologists are supposed to believe and practice. The church aberration about sex is not all merely David Miscavige’s aberration.

      • Glad you printed this, Mike. Thank you.
        .
        I like truth above mollycoddling illusions about LRH. Doing so makes us no better than the koolaiders.

    • “This is what good Scientologists are supposed to believe and practice.”

      Not trying to stir up trouble here, but let’s not forget that Real good Scientologists are supposed to compare whatever they read (LRH or not) with their own observations and freely, auto-deterministically, make their own conclusions about what they have read.

      Compulsively make somebody to believe whatever somebody, including LRH, wrote belongs to Black Scientology as practiced by the Co$.

    • Mike,

      You’re right about what you’re saying however HCOB Pain and Sex is just one policy. In my opinion other policies indicate his viewpoint was quite sane on the matter of sex as was his viewpoint on regulating others’ 2Ds.

      There are other ways to look at why he wrote Pain and Sex. Mostly importantly is what he was personally experiencing at the time. It’s clear by Sarge’s account that LRH was going through some shit toward the end. Those of us who have accepted that as a true account (I have) will as-is that according to our own realities/awareness levels. IMO what Sarge was observing was LRH being overwhelmed by his next level of case. NOTs is an incomplete technology and does not lead to caselessness…it leads to a large but temporary key-out.

    • Yes good point, Mike. But I don’t think having sex with your spouse or loved one in a committed, nurturing relationship, is necessarily bad and addictive, nor is that degrading. LRH seems to be talking about taking a good thing and overdosing on it and becoming addicted to it. And of course when you make someone fixated on it, that is a bad thing. In nature some substances are good and healthy in small or regular doses but if you take too much of it, it becomes a poison and kills you. I think the same is true of the sex that he talks about here IMHO.

  17. Hubbard was a living contradiction. Apparently he had many bizarre sexual activities with Jack Parsons, particularly with attempting to create a Moon Child. While Hubbard may have written to butt out of others’ sexual affairs he advocated monitoring sex with his column on sexual behavior in Science of Survival. Sure, the MAA may have been told to leave a person’s sexual life out of it but more commonly people were taken to task for being sexual deviants because of Science of Survival and the HCOB Pain and Sex!

    No, Hubbard wanted to know about people’s sexual lives. He wanted to control people and their lives. Sex was one of the many ways he did so.

    • SOS is 1951, the whole freaking america was conformist and puritan. He would write with the moral code of the time. It doesn’t apply now. It was ethnics.
      Joburg sec check : “did you have sex with a partner of the wrong race?” sec check for appartheid code.
      Standard tech, is to create a sec check for an adapted moral code. But people stuck on this sex bullshit like if it was the bible. Because of their awful puritan cultur. Those young MAA are just young moron on the other side of the GPM of drug. You raised them, you old dismayed scientologists and they disconnected from you (dismayed is right or means nothing?)!

  18. Well, I’m on the opinion of Joe van Staden, I don’t think LRH would punish anyone for sexual activity. Prior to 1982, in my org there was many homosexuals, none of them had any trouble because of that. Sometimes in session you would pull a sex wh, because you got this damn dirty needle. But mostly that was wh which were elected by the PC because he couldn’t communicate about that and was ashame of it… mainly plain circuit put there by the bank to stop the session. Most technically a false read, a barrier to auditing. And it was actually handled by asking “when did somebody said it has charge when it doesn’t”. PC was VVGI’ s and it never occured again. Plain standard tech.
    After 1982, you spend a terrible time to get those wh, and after report it to ethics! So bloody opposed to anything you learn as an auditor!
    In another tape, LRH said that only bad auditors would pull wh of masturbation, he said it’s like pulling wh of going to the toilet! No overt.
    But it’s quite implanted in the human race, particularely because of psychiatrists of the 19th century and religion. Just have to look at this barbarian practice to handle masturbation, which even advocating the ablation of the clitoris for women. This was psychs and priest.
    And I’m sorry “Pain and Sex”doesn’t speak of sex but “Pain and Sex”, that is quite different, no? There is PAIN added.
    Enforced sex, inhibited sex, no sex, refused sex. That CDEINR scale.
    But curious about sex, desired sex, what’s wrong?
    In 1982, scientology went out valence. Miscavige is the SP, not LRH. Miscavige is a synthetic being. Never he was a scientologist, never he wanted to improve. He is as low as a fascist dictator on the tone scale. And we have been stupid and blind not to see it and kick his ass when it was still time.
    But most scientologist are conformists, like any other homo sapiens. And like the old catholics rules, they accepted the repression of sex by this nicely combed little man with his nice blue eyes.

    • I think you should read the reference again. They are discussed as two “like” wavelengths and sensations and not as “pain and sex” as one thing together, though he does discuss them occurring together. I don’t think you could have re-read it before commenting thusly….

      • Yes Mike, I read it again on your advice. It’s true what you say on that. Well it seems that LRH was in contradiction with some other early writing and attitude.
        But that’s kind of weird. The writing of Hubbard from 1982 on are just on Overt, Psychs, FPRD business.
        Seems so contradictory with earlier research line. Like Not’s (who is also attributed to David Mayo as a co-author).
        But i have suspected that LRH was not the author of this late HCOBs (pain and sex, and other of the same type).
        Also the Ron’s Journal, I don’t recognise his voice on the 37 and 38. And “From Clear to Eternity” makes no sens as it advertise OT levels which are not existing. Would Ron do that? or only Miscavige?, i’m puzzled.

  19. Pain and sex, one of the last bulletins which Hub wrote, an ever last “discovery” which would create havoc in the lifes of his followers. Nice one Ron!
    .
    Here is the contradiction or paradox of Hubbard. As you can see, people have commented upon Hubbards earlier writing which shows no consistence with his later works.
    .
    What type of a person would believe anything that Hubbard wrote or spoke about!
    .
    Oh, wait a minute…………………

  20. What is the difference in importance between masturbation and washing hands?

    Sexual tension does fixate one’s attention and does make one act irrationally. So, what is wrong with releasing that tension through masturbation and getting rid of the fixed attention that has built up? There are more dangers if one doesn’t release that tension and goes around getting more and more restimulated and fixated in one’s attention.

    So, there is a therapeutic aspect of masturbation as I see it. It is like a safety valve.

    .

  21. With Shelly sent off to the secret RPF, does The Diminutive Munchkin get any action?

    Since he is more than likely a sociopath, how does he fulfil his sexual urges? Has he someone to tend to his urges?

    What does everyone think?
    Could he possibly be celibate?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s