But If We Started Dating It Would Ruin Our Friendship Where I Ask You To Do Things And You Do Them

Gary's note: I found this at The Onion. It's hilarious and sad....

By Kimberly Pruitt
The Onion, June 9, 2009 | Issue 45•24

I really like you. I do. You're so nice, and sweet, and you listen to all my problems and respond with the appropriate compliments. But, well, I don't really see a relationship in our future. It would be terrible if we let sex destroy this great friendship we have where I get everything I want and you get nothing you want. Don't you think?

I knew you would understand. You always do.

We're so perfect as friends, you know? I can tell you anything, and you know you can always come to me anytime you need to hear me bitch about work or how ugly I feel. You wouldn't want to ruin a friendship like that just so you could be my boyfriend, and have me look at you with desire and longing in my eyes, if only once—would you? Of course not. Well, if we started dating, it would only complicate this wonderful setup I've got going here.

It's just…you're like my best friend, and I would hate for something you desperately want to change that. I mean, sure, we could go on some dates, maybe mess around a little and finally validate the six years you've spent languishing in this platonic nightmare, but then what? How could we ever go back to the way we were, where I take advantage of your clear attraction to me so I can have someone at my beck and call? That part of our friendship means so much to me.

No. We are just destined to be really, really good friends who only hang out when I don't have a boyfriend, but still need male attention to boost my fragile and all-consuming ego.

Anything can happen once you bring romance in. Think about how awful my last relationship was at the end, remember? The guy I'd call you crying about at 3 a.m. because he wouldn't answer my texts? The guy I met at the birthday party you threw me? I had insanely passionate sex with him for four months and now we don't even talk anymore. God, I would die if something like that happened to us.

Plus, ick, can you even imagine getting naked in front of each other? I've known you so long, you're more like a brother that I've drunkenly made out with twice and never mentioned again. It'd be way too weird. And if we did, then whenever you'd come shopping with me, or go to one of my performances or charity events, or take me for ice cream when I've had a bad day at work, you'd be looking at me like, "I've seen her breasts." God, I can't think of anything more awkward that that.

Oh, before I forget, my mom says hi.

Anyway, you would totally hate me as your girlfriend. I'd be all needy and dramatic and slowly growing to love you. If I was your girlfriend, I would never be able to tell you all about the other asshole guys I date and pretend I don't see how much it crushes you. Let's never lose that. That's what makes us us.

Don't worry. You're so funny and smart and amazing, any girl but me would be lucky to date you. You'll find someone, I know it. And when you do, I'll be right by your side to suddenly become all flirty and affectionate with you in front of her, until she grows jealous and won't believe it when you say we're just friends. But when she dumps you, that's just what we'll be.

Best friends. Friends forever.

Calling In The Beloved: A Message To Men

I knew I was on to something with my new workshop, Calling in the Beloved, but so far, the responses are far exceeding my expectations!

So what's the problem? So far, everyone signing up a woman!

If I were single this would not be a problem! But I'm not, and as much as I'd like to model the Divine Masculine for these wonderful women, you men are missing out on a fantastic opportunity!

If you're a single man, and you'd like to be in relationship with an amazing conscious woman, what better place to start than at a workshop about how to do just that?

Now, I'm not promising you'll meet the woman of your dreams, any more than I'm promising the women who've already signed up that they'll meet the man of their dreams, but if you're looking for a place to start, this is it!

The worst that could happen is that you'll meet other conscious singles who are looking for the same thing you're looking for, who you can dialogue with and create mutually beneficial support systems!

So, come on guys! Step up on to a committed path to finding the person you always knew you wanted in your life. That's how I found my beloved, and I'd love to help you find yours!

Gary

For more information see www.garystamper.com/beloved.htm

Numen, Old Men: Contemporary Masculine Spiritualities and the Problem of Patriarchy, by Joseph Gelfer .

I've just finished reading Numen, Old Men: Contemporary Masculine Spiritualities and the Problem of Patriarchy, by Joseph Gelfer.

The back cover states that all of the earlier men's movements, mythopoetic, evangelical, and to a lesser extent, the Catholic men's movement are little more than a thinly veiled patriarchal spirituality, promoting a heteropatriarchal spirituality by appealing to to neo-jungian archetypes of a combative and oppressive nature.

it then examines Wilber's Integral Spirituality which "aims to honor both the masculine and the feminine, but which privileges the former to the extent where it becomes another masculine spirituality, with all its inherent patriarchal problems."

He then offers gay spirituality as a form of masculine spirituality which "to a larger degree resists patriarchal tendencies, suggesting a queering of spirituality could be useful for all men, gay and straight."

I've reviewed it on Amazon.com and thought some of you might be interested in my review and reading the book.

My review:

This is a valuable, ambitious book, but Joseph Gelfer makes huge leaps of assumptions around a lot of it. For example, Gelfer reaches a conclusion that because [Integral Spirituality] author Ken Wilber talks about seeing perspectives from the 50,000 foot level, he must be guilty of the "up and out" directionality transcendence attributed to the masculine qualities Gelfer then rejects. Gelfer goes on to say that the 50,000 foot view equates with the "thrust of jet engines, again technology (masculine) dominating nature (feminine)," dampening the good parts of his message by often trekking into fantastic conclusions.

Gelfner also applies a very limited use of archetypes, choosing to put emphasis on only one interpretation of those archetypes through the evangelical, mythopoetical, and integral use of them, only finally touching on a solution at the end. Granted, that's the way they are represented in most men's work, but not all (disclosure: I facilitate men's groups using archetypes and shadow). He also only illustrates one example of feminine archetypes: Talk about favoring the masculine!

It's too bad, because Gelfer has a lot to say that's important that gets lost in the exaggeration, loose connection, and stretched assumptions. I'm admittedly a big Wilber fan, although I don't agree with everything he says. His assessment of Wilber as the masculine gunslinger is dead on, but his conclusions, again, are off. Wilber's tirade about his critics seem more about shadow than masculine dominating Hierarchy. Using Integral Theory and Spiral Dynamics, it's easy to imagine Gelfer directly in the middle of Relativistic Pluralism. Worth reading? Yes, but only to gain some insights on other perspectives and to sharpen critical thinking.

For a deeper discussion on the book, including author Joseph Gelfer, visit http://www.realitysandwich.com/masculine_spiritualities_and_problem_patriarchy