Filed under Rational Thinking …

Feb 15 2012
Leave a comment
Business, Rational Thinking, Thought

Why is Greater than How or What

My whole life I’ve always been more concerned with the personal or business mission at hand rather than the tools used to get it done. There are a lot of ways to accomplish a goal but it’s far more important to understand WHY you’re going for it in the first place.

For example, in the late eighties while bored one day in college, I scribbled on a piece of paper the then population of the world (it was about 5 billion). Then I wrote down the population of the USA (then about 250 million). I divided one into the other and came up with 5%. I had an immediate realization in my late teens that 95% of everything that happens happens someplace else. That may sound funny today in our highly interconnected world, but in 1988 on the shores of Lake Erie that was a fairly big realization for a teen whose world generally went maybe 30 miles in any direction. In that time there was no global news, no web, no social media, and certainly no phone calls in multiple time zones each day. It was just three main channels on TV and news at six and eleven.

It was at that moment sitting in Buffalo, NY without ever having traveled overseas that I decided to make it my life’s professional focus to get involved in international business. That realization became my “Why” and since then everything I’ve done has orbited that rationale. A year later I was living in Rome, Italy – a decision that changed my life forever for the good.

In that vein, here is a really excellent video I recently discovered from Simon Sinek that takes a great shot at explaining what differentiates successful people or companies from all the rest. It’s an idea so simple that at first you’ll say to yourself “anyone could come up with that” – but as you’ll see and recognize, the most influential people and companies in the world own that space not because of What they do, or How they do it, but precisely Why they do it. It is the “Why” that makes you leap higher and farther. It is the “Why” that is the core energy that propels you to reach farther, motivate, inspire, and influence others, and otherwise write a much bigger story that what you do or how you do it. People don’t follow you because of what you do, they follow you because of why you do it, the underlying reason and message. They do it for themselves.

Pay particular attention to the last two minutes which really nails it.

Tagged
Jan 07 2012
Leave a comment
Government, Politics, Rational Thinking, Taxes, USA, Voting

Misdirected Arrows

Having just seen last year all of the occupy demonstrations, my wish for the new year is that more people worldwide, and especially in the USA, will realize that the economic problems we are seeing in the world stem not from Capitalism but from Government and government intervention in what should be free markets.

While I get the beef the occupiers have, I have it too (anger at crony business for example), but so many people have their anger focused on the wrong place.  It is ignorance in the most caring sense of the word.

The occupy crowd (and the population in general) should not be upset at Capitalism or at the too easily contrived “fat cats”, they should go to the source of the problem which is Government.

Markets naturally self-regulate.  Why?  Because Buyers and Suppliers of anything have to both agree before any product or service can be bought or sold.  If one or the other cheats, lies, or otherwise doesn’t offer value they will naturally be eliminated or otherwise ignored.   The good and the bad word gets out.

The minute an outside party to the transaction gets involved and alters the relationship (screws with the free market) it is no longer a free market but a manipulated market.  Look around – do you not see Government intervention and manipulation in markets almost everywhere?  Housing, Health Care, Food, Labor, Stocks, Banking and on and on.

Look at the United States – we have a Constitution, a founding document of the nation that sets forth not what the Federal Government can do but rather what it cannot do.  This is somewhat unique to the USA and what has up until now set the USA apart from the rest of the world by levels of degrees when it comes to economic productivity.  The first job of the government is to protect your liberty, life, and property rights, and the first job of the President is to defend the Constitution.  We have a Congress that passes laws that regularly interfere  with your liberty and property rights and a current President that routinely tramples on the Constitution.

The problems we’re seeing in the USA and in many parts of the world are not stemming from Capitalism – on the contrary – its the lack of Capitalism that is pushing everything down.  When Capitalism flows freely the markets would take care of themselves.  If Government would get out of the way of interfering in markets so many of the nations economic issues would naturally resolve themselves.  Resolving economic issues leads to resolving many social issues.

Do you really need a far-away Federal bureaucrat deciding for you what you should buy, when, and for how much?  If you support this sort of a world, maybe there are a few countries for you where you could relocate, but the Constitution in the United States lays out the terms and conditions of the country.  It is clear that many people also confuse the role of the Federal government with the role of the States (ex. Dept of Education).  So many people lose their minds when you say we should get rid of the Federal Dept of Education – but think about it, what business does the government have being in the business of educating children?  That is not a role of the Federal government.  (As a side note, if you think about it again, you’ll realize why the Federal government like to have a hand in education.)

So while nobody like crony capitalism (hardly a free marketplace either), the occupy Wall Street Crowd and most Liberal Democrat voters have their arrows and frustrations pointed in the wrong place.  They should really take a clearer look at from where these problems stem and if they want to occupy something they ought to direct their energy at voting out people in the Federal government that are creating the policies.   The Federal government is the entity creating the problems then coming forth with “solutions” for the problems they create.  Enough – just vote out the wrong people and do your best to vote in the right people.  When you elect people like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Barack Obama, and the like, you get what we have now.  I’ll even throw in George W. Bush because he too abandoned free market principle as she said “to save the free market“.

So in this theme, spend 15 minutes checking out the above insightful video from Peter Schiff who went down to one of the occupy protests to see if he could have a dialogue with the people there.  You can see in the video that the crowd wants to just spout out quick slogans or blame zillionaires for making too much money, but Schiff sympathizes with them, calmly shoots straight with them, and shows them that their anger really needs to be put squarely on Washington DC and the politicians who create policies that do not let markets self regulate.  He is fair in his analysis and I hope here in 2012, in what is easily the most critical election year of your lifetime, more people everywhere understand that free Capitalism is the solution, not more Government.

Remember that at least in the USA the government governs at the consent of the governed.  How many Americans no longer consent to the current state of the Federal government and will vote out the wrong people this year?

Video from Reason.tv

Sep 25 2011
Leave a comment
Current Affairs, Government, Liberty, Politics, Rational Thinking, Taxes, Voting

The Social Contract

 

There is this myth out there that Conservatives are only for “the rich” and Liberal Democrats are always fighting for the “working class”.   Even though Liberals claim to be for the poor, or as they say the “less priviledged” and the “less fortunate”, it seems to me that Liberal Democrats don’t give a damn about the poor.  If they did, they wouldn’t continue to push policies that keep people down.

The policies that Liberals have put in place – and continue to push for do nothing but keep the poor poor.  When it comes to economics, Liberal policies and ideas do absolutely nothing to help the poor because all these policies do is maintain the poor.  Liberals are extraordinarily hypocritical – If anyone is for the “rich”  and priviledge it’s Liberals – just as long as they’re one of them.  Barack Obama is a perfect example – he’ll deride fat cats all day long then go meet them for dinner to collect cash.

But something Liberals tend to bring up over and over is this concept of the “Social Contract”.  Liberals want to engage in a system where people that have earned something are somehow obliged under some nebulous “social contract” to give up a portion of their wealth to others that don’t have wealth.

Look at Elizabeth Warren talking about this.  She’s just outraged that people that have produced something of value for their fellow men have not given a hunk of their wealth to the people.

She claims that “you built a factory out there?  good for you!“

But then she says she “wants to be clear” talking to the presumed factory owner:

“You moved your good to market on the roads that the “rest of us” built.”

“You hired workers the “rest of us” paid to educate.”

“You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the “rest of us” paid for.”

Then she goes on to say..

“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea, God bless…keep a big hunk of it, but part of the underlying “social contract” is you take a hunk of that an pay forward for the next kid that comes along.”

Are you kidding me?  First of all who is Elizabeth Warren to decide on behalf of anyone what “hunk” of their business they can keep?

Second of all, just what “social contract” is in place anyway?  A contract implies two or more parties coming together and AGREEING to terms of which all parties CHOOSE to participate.  Forcing one party to hand over some “hunk” of their efforts, brains, ingenuity, or otherwise when they have not agreed to do so is confiscation and there is no “social contract”.

Third of all she keeps saying “that the rest of us paid for“.  Really?  Has she seen who is paying Federal taxes in the USA?

Liberals love to tell you all about the rich and how much money they make, that it’s “disproportionate” and not “fairly distributed“. The somehow always forget to include the part of how much in Federal income tax is paid by the people that produce the wealth.

According to the IRS a few years ago the Top 50% of income earners pay 96.54% of all income taxes.  Last reviewed in 2010 it went up to 97.41%.  Here is the data (click the matrix for full view):

So if we are going to discuss income earned then we also need to discussed taxes paid.

With that in mind, let’s come back to this concept of a “social contract”.  Liberals always want to come at this this from only one direction.

  • What about the social contract where people who can’t afford health insurance rearrange their priorities to not purchase cool toys before taking care of the basics?  Sure it’s expensive but these are choices in life.  Part of the social contract is not obliging your fellow citizen to cover your butt because you chose not to.
    • What about people getting off this idea that someone else is going to pay for their mortgage and gasoline:
  • What about the idea of all American citizens paying something in taxes even if only a little.  When 50% of the country’s population pay absolutely nothing in Federal income taxes, they , as Ms. Elizabeth Warren likes to say so much are living in a society that the “rest of us paid for“.

The “Social Contract” is a two way street. If people of means would agree to “hand over” a hunk of their earned wealth, would it be too much to ask that those on the receiving end not abuse it and do everything possible to stand on their own two feet as best as possible?

The person that started his or her factory and did well did so because he or she delivered something of value to their fellow man who chose to purchase it in the free market – and yes Ms. Warren, the roads those product were delivered on were paid for in a much larger part by the same people that had the ideas, built the factories, and even employed others.

In short, the productive people of this world not only provide value to their fellow citizens, not only provide jobs to their local communities (and sometimes long distance communities), not only indirectly create whole new economies in the towns where they place their factories and offices, but they also paid almost all of the costs of putting the roads there, educating the workforce, and paying the taxes that provide local police and fire protection.

I have watch Elizabeth Warren’s announcement video and in all sincerity it’s pretty good, and she’s welcome to do what she thinks is right fighting for “working families” and fighting big lobby interests, but to attack productive people saying their goods were delivered on roads paid for “by the rest of us” is just factually incorrect.  The people setting up factories and other business are just as much a part of the working class as anyone – maybe even more so as there is no 9 to 5 in the world of the entrepreneur.

For Elizabeth Warren to come at this any other way is only to stir up false rage in some attempt keep class warfare alive.  Good luck up there in Massachusetts.

Sep 01 2011
1 Comment
Current Affairs, Europe, Government, Greece, Immigration, Interviews, Personalities, Politics, Rational Thinking, Thought, UK, USA

An Interview with Daniel Hannan

Q. I’ve seen your speeches and have heard you presenting facts and sounding the alarms.  However it seems to me Europeans (politicians and citizens alike) just trod along as if the house is not actually on fire.  Is anybody listening to you over there in Europe where it counts?

A. No one is listening at all – except the majority of the electorate. A rift has opened up between politicians and people on the issue of the EU. Almost every time there is a referendum on closer integration, in pretty well any country, people vote ‘No’; yet their parliaments are usually in favour by around 80 per cent. Britain is typical. According to most opinion polls, roughly 60 per cent of voters want to leave the EU, but that position is shared by only 3 per cent of MPs. Why the division? Because politicians make the mistake of believing that, since the Brussels system has been kind to them personally, it must be good for their constituents. As Upton Sinclair once observed:’It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends upon not understanding it’.

Q.  Why do the Eurocrats insist on bailing out Greece?  Do they really think that the Greeks are going to change their view of the world or their behavior simply because some Eurocrat in Frankfurt or Belgium demands they do so? (or the Italians, the Spanish and so forth) or is something else going on here?

A. The priority here is not to bail out Greece, but to bail out the euro. The people in Greece don’t believe that they’re being rescued. They understand perfectly well that the bailout money will go to European bankers and bondholders, but the repayment will come from ordinary Greek taxpayers. No wonder they are protesting. They – and the Irish, and the Portuguese – are being sacrificed in order to keep the euro going.

Q.  What’s the worst that could happen if we simply dissolved the Euro and went back to Francs, Drachmas, Lire, Guilders, and Marks ? – They were more romantic anyway.

A. More romantic and more efficient, since they allowed each country to set its interest rates and exchange rates according to its own needs. There are some technical difficulties in returning to national currencies – people would rush to put their savings in whatever money they thought less likely to devalue – but a partial and orderly unbundling of the euro is clearly a lesser evil than the generational poverty which keeping it going implies.

Q. What’s so good about Socialism?  Why is it that proponents of Socialism refuse to see its inherent problems?

A. Socialism has always struck me as being more about intention than outcome, about showing what a nice person you are rather than affecting real change. The survey that said it all was the one that showed that people who wear awareness ribbons and wristbands are less likely to give to charity than people who don’t. There’s always been an element of that in socialism. ‘Whaddaya mean, why don’t I give to charity? I’m already calling for higher taxes!’

Q.  Two of the best things to come out of the ascent (and failure) of Barack Obama is that more and more Americans are seeing (many for the first time) what it really means to have a man like this as President and many are now revisiting the question of exactly what is government supposed to do and what is it not supposed to do.  It reminds me a little of what happened in Spain with the Socialist Jose Luis Zapatero and his Socialists getting hammered in elections.  Is this a sign of hope for all of us?  Are the voters of the world finally realizing that Socialism simply doesn’t work or are we doomed to fight this charade forever?

A. I’m afraid it’s cyclical. Right-of-Centre governments generally win office when the other lot have left the treasury empty. They then patiently rebuild the nation’s credit, whereupon the electorate says: ‘Great – crisis over. Let’s have those nice, caring Lefties back again’.

Q.  Speaking of Obama, in 2008 Barack Obama won the American Presidency with millions of followers thinking he would deliver utopia.  Europeans swooned over him even thinking America had finally come to its senses and placed a “reasonable” man into the White House.   Not that is matters at all in our elections, but out of curiosity how do you think Europeans see Obama today now that he’s actually been in the White House for almost three years?

A. All American presidents end up being unpopular with the European Left. The same charges are thrown at Obama that were thrown at all his predecessors: the US is still in Afghanistan, Guantanamo is still open, the climate change treaties still unratified etc etc. The truth is that no country wins popularity by emulating its critics. You win respect by outperforming them. Or, at least, you did until your present leaders decided to spend, tax and borrow the US to ruin.

Q.  An England question.  England used to be a polite, mannered place with proud people.  Is it just my impression or does England seem rougher, more cynical, more tabloid.  What has changed in British culture over the past 25 years?

A. We’ve never been as polite as Americans think. We’re an earthy, violent, Hogarthian people, whose manners are simply a way of keeping our native bellicosity in check. One thing that has changed, though, is the expansion of welfare dependency. It has made us less independent, more whiney, less responsible. I hope, though, that that’s a remediable problem, and the current government is doing some useful things to free people from the squalor of reliance on benefits.

Q.  What open advice would you offer to American voters that think the European model of social welfare is the way to go?

A. It’s fine in the short term: long vacations, maternity and paternity leave, generous welfare entitlements. What’s not to like? The trouble is that, after a couple of decades, the money runs out. That’s the point we’ve reached now. In 1974, Western Europe accounted for 36 per cent of the world’s GDP. Today it’s 25 per cent. In 2020 it’ll be 15 per cent.

Q.  It seems to me Europe is cannibalizing itself.  With birthrates across Europe in decline, what kind of Europe are we looking at one or two generations from now?

A. We face a choice between massive depopulation and massive immigration. The former option needn’t be as calamitous as people think. Yes, the ratio of pensioners to working people will become harder to manage, but it’s much easier for a 70-year-old to carry on sitting in front of a computer screen than it was a hundred years ago for a 70-year-old to carry on mining coal. And, once that demographic bulge has passed, I can see advantages in Europe drifting back to the population level it enjoyed in the early twentieth century. My own constituency in South East England has become very crowded. Property prices are ridiculously high, people are having to commute for longer and longer, there is massive demand for schools and hospitals, the green spaces are disappearing under concrete. I could live with a slight easing of the population pressure!

Thank you Mr. Hannan for taking the time to sit for the Anthidote.com interview.  Poignant comments and please keep pushing.

Daniel Hannan is a writer and journalist, and has been Conservative Member of European Parliment for South East England since 1999. He speaks French and Spanish and loves Europe, but believes that the European Union is making its constituent nations poorer, less democratic and less free.  His latest book is “The New Road to Serfdom – A Letter of Warning to America“

Aug 20 2011
Leave a comment
Current Affairs, Economics, Government, Liberty, Politics, Rational Thinking, Thought, USA, Voting

A Rebuttal to “How Rich is Too Rich” by Sam Harris

Sam Harris wrote a piece on August 17 on his blog entitled “How Rich is Too Rich?“.  It was a genuinely thoughtful piece with some great points but he lost my hope when he used the line “how much wealth can one person be allowed to keep“.  Allowed?  By whom?

And what about the other side of the “How Rich is Too Rich” coin such as “How Much Stealing is the Right Amount?” or maybe “How Much Waste is There in Government” or even “How Lazy Can You Be?

When it comes to private individuals generating wealth (even one dime) by performing a legal service or selling a legal product, the profit generated after belongs not to society but to the individuals and stakeholders that took the initiative to make it happen.

If we want to start throwing around the “allowed” word the very first place we should put that word is with the federal government.  We should not be asking how much Steve Jobs should be allowed too keep, but rather how much should the government be allowed to have from the taxpayers generating the wealth.

The US Government holds its position at the consent of the governed, and people are mad because government is using billions of dollars in taxpayer money to go way beyond the core purposes of government.  By and large Americans don’t have a problem with the concept of paying taxes, they have a problem with paying taxes when the tax revenue gets squandered.

Taxpayers who have trouble making ends meet are not thinking about Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, or anyone else like that, they’re thinking about their mortgage, their gas bill, groceries, medical bills, and other items that they could purchase if they only were “allowed” to keep more of their income.

They get mad because of the sheer waste all around them, such as this $600,000 gurgling toad sculpture.  How many tax paying households had to chip in to pay for this?  Don’t you think whatever monies were taxed and redistributed to purchase this commissioned work could have been put to better use by the people that earned that money?  There is an almost limitless supply of examples of government waste we could discuss – here’s 50.  It’s government that is “allowed” to keep too much money not individuals.

Sam posits a question and gives his answer.

“How many Republicans who have vowed not to raise taxes on billionaires would want to live in a country with a trillionaire and 30 percent unemployment? If the answer is “none”—and it really must be—then everyone is in favor of “wealth redistribution.” They just haven’t been forced to admit it.”

What about framing the argument this way?

How many Democrats who have vowed to raise taxes on anyone making over $250,000 would want to live in a country where employment goes to 30% because business owners limited to $250,000 in income have no incentive to grow past that – because anything over that amount would simply be confiscated?

Which do you think is a more likely scenario?  Clearly the second because nobody is close to an individual wealth of a triilion bucks, but we have all kinds of Democrats wanting to raise taxes on people who generate over $250,000 in income.

In Mr. Harris’ blog post, he brings up the news about Warren Buffett’s op-ed wherein he mentions he’s taxed at a lower rate than his secretary (and that many Conservatives pretend not to find this embarrassing).

This is comparing apples and oranges.  One is capital gains taxation and the other is ordinary income taxation. Mr. Buffett could always choose to pay himself ordinary income.  Why doesn’t he?  Mr. Buffett instead of pledging his billions to the Gates Foundation could choose to disperse with his wealth in some other way that’s not maybe as tax efficient.

Moreover, as this article points out, even if you flat out took all the money the super wealthy had you wouldn’t even put a dent in the problem. The root issue is not how much private people earn, it is the amount government spends.  This tired argument of taxing the hell out of rich people simply because they have it does not solve the problem.  Government must shrink.

And anyway, does anyone need a trillion dollars?  Of course not, but that’s not the point.  The point is does a need on my part create an automatic obligation on everyone elses?  If the answer is “yes”, then those people answering that way are in favor of stealing, they just haven’t been forced to admit it.

The problem we’re facing in the USA (and indeed the world) is that for many people the answer is “to hell with property rights, I want my stuff”.  They call this “social justice”.  But what is “just” about taking from your neighbor simply because you deem him to be more than satiated?

We’re all looking down the barrel of ugly arguments and scenarios these days not because of productive, job-giving, wealth creating entrepreneurs, but because of government fools who get in the way of free markets efficiently delivering solutions to people.  The very people government claims to help and champion are the very people that get wiped out by government.

Are free markets perfectly efficient?  No but they are far more efficient and “fair” than centrally planned economies where a few people pick winners and losers and there are only but a few winners. Remember fairness is a two lane highway.

In the USA we do have “crisis of inequality” and on a global level it’s even worse, but government interference, corruption, and waste only exacerbates the problem.  Americans (and likely most people in rich countries) do not want to live in a society with huge “inequalities” in wealth but the difference between Conservatives and Liberals is how we achieve that.  One could also easily point out that we have a crises of inequality in effort put forth by many people.

Offering 99 weeks unemployment checks or incremental welfare subsidies for every baby you have while on welfare only keeps people down when they might otherwise get up on their own.

The brutal truth is some politicians would have it no other way.  Until we elect people that limit government to what it is supposed to do instead of all of these superflous programs it won’t change too much.

If there is one place we should be pointing the “how rich is rich” question it is not at private individuals, it is at government.

Photo by Stuck in Customs

Aug 08 2011
Leave a comment
Interviews, Personalities, Quality Experiences, Rational Thinking, Sex, Thought

An Interview with Nicole Daedone of OneTaste

Q.  So that I can tee this up properly, would you mind first telling us what is OneTaste so we have the right context.

A. OneTaste is a company redefining the way women (and men) relate to female orgasm and pleasure.  We teach a practice called Orgasmic Meditation, a partnered sexuality practice focused on the female genitals for 15 minutes. Through this practice, people experience deeper intimacy, sensation and connection to their partners, bodies,sex and orgasm.

Q. How do most (many) people think of orgasm versus what it can be with a little deeper attention and understanding?

A. Orgasm, as it exists in our cultural mindset is one small moment (what we at OneTaste call climax) often the end goal of a sexual experience.  We think of “having” an orgasm, rather than noticing the sexual, or orgasmic energy that permeates the whole experience.  At OneTaste, we think of it not as something to have, but rather something to be inside of.  Orgasm is the energy that creates the sexual experience.  The climax is only one small part of the whole. Another way to look at it would be to consider climax as a spark and orgasm as the fire that spark is born from.

Q. Tell me about a world where people took the time to really focus on this area – say the way they block out time for the gym or dining?

A. I LOVE this question.  Our sexuality, just like any other part of our human experience, should be given care, time and attention.  We do this for our intellect in the form of work, creative process, reading and other hobbies.  We do this for our physical body in terms of eating, exercising and sleeping.  Some of us do this with our emotions by hiring a coach or seeing a therapist.  Our sex should be no different; it is key to our experience as humans and yet we keep it hushed up, in the dark, full of taboo and shame.

If people were to take on OM as a practice, the world would look just about the same, only a brighter – a  better version of what we experience now. The world would go from black & white to color. So, imagine the way you feel after a great makeout, where your senses are more awake, your critical self is a bit more at rest and your willingness to be more a part of the present moment  is amplified – and extend that into all moments of your life. Imagine everyone feeling like this all the time. What you might find is that all of the distractions (food, drugs, shopping, arguing, isolation) we use to dull our senses, because we feel disconnected, would begin simply, quietly to fall away, because they would no longer be necessary.

Q. For some reason if I quickly think about four words right at this very moment I come up with Stress, Release, Breathing, Health.  Why do you think I associated these words immediately?

A. It’s likely that you tuned into me, if such a crazy thing is possible. These things have unquestionably been my focus of late. I’ve been working with Dr. Sara Gottfried, an amazing Harvard trained MD and together we’re looking at this epidemic of low vitality caused by stress in the culture and how the release of hormones through orgasm can remedy its myriad symptoms. Perhaps the word breath comes to mind because in my mind’s eye, when i see a woman having her first OM, it’s invariably some version of watching her exhale in a way she hasn’t been able to exhale for years. Finally she can let go of something she hasn’t known how to let go of.

Q. I’d like to ask you to give a piece of advice to four groups of people.  Young couples, single women, single men, and long-time married couples. Is it the same commentary for all of them or slightly different?

A. OM is like the secret ingredient that when added to almost anything can make it better.  While I may recommend different OM “regimens” to people in these different categories, always based on their particular desire, OM is neutral yet powerful enough to help couples of any age to deepen connection, learn about the other person and create a bond that is fuller and richer.

For single men, I would say that there’s nothing more powerful than learning to be a friend to women. It’s a skill that benefits you whether you’re single or coupled. So, rather than all of these fancy new fangled ways of finding a partner, I would suggest that you learn how to be a friend. Genuinely, the best way to learn to be a friend to a women is to be an ally in her opening her sexual power. If a man is willing to be an instrument in this way, the level of intimacy between him and a woman will transcend any particular type of relationship. When my first OM partner introduced the practice to me, he simply said “I have a mindful sexuality practice I’d like to share with you.” He went on to describe how I would take my pants off, but his clothes would stay on. That we would both place our attention on my orgasm for 15 minutes and afterwards would talk about the experience. Finally that he would expect nothing in return. For me, this was radical and undeniable. It was my first experience of this kind of friendship.

If I could say one thing to women, it would be “ask”. It would be to recognize the depth of desire that exists in your body and recognize that it won’t go away through lack of use or pretending it’s not there. And then, muster whatever courage you can and set about to asking for what you want. It may be a clunky mess, possibly embarrassing, but eventually will turn out to be the key to your power. In this, you’ll want to practice the four stages of having – Knowing what you want, asking for what you want, receiving what you want, and acknowledging what you receive.

For young couples I often see a tendency to want to “protect” a partner from what is true for you. There is a truth that exists in our minds that we often keep from our partners – they are thoughts we think at night in bed, alone in the shower, driving to work.  We all know them – the moment when someone flirted with you and your temperature rose; or how your partner  touched you in a way that you didn’t like, but you pretended it turned you on. In my opinion, the practice of relationship is ultimately to know your partner and to be known by them – and this entails revealing the truth of those moments. It is a practice, something we’re always working at, not a static linear experience. These moments that invite truth telling will either be your tools or your weapons.They will either be what you use to construct a lifelong relationship or build walls against intimacy.

For long married couples: my experience is that people who have been married for a long time often suffer from a lack of novelty; it’s not that the novelty doesn’t exist, but the eye that once saw it has grown dull. My suggestion to couples in this place is to start small in discovering the lover inside of your partner that you’ve forgotten. At night, before you go to bed, simply exchange one secret desire with each other. Say nothing afterwards, but thank you. Your partner shares one, you say thank you.  You say one, your partner says thank you.   No more, no less.   Then, rest well in the knowledge that you are re-creating intimacy. From there, you have a whole new range of play and turn on to work with. Truth is the ultimate turn on.

Q. I was going over your website http://www.onetaste.us - What is the “oral tradition of extended orgasm?

A.   There have always been groups of people throughout cultures that know things about the human experience that aren’t expressed in a conventional context.  Extended orgasm is possible for everyone, but is rarely discussed, let alone taught, in any kind of real way that can improve people’s lives and well being.  I am lucky to have come across these teachings in my life and want everyone to benefit from what I know – and that is that orgasm can be a life changing practice that deepens and enriches all parts of who we are.  I took 10 years to practice and integrate this knowledge into my own life – the synthesis of which I present in my book “Slow Sex”.

Q. Can you give me an anecdote of a person or a couple that you’ve seen transformed (or at least awakened) by what they learned in this arena.

A. Hormones can be a wonderful but flighty friend. Practice is your loyal companion who will see you through thick and thin. A couple whom I recently worked with had been married for 4 years. While the beginning of their relationship had been ignited with heat, over time they began to feel  like strangers to  each other. Outside of the intoxication of their early days together, they couldn’t find their common interest and connection. Without the rush of attraction and bonding hormones, they felt dull. The OM practice provided an arena through which they could come together and deliberately cultivate connection, heat and intimacy.  They found a sustainable way to keep their connection alive and potent.

Q. What’s the worst that can happen?

A.  The worst that can happen is that people try OM with an exact expectation.  OM does a LOT to awaken sex drive, create more intimacy and have women (re)connect with their sexual selves.  However, going into any practice – yoga, sitting meditation, martial arts – with a goal can often not have you see all that you are gaining from the experience outside of your goal.  Take yoga for example:  If your sole purpose is to do a perfect handstand and all your practice goes into perfecting and strengthening your arm muscles and core strength to get to that handstand, you may miss the flexibility you’ve gained in your hips, or how your hamstrings have elongated, how the back pain you used to have has suddenly disappeared.  Even so, the most you have to lose is 15 minutes, so why not try it and see?

Thanks Nicole for being interviewed here on Anthidote!

← Older posts
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 337 other followers