Two Poles of a Battery

Our coven is organized in the customary Gardnerian/Alerxandrian way (...),

it is based on the polarity of psychich femaleness and maleness. It consists, as faras possible, of 'working partnerships', each one of one female and one male witch. (...) What matters is their psychic gender, so that in magical working they are two poles of a bettery. 

(Janet and Stewart Farrar,  A Witches Bible)

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,

(I am large, I contain multitudes).

Walt Whitman, Song of Myself

This post tries to contradict the commonly held view in modern witchcraft according to which magic is most effectively performed by a working couple of a male and a female practicioners. On the contrary, I want to suggest that the way sexual polarity is structured by modern witchcraft, and in particularly Wicca, is a reproduction of a misconception of human sexuality posing great limitations on the practice of witchcraft and on the practitioners. 

Before I try to explain what I mean by the above, I would like to make clear that I do not think that witchcraft  practices based on the upon conception of polarity do not work. Witchcraft is a strange think, and much of its workings seem to be rooted in the persception that the practitioner has of what she is doing, rather than on what she is actually doing. Because of this there are few things which will not work, if there right intention is there, therefore there is no thruth. However, what I contest here is the idea that a male-female polarity is the most powerful form of gender or sex magic and the only one that finally works great wonders. 

The idea that male-female polarities work best when embodied by two single practitioners (or by an ensemble of couples)is rooted in a perception of male and female archetypal relationships. In particular, it is argued in Wiccan books (J. and S. Farrar's, but also in Ganerdner's own High Aid Magick and in all the works derived from that system) that divinity is symbolised by the Goddess of Fertility, the Moon, and the God of Death and Resurrection, the Sun. The dance of the God and the Goddess represent the intrinsic, natural working of life through cycle of birth, reproduction, and death for which male-female couples are necessary. From the idea of monogamic parenthood derives an understanding of ancient mysteries and fertility cults. Neo-litthic society, for exemple in A Witches Bible but also in more progressive and 'deconstructivist' works as in the classic The Spiral Dance by witch and activist Starhawwks, is presented as made up of couples of men-hunters and women-mothers/nurturers/priestesses. The fertility rituals of such societies, would naturally reproduce this pattern of male-female monogamous couples as  made up described by Margaret Murray's God of the Witches. The ritual mating of the Horned God and the Goddess becomes therefore the magical theology which permeates the basis of Wicca, and of much of modern witchcraft. Although Wicca tends to be structured around female leadership, and highlights the role that the High Priestess in religion as prima inter pares, the Highe Priestess should have an High Priest without whom she might be incomplete. 

The need for the recreation of single, monogamous opposed-sex and gender couples pushed the Farrar to write a Drawing down the Sun ritual, to complement the classic Drawing Down the Moon from Garnder's Book of Shadows. Although valuing matriarchy, Wicca tends to reproduce the monogamous, opposed-sex idea of sexual relations that patrarichy insists on. This is nothing more than a form of wishful thinking, translating contemporary social practices into the neo-lithic. In their book Sex at Dawn[1] authors Cristopher Ryan and cacilda Jethà call this the Flinstonization of pre-agricultural societies. In short, it is true that female and male sex exist, but the way genders are assigned and sexes interact with each other has never been the opposed-sex couples, the 'workig couples' wicca relies on[2].

Bullshit! You may think. Sew is aimed at reproduction, and you can do that in different ways but it is always the little sperm that goes up that way until it finds the egg. Well, it turns out it is not that true after all. Especially in neo-lithic societies, where fertility cults were at their strongest, life may not have gone that way. Evidence from archaeology and human physiology shows that it seems we evolved to be able to engage in multiple relationships, possibly with different genders and sexes, and to use sex for a wider set of reasons that mere pro-creation. In particular, the way human reproductive organs evolved show an ability to engage in a multitude of sexual intercourses, without the aim of pro-creation. In fact, the very fact that human males and females can engage in intercourse at any given time sets them apart from the rest of the mammals that engage in intercourse only during ovulation, which sometimes may be five or six times a year [3]. The only mammal which shares constant sexual activity is the bonobo.

Bonobo apes live in matriarchal societies, and use sex for a variety of reason. For greeting, for conflict resolution, to show love, affection and respect, as a mother-child bonding act, or simply for the pleasure of it. Each bonobo female has multiple male and female partners during her life, and each male has multiple female and male partners. Scientific evidence shows that reproduction in bonobo and humans is set to happen through sperm competition rather than male competition. This means that bonobo and humans the female reproductive organs seem designed to receive, and select, sperm from a variety of males and not only during ovulation. The sexual act itself, unlike in almost any other animal species besides the human, is a moment of pleasure and enjoyment for bonobos. The multiple-partnership ensures that fatherhood is shared among all members of the group, as all adult male bonobos see the youth as their child. Motherhood is the only certainty, and the fact the fatherhood is shared highly decreases conflict among males. War is unlikely among the bonobos.

The interesting fact is that in Sex at Dawn the authors present plenty of anthropological, physiological and psychological evidence to support the claim that in ancient societies of hunter-gatherers and early agricultural times, human society may have been organised much like the one of the bonobos. Why would otherwise share such a distinct and active sexuality? Monogamous and polygamous primates copulate few times a year, their sexual intercourse is short and brutal. Human, like bonobos, can always copulate. Human sexual intercourse, in particular, is way longer than that of other primates, including bonobos, showing that we are the animals that spend the longest time in their life having sex. How awesome! Moreover bonobo and human females are, in a way, always up for it, requiring lot of work from the partner to reach orgasm, and being able to have multiple orgasms one after another. Bonobo and human males are exhausted after intercourse, but they too are able to get ready in matter of hours. Human males produce the most sperm of all primates, reinforcing the idea of sperm rather than male competition. Forget the strong hunter who gets back from the hunt and finds her herb-gathering female waiting for him, everyone gets a bit of the cake!

The interesting point for witches here is the unique nature of human intercourse, which is not structured around ovulation and moon cycles, or the ability to create fertilise, but the pleasure that it can generate and the forces it conveys . Because of the many roles that sexuality plays in bonobo lives, violent conflicts are very rare. If it is true that ancient human societies were structured much like the bonobo’s, then the whole idea of tribes at war that populate our Neolithic thoughts should be replaced by happy communities of ruling females who copulate with everyone, and males who copulate with everyone as well. In fact, existing matriarchal societies like the Mosuo of China, have no concept of monogamous relationships. They practice what have been called ‘walking marriages’ in which women have multiple partners, as men do. Motherhood is certain, but fatherhood is shared. Sex is seen as a moment of pleasure, intimacy and communion but it is not exclusive to a parental couple nor oriented to procreation neither. It’s just sex.

It was interesting that when British witches came out and disclosed the sexual nature of many of their rituals, they insisted that ritual mating should be practiced by actual couples, man and wife, boyfriend girlfriend, people who do have sex outside the circle. The Farrars go as far as to say that ‘sex magic without love is black magic’. Wait a moment. This is a very narrow understanding of the human capacity to love and of sexuality. The unspoken tenant of such conception is that sex without procreation has no magic in it, or can produce no good. This is a blunt lie, as not all ritual mating end up babies being born. This is evidence enough that what does the magic in  sex magic is not procreation not the intent of it, but the ability of people to engage in sex which is not ‘mating’. Mating is quick, rare and aimed at procreation. Humans and bonobos are the only primates who have sex, which in human also happens to be long, frequent and to happen because it gets us high. It is important to understand this, as it is something which has to do with our nature not with our culture. Female physiology works in a way that a woman requires to be brought to orgasm, so that they do not reach orgasm every and each time they conceive a baby. When they do reach orgasm, they can reach it several times, regardless of ovulae being fertilised! Think about it! If sex magic works, and it does not produce babies every time, what is it that is doing the magic the procreation or the orgasm? And once we understand that bonobos and humans can have orgasms with opposed-sex people, same-sex people, alone and in any other possible ways, what do we make of the opposite-pole battery?

Yes, it is indeed true that it takes a man and a woman to make a baby, but that does not mean that our natural energies, our magical energies, work best when we are in heterosexual, monogamous couples. This is a totally cultural and arbitrary arrangement, and there is no reason to think that a man-woman couple is energetically better off than a couple of women or a lone man. Sex is not a penis into a vagina, and witchcraft is not a knife into a cup. If the Great Rite is a form of sex magic, then it is wrong to think of it in terms of ‘fertility’, as fertilisation rarely happens during intercourse. In fact, contrary to common thinking, women’s vaginas are filled with spermicides of every sort, and the latest evidence from human physiology shows that when fertilisation does happen, it is actually the ovula that inglobates the reticent sperm and not the contrary. Where is the active energy to be found here? When talking of sex magic, and of magic in general, female and male energy are often associated with receptive and active energy. Of course, most authors agree that active sides are be found in females and passive in males, but at the end of the day it is the female who receives and male who gives. However, one should notice that ‘active’ and ‘passive’ tell us what the energies do, not what they are. In fact, there may be no difference at all but it may well be that is the same natural energy performing two complementary positions. The attribution passive-female and active-male is totally arbitrary and intrinsically patriarchal: in matriarchal society, there seems to be no fixed male-female partnerships. There seems to be no polarised arrangements at all, but a fluid sexual energy which is shared with other willing members of the group. The very fabric of our nature and evolution seems to disproof the theory of the ‘working partnership’.

This is no news. Ceremonial magician make use of all forms of sex magic, and I do not see why witches should confine themselves to such a narrow and conservative view on sexuality and sex magic. The idea of ‘working partnerships’ tells more about the conservative milieu of post-war Britain and of the desire of British witches to integrate into society than about human nature. All solitary practitioner know that sexual energies can be raised in many ways, and that this is sometimes as effective as sex magic which involves more than one person. But I see no reason why two men may not perform a form of Great Rite. Of course this entails a bit of ritual fantasy, but I am sure that is not short among nowadays witches.

Gender roles and sexuality are fluid and should not define magical boundaries which are, eventually, always arbitrary. Of course, ‘energy’ has a variety of meanings and it is always rooted into cultural representation. It is easier to call a Goddess into a female body, because a Goddess is a cultural representation, both for the vessel and for the person who performs the invocation. However, it is an idea unrooted in practice that male-male partnership, male-female-male, female-male-male, female-female, female-female-female, male-male-male, intersexual-female, intersexual-intersexual, intersexual man…[4] and whatever combination you can think of and is satisfying to the participants is not workable or is ‘dark magic’. No skilful witch can deny the power emanating from three horny, happy men giving pleasure and orgasm to one another. Saying that this kind of magic can do no good is a lie. It is a healthy, peaceful and totally natural human activity and should be enjoyed as such.

This of course is in sharp contrast with all Wiccan theology, and the reality is that Wicca sexualises witchcraft and religion a lot. But if one looks at folk magic, witchcraft seems more in tune with a narrative of changes and cycles, going way beyond the opposing narratives of the knife and the cup. The deification of the contemporary-monogamous couple has nothing to do with how nature works, as it is in the animal world an exception[5] and in the human world a recent, and very regionalised thing. Not even that, if you take into account the rate of divorce and cheating in the West.  The stigma on homosexual in traditional Wicca, which seems less prominent in American Wicca, is the side effect of British conservatism rather than a working law of nature or magic. We can all be relieved.

---

[1] From which the opening Walt Whitman quote was taken.

[2] I am deliberately ignoring gay traditions here (especially the Minoic Brotherood and Sisterhood) because of two reasons. First,  they tend to validate opposed-sex traditions insofar as they see themselves as an exception to the rule. This is also shown by the fact that they do not mingle with opposed-sex covens. Second, they are still quite closed and secretive, so the way their theology and sexual magic works is unclear to me. The Reclaiming tradition, started in the San Francisco Bay area by wiccan witch Starhawk, seems to offer a broader understanding of the working of polarities. However, their radical de-structuring of much of wiccan rituality, and their radical eclectic approach, setsthem far away from the traditions I am talking about in this article. More info here http://www.reclaiming.org/about/directions/unity.html

[3] As what was thought to be our closest primate cousin, the chimpanzee

[4] I am skipping all the transexual details in this, if you are a transsexual you may identify with either male and female and I am happy to include them into the above.

[5] Even among penguins, the totem animal of monogamy enthusiasts, the penguin change partners at every ‘march’ and may actually share a spare egg among loving homosexual couples.