Post-Soviet Family Cohesiveness: Why Only Half of Us Went to Pinery Park

When I first encountered the eastern European mindset around 10 years ago, I was astonished at how cohesive the group of Russian and Ukrainians were. It seemed as though they would do everything together - to put it in military terms - they wouldn't leave anyone behind. For me this was a bit of a shock, I have always had a streak of efficient laziness. In other words, I would want to get a task done as quickly as possible, which usually meant dividing and conquering. My Western version of social cooperation.

That was 10 years ago. Or maybe we just visit our in-laws too often. Or maybe I'm just too grouchy too often to want spend time with (something about staying in a two bedroom apartment for even one night with four other people makes me want to tear my hair out).

What once astonished me now sets me up for disappointment. When we go to visit, it's an effort to convince everyone that spending time all together would be a good idea. We did after all just spend money to drive all the way to London, Ontario (it's a two hour drive) with a three year old to visit. How outrageous is that? To feel as if your visit is welcomed, your effort is recognized, your presence valued?

The obligation to all agree to do something has faded - there are justifiable excuses not to do something all together. One person doesn't want to do this because it's only for kids. Another person wants to hide inside from the evil pollen out there. Another one doesn't want to drive so far. Yet another one doesn't want to spend the day cooped up inside, dealing with a bored, pouty spouse or eating till the grouchiness compounds into downright hostility (that's me).

There was an insurmountable impasse to spending time all together. Nobody wanted to make an effort to compromise - to bend. We, as much as the others, didn't bend to the others. In fact, going to Pinery Park was a defiance of unnecessary compromise - of bending to another's whims. If there were the hope that others might compromise, we might have felt less defiant. We also might not have spent the day at the beach and walking through the forest.

In the end everyone was happy not to have had to compromise - what is that saying - a good compromise leaves everyone a little dissatisfied.

Skepticism, the Sacred and Sexuality: What to do if you're allergic to spiritualism

The short answer is avoid it and try to keep the gagging to a minimum when confronted by it in any of your acquaintances. I usually also avoid commenting on it, unwilling to rain on anybody's parade even when their parade seems to be founded on such substance as rainbows.

The longer answer comes from the conflation of "consciousness" and "sacred" that like a virus replicates itself in people looking to connect to a movement beyond themselves. Recently I came across advertisements for a sexuality and consciousness conference in Montreal in the springtime. They promise a "transformational" experience that will lead to more "fulfilling relationships" and "magic." In principle I agree with an attempt to remove "shame, guilt and fear related to sexuality and authenticity." If it works for you, then great. Participate in workshops called "SSSEX" (Spiritual Sexual Shamanic Experience Level 1). Participate and meet other like minded folks who will entrench you even further in ideas you share.

I have several problems with conflating sexuality, sacredness, and consciousness as this workshop seems to do. The first is cultural appropriation. I read recently a well-written blog post by a former yoga teacher which outlined her reasons for halting her yoga practice and teaching. She became increasingly troubled by the aspects of yoga that resembled colonialism. This is not to say that "learning" from another culture is forbidden (that would be even worse), but using another culture for your own purpose is separate issue. The brief time I spent on the Sexual Renaissance page, I noticed immediately the motifs from cultures that have a spiritual reputation such as early South Americans who have a history of Shamanic ritual. Why do have stamp our products, our so-called spirituality with another culture? Do we take from other cultures to lend ourselves credence?



A second issue I have with such conferences is the spiritual aspect pure and simple. I find it suspect to heal bodily taboos with the sacred. To put it crudely, it is just replacing one pile of crap with another. I have not done the research, nor can I say assuredly that I am an expert, but I assume a large portion of sexual taboos and shame have been codified through the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. One could argue that spirituality and organized religion are two separate enterprises, but untangling the two is problematic on many levels.

Simply put, many people still look to organized religion for spiritual guidance, and often on matters directly related to sexuality. Even one as purportedly as open as the "Shamanic" experience they offer is laden with beliefs about sexuality, ones that could easily - if not already - harden into dogma. (Come on, a playboy tantric sex teacher?)

 Furthermore, ladling sex and sexuality with creativity and the sacred ignores one of the most fundamental aspects of sexuality as that which we share with animals - with practically any living creature. It links us with the entirety of the planet not through our human consciousness but in the very absence of it. (And what makes orchid blossoms so delightfully obscene - I have been known to stick my pinkie finger into a blossoms centre with some childish sense of fun).

Sexuality is not sacred. Removing the sacred from sexuality is what will cause the "Sexual Renaissance" they are so desiring. How can we do that? By supporting sexual education in our schools. By not being afraid to teach our children about their bodies from a very young age. Knowledge about their bodies will protect them and give them pause when they explode into a hormone soup during their teenage years. Engaging a new generation of critical thinkers will give them the tools to approach the barrage of hypersexual and often artificially enhanced images with a skeptical eye. To not necessarily believe our senses. To not believe in magic, while wondering at it all.

It is true philosophical skepticism which leads to openness - a kind of secular spiritualism - founded in disbelief.