Scientology and the Second Dynamic
My wife, Nancy, and I met (this lifetime) while we were both studying admin at ITO (International Training Organization in Los Angeles). I was from Los Angeles, there to do the OEC and she was there from an East Coast org to do the OEC and FEBC. For reasons then shrouded in the distant past, we were attracted to each other. We were in our 20s and unattached (she’d been separated from her ex-husband for years and I was long divorced). One way or another, we ended up in bed together. (Do I have to explain everything? I already told you we were in our 20s, okay?)
The next morning, Nancy felt guilty and couldn’t concentrate on course until she’d gone into Ethics and confessed her crime. She thought I’d be angry at her for getting me in trouble along with her. Nothing of the sort, though. I admired her ethics level, even if I didn’t share her level of guilt. (She was, and is to this day, an exceptionally ethical person, part of what I love about her.)
As it turned out the older lady she confessed to (the HAS, I believe) was a long time Sea Org member who was livid at such a horrendous breach of course ethics. It’s fortunate that LRH had never included hanging as a punishment in HCO ethics policy. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be writing this today. Being a young lad in my 20s, I characterized her as a woman in desperate need of getting laid. (I apologize for being crude here, but I’m a born smart aleck and I’ve always found her endless tirades and gesticulations humorous; you’d think we murdered someone or something.)
In any case, she forbade us from sitting together, talking to each other, touching each other, or generally having any sort of contact with each other whatsoever. Meantime she prepared her case against us. It was to be a comm ev with all the trimmings. We would learn a lesson we’d never forget, if it was the last thing she ever did. Oh it promised to be a truly delicious feather in her Sea Org cap. Two loathsome conspirators caught and put on the figurative rack for all to see (and probably throw rotten tomatoes at).
Except the International Justice Chief (IJC) didn’t agree. I don’t now what he actually told her, but I know she was supremely disappointed. Instead, we were assigned some lower conditions (I don’t recall what) and instructed to work our way out of them separately. No contact with each other until we got to Non-Existence.
For the uninitiated, the applicable policy letter is “Second Dynamic Rules”. I don’t have a copy handy, so I’ll paraphrase. In essence, it says that the Church would not dictate to students on course or in auditing how they were to conduct their Second Dynamics, except to the extent where it began to interfere with their training or auditing. The same policy does not apply in the Sea Org. In the Sea Org, premarital sex is forbidden, no way no how. For what it’s worth neither Nancy nor I were in the Sea Org.
So we proceeded to attack our conditions separately. In Doubt, we obviously had to evaluate whether it would be worthwhile to continue a 2D relationship with each other. She was an excellent student, by all accounts a caring, attentive and conscientious mother (she had a young child by her first marriage), and a whole bunch of other positive “stuff” (and not a lot of negatives) which made my decision to pursue a 2D with her a pretty cut and dried affair. What she saw in me and how she came to decide to pursue a 2D with me is unknown. (I’m being needlessly modest. In my 20s, I was a kewl d00d, ya know? 😉 ).
When the time came, we finally came together to work on our Non-Existence formulas. Here’s where the story gets good. We had long talks about our outlooks on life and the future. We talked about science fiction, hand tools, food, fine art, back aches, kids, movies, books, chocolate (as opposed to mere food), home decorating ideas, and nearly everything else you can think of. All the while applying each thing to our lists of “What I need/want from a 2D”. In the end, we had pretty good pictures of where each of us stood and whether this whole, messy 2D thing would work out. We decided it would. And at some point later, we got married.
We’ve since been married for 26 years as of this date. Like all couples we’ve had our trials and tribulations. We even survived our daughter’s teen years, which would have tribulated anybody. We’ve even spent most of our married lives working together, which is usually something a marriage simply won’t tolerate. But we’ve done so happily.
For most of our married lives, we’ve served as an example to numerous family, friends and strangers of what a marriage could be. I say this not to brag. but to point out one small fact: before we got married, we did ethics conditions on our 2D (as well as the other dynamics). Only after those were satisfactorily completed did we decide to get married. (Though we like to joke frequently that we only got married to spite that Sea Org HAS so many years ago.)
Let me also point out that doing Doubt and Non-Existence and all the rest doesn’t have to be this romance-killing technical exercise. If you enjoy talking to your prospective 2D partner (and you should), it shouldn’t be like a chore at all. It can all flow naturally with your conversations. After whatever time you think you need, and gathering all the information you want, you can make your decision. If you decide it wouldn’t work out, at least you can hopefully part as friends, knowing that you made the right decision on the Second Dynamic.
Love and Sex
Sex is a pretty nutty thing. If space aliens ever came down and watched it in progress, they’d put down in their reports that the inhabitants of this planet were just plain crazy, and apparently did what looked to be purely painful things to each other on purpose. They’d put a big sign up around the planet, saying “Uninhabitable” and we’d never see them again.
If you’ve ever read “The Joy of Creating” you know what LRH says about laughing and you’ll soon be happy, etc. It’s sort of the reverse way around. Normally you think of being happy and then laughing. But LRH makes the point that the cycle works both ways. That’s true of a lot of things.
With sex, you normally think of love and then sex, which is an act supposed to spring from love. The problem is that you can also approach it the other way. You can have sex and then convince yourself that you are therefore in love. Truth is, this kind of “love” is shallow and isn’t actually love at all. More like what you might call “lust”.
One of the deeper problems with sex is that, without discussing the matter first, you don’t know what your partner’s attitude is about it. He/she may believe that sex automatically means marriage in the future. Or that you should open a mutual bank account the next day. Or he/she may believe that sex is something you do with everyone you date, whereas you believe it’s something you only share with truly intimate partners. Etc. etc. We’ve all seen variations of this in modern movies, books and songs. (Ever see Basic Instinct? It scared the hell out of a whole generation of men where it came to sex.) Knowing this, it might be advisable, one way or another, to find out just what your prospective partner thinks of sex and whether or not their viewpoint matches up with yours.
Despite what it might look like to a space alien, sex is fun and enjoyable (usually, and if performed with due care and compassion for the other person). It’s what people did before electricity and video games, believe it or not. Fortunately, it’s still popular. But it’s a two-edged sword. And it can fool you into thinking there’s a Second Dynamic there when there’s really only the vestige of one.
I’m not trying to be a prude here or say that you should not have sex until you get married. By no means. I’m just saying you should use some judgment about it. (And don’t use my wife and I as a noble example. We were destined to be together a long long time ago. And truth told, we really should have done our conditions before jumping into bed together. The HAS at ITO was right about that one, I hate to say.)
Perhaps this is all better expressed as, “Don’t let your genitals think for you”.
I include this last section of this essay here just because I’ve heard so many people complain about the subject, and it’s just silly to do so.
Years and years ago, there was a booklet called (if I recall correctly) 2D Hats, authored by Mary Sue, Ron’s wife, and put out by the Church. This booklet detailed hats worn by her and Ron in their marriage. I presume it was put out in answer to frequently asked questions about their successful marriage. To some, it did and still does reflect an archaic “Me Tarzan You Jane” naive view of marriage from the 1950s or something.
If you read this booklet and find it to be that way, you’re missing the point. This was a hat write-up of a successful marriage, and nothing more. Nowhere did it dictate all or any other marriages should be conducted as indicated in the text. It was a simple answer to a question.
Whatever you and your prospective marriage partner agree upon is how you should conduct your second dynamic. If you choose to and are able to conduct your marriage as laid out in 2D Hats, good for you. If you choose to conduct your 2D differently and yet it works for you, hurray. There are no “right” and “wrong” answers when it comes to the shape of a marriage.
Kind of like, “If it’s true for you, it’s true. And if it’s not true for you, it’s not true.”