THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick.order,alt.magick,alt.magick.tantra,alt.religion.sexuality,alt.magick.sex
From: tyaginator 
Subject: VAR: XI Degree OTO (Homosexual Sex Magick?) Questions 
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:11:18 GMT

~From: "Rikb" 

Agape Catherine!

     I don't know if my input will be helpful or not -- I am a member of
OTO, but do not in any way have the authority to speak for OTO. I have been
researching this area for the last year somewhat intensively, but I am not
an initiate of the XIo of OTO. If you still think I might have anything
useful to say about the matter, read on :-)



> Did the original Swiss-based Reuss branch of the OTO initiate candidates
> in a homosexual XI degree ritual?

     No. There is no evidence for this whatsoever that I am aware of. Reuss
was accused of incorporating the mutual touching of phalluses into his
rituals, but I believe this was a smear campaign rather than an intimation
of something queer going on. After reviewing the available evidence, I
believe the XIo was entirely Crowley's invention, the basic formula having
been explored prior to his membership in OTO (See the Vision & the Voice --
Crowley was initiated into OTO about 4 months later, and received the IXo
about 4 years after that.) In any case, the XIo is not, strictly speaking, a
homosexual degree -- I'll go into that below.

> Do or did any other OTO jurisdictions, contemporary or defunct (e.g.
> OTO-Antigua, etc.) initiate candidates in a homosexual XI degree ritual?

     I'm not so sure about that, but it is my impression that only C.S.
Jones was ever entrusted with the XIo secrets by Crowley, if indeed anyone
was. This impression follows primarily from instructions to Jones in Liber
Aleph. There have been many attempts to incorporate what others see the XIo
into magical orders -- sometimes it involves homosexuality (as in Bertiaux's
group), and sometimes it doesn't (as in SOTO, TOTO). IMO, there is no reason
to believe that any of these various XIos have anything much to do with
Crowley's idea of the XIo.

> Does the (c)OTO currently initiate candidates with a homosexual XI
> degree ritual?

     I believe there are members of "cOTO" who currently hold the XIo. That
degree was not exclusively homosexual in Crowley's time since he records
many XIo operations with women in his magical diaries. I don't believe it is
"homosexual" in its current incarnation in the Caliphate OTO, but this is so
primarily to bring it into line with Crowley's vision -- there is no reason
homosexuals can't be admitted to the degree of course, and to some extent,
the sex magick of the XIo is better suited to homosexuals (IMO) than
heterosexuals.

> If the (c)OTO does not currently initiate candidates with a homosexual
> XI degree ritual, did it ever do so (e.g. when Grady McMurtry rather
> than William Breeze was head of the order)?

     Grady McMurtry (at Patrick King's demand, by his own admission)
chartered an experimental XIo sanctuary run by Patrick King called the "Rite
of Shiraz." Some members of the Caliphate OTO around at the time felt that
Grady chartered the Rite of Shiraz so he could wash his hands of the degree,
feeling that it *was* homosexual and therefore something he didn't want
associated with him. In any case, the Rite of Shiraz was pronounced defunct
by the current OHO for various reasons -- primarily, I think (I haven't
asked him, so this is just speculation more than anything, although I think
there's an old issue of the Magical Link that contains a note to this
effect), because it failed to really live up to the nature of the XIo as
Crowley understood it. There's a great deal of information about the XIo in
Crowley's published works, actually, and having seen some of the materials
that Patrick King produced, I happen to agree.

> If the (c)OTO did at one time initiate candidates with a homosexual XI
> degree ritual, and does not do so now, when was the ritual terminated
> and what reason was given for the termination?

     I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that the Rite of Shiraz was
declared defunct -- a failed experiment basically -- in 1987. Hymenaus Beta
has publicly claimed XIo, so I think it's entirely probable that there is
currently a functioning body of XIo initiates, though it must be relatively
small.

> If the (c)OTO does not now and never did initiate candidates with a
> homosexual XI degree ritual, how do the group's oficial position papers
> explain Crowley's writing about this subject?

     Nothing in Crowley's work can be interpreted to imply that XIo is
exclusively homosexual, and there is much material to suggest otherwise.
Crowley himself did not initiate anyone to XIo with any certainty. I believe
he admitted Jones, but the evidence is circumstantial. There is no evidence
whatsoever that he admitted C.S. Russell, for example, as some have claimed.
One result of Crowley's reticence on the matter -- in the sense that he
didn't write any formal degree instructions for the XIo -- is that those who
wish to reconstruct the degree & it's formula have to work very carefully
with all the symbolic commentary he left in his published writings and some
of the upper-degree instructions. The OTO now lists the XIo as a technical
degree -- I don't know exactly what is meant by that.

> In your OTO jurisdiction or others historically known to you is -- or
> was -- the Crowleyan XI homosexual ritual only performed by two men (in
> keeping with Crowley's interest in penile-centered and spermo-gnostic
> sex-magic) or could/can two women participate in the ritual?

     By my understanding, the sex magick proper, in the physical sense, was
something between two men or between a man and a woman. This is not to say
that lesbian sex magick is a lost cause, but I don't believe Lesbian sex
magick is something included in the repertoire of techniques taught by OTO
in its current stage of development. This is certainly due to Crowley's lack
of vision, which he does admit -- he makes comments to the effect that it's
something the women of the order will have to figure out.

> If two women can or could participate in an OTO homosexual XI degree
> ritual known to you, please explain how an all-female XI degree OTO
> ritual could be justified in light of Crowley's firmly stated belief
> that Co-Freemasonry (gender-integrated Masonry) is a sham because women
> "cannot" become third degree Freemasons because they have no penis?

     In my opinion, Crowley's sexism is somewhat overstated, although
clearly there are elements that can be taken as such. If there is a good
reason why Lesbian sexuality is missing from the OTO repertoire, it's
because Crowley was not a woman and couldn't comprehend, as a magician, what
that would entail. He didn't entirely exclude the possibility, but it was
just outside his range of experience.

> Was Crowley's belief that the XI degree ritual representing
> homosexuality should be the *highest* degree of ceremonial sex magick
> shared by his OTO mentor Theodor Reuss or was this belief and/or the XI
> degree ritual itself something that Crowley originated once he joined
> Reuss' OTO?

     I don't think it was something Reuss really knew about -- Crowley seems
to have been pretty hush-hush about it up until Reuss' death. Crowley's
occasionally expressed preference for the XIo manner of working probably had
little if anything to do with sexual orientation. The journal entry in which
he expresses this preference was following an XIo operation with a woman --
Roddie Minor I believe.

> If you have any well-thought-out personal opinions as to why Crowley
> taught that the homosexual XI degree ritual is the *highest* degree of
> ceremonial sex magick, i would welcome them as well. Just be aware that
> previously-stated arguments that the ritual's value is based on the
> "transgressive" nature of homosexuality are going to be met with amused
> skepticism by me, as i cannot imagine that an openly and avowedly
> bisexual man such as Aleister Crowley would have found a homosexual
> ritual "transgressive."

     He explains in his notes & biographical commentary to the Vision and
the Voice that it *was* something he saw as transgressive in the sense that
it had never been something he'd been able to use for spiritual ends. Many
people who engage in homosexual activity have a lot of shame about it, still
seeing it as sinful and evil, despite their own participation in it. In any
case, I think now that the "transgressiveness" of the XIo isn't the source
of its unique character -- but I seem to be somewhat in the minority there.
It may be something that is a source of power for some people, but lots of
things that aren't the XIo manner of working are also transgressive.
Transgression isn't in & of itself sufficient to make something "XIo."

93 93/93
RIKB
http://www.horusset.com/RIKB

============================================

~From: prophet718SPAM@my-deja.com

  Riley Foster wrote:

> > As a gay (former) member of the OTO, I think it was homophobia
> > & as for did it "ever exist" Aleister himself wrote that it did.  
> > It sounds like Kenneth Grant squeamishness to deny it.
> 

  catherine yronwode  wrote:

> This topic has been discussed before in usenet -- and since 1994, 
> when i first got online, i have been asking about it myself. So far 
> no serious respeonses have been forthcoming, and so i am asking 
> again. 

  Hi Catherine,

  There is evidence of a homosexual aspect to OTO initiation. I will 
have to check the books to be sure which volume, but I believe the 
reference is found in Motta's Equinox Volume V Number 4. Motta 
recounts a meeting with Karl Germer at which Germer tells him about 
an instance of Crowley asking Germer to sodomize him as an aspect of 
his (Crowley) initiation. Germer declined the offer. After telling 
Motta about the episode, Germer asked Motta do the same thing to him 
as a part of his initiation, and Motta declined the offer. One might  
suspect Crowley of simply desiring sexual relations with a favorite 
pupil, but in the case of Motta and Germer such is not the case. 
Germer was by Motta's accounts a very masculine heterosexual. Based 
on his own statements, Motta was also heterosexual. In both instances 
of the requests, it was made by a superior of a pupil who was 
heterosexual. It may be that the nature of the exercise 
for the initiate is to fulfill an entirely feminine role by being 
sodomized by a heterosexual male. 

   Prophet 718 

  (official referee and scribe for lesbian sexual workings)

======================================

~From: "Rikb" 

93!

>   There is evidence of a homosexual aspect to OTO initiation.

     Then why are you talking about A.'.A.'. initiation? :-) The only
initiation I'm aware of that had a homosexual aspect to it was Crowley's own
8=3 or Master of the Temple initiation.

> I will
> have to check the books to be sure which volume, but I believe the
> reference is found in Motta's Equinox Volume V Number 4. Motta
> recounts a meeting with Karl Germer at which Germer tells him about
> an instance of Crowley asking Germer to sodomize him as an aspect of
> his (Crowley) initiation. Germer declined the offer.

     Answer me this: Germer first met Crowley in 1925, after Crowley was OHO
(1923) and had claimed the degree of Ipsissimus (1921) -- what initiation
was Crowley allegedly asking for this "help" with? Crowley had been signing
himself "XIo" for some time, so some kind of XIo initiation seems
implausible too. Doesn't this make Germer's, if not Motta's report a bit
suspect? Speaking of suspect, there's no real evidence that Germer ever
initiated Motta into the OTO at all, let alone proposed initiating him into
the XIo which he himself had not received. I don't know what Motta's talking
about, but there's plenty of reason to have reservations about his complete
trustworthiness.

93 93/93
RIKB
http://www.horusset.com/RIKB

===================================

~From: "Rikb" 

93!

> Yes, it was dropped because of homophobia, though the excuse of

> "not a valid ritual lineage" was used.

     There are a number of reasons to see it as "not a valid ritual
lineage." IMO, though, lineage per se had little to do with it either. It
was more a matter of staying true to Crowley's system of OTO, and to the
totality of his writings with respect to the degree. It also, I'm sure, had
something to do with Patrick King's personality (e.g., his overweening
ambition & hubris) and administration of the Rite of Shiraz, not to mention
the quality of the work the Rite of Shiraz was producing. There's a whole
lot of reasons it didn't work, in other words, and reducing it to homophobia
is far too simplistic a view. I'm a gay man, and I see no reason to think
that the Rite of Shiraz was "decomissioned" due to homophobia. In fact,
there are some people who were around at the time who felt that it was
*chartered* out of homophbic sentiment. I honestly think any relatively
objective & exhaustive research will show that the XIo has way less to do
with homosexuality than one might think. Crowley performed more XIo sex
magick with women than with men -- this is indisputable when one looks into
his diaries, assuming that the several years worth of entries I've surveyed
are representative.

People -- even people fairly close to the situation -- can get all kinds of
impressions about something like this that aren't accurate. I think
assertions that homophobia was behind the whole thing come from people
feeling that the OTO doesn't provide a niche for homosexuals & that it's
unfair in some sense. That's an impression that can arise from any number of
circumstances, psychologically speaking, & most of them don't necessarily
have much to do with the reality of the situation. The OTO saying "the XIo
was never meant to be a homosexual degree" is not de facto homophobic & in
this case there's plenty of reason to believe this is correct. It doesn't
mean homosexuals aren't welcome in the Order, as I can attest.

> I cant blame someone for not wanting to suck a little cock.  Its
> a hard initiation.  It takes work.  It takes alot of psychological
> preparation and a massive amount of strength to succeed, eh.

     You think so? Hmmm...I always find it quite fun, but hey, that's me.

> Women cannot participate directly in XI.  However, the graal does play
> an important role, even if symbolic.

     There's no reason women can't participate directly in XIo sex magick.
They may not be able to fulfill certain roles in the physical mechanics, but
that's more or less the case in hetero sex magick too. Same is true for men,
although naturally they have a wider range of options with regard to the XIo
sexual techniques. Besides the literal employment of the technique, just as
the Mass is a figurative employment of the IXo, there are ways to enact the
XIo "mysteries" in dramatic form that don't require any particular physical
parts -- at least if you accept that "sex magick" doesn't necessarily
involve physical sexual congress, which I do.

> Its not so much that he believed it should be the "highest" degree
> really, as I see it, I tend to think of the XIth as sort of a sidestep
> from the basic template.

     I like to think of the XIo as a sort of pendant to the IXo, although
I'm not sure what the thoughts of OTO leadership are on it.

> Theres much more to that ritual than just cocksucking you know.  :)

     In fact, cocksucking has nothing to do with it. Besides some of the
very obvious symbolism Crowley uses to discuss the XIo in openly published
works, see De Arte Magica Chap. XI and XVIII.

93 93/93
RIKB

================================================

~From: "Kevin Tom" 

93,

Rikb wrote:

"Besides the literal employment of the technique, just as
the Mass is a figurative employment of the IXo, there are 
ways to enact the XIo "mysteries" in dramatic form that 
don't require any particular physical parts -- at least 
if you accept that "sex magick" doesn't necessarily
involve physical sexual congress, which I do."

Well, I can say that I see the Mass as metaphor, yes. 
As for the actual degrees in question I can't speak to
it, as I haven't taken the degrees.  I can say though,
that for symbology and as far as symbology goes, that
it is quite easy to substitute one thing for another. 
In that sense it's easy for me to see the sex act as
taking place on a level that doesn't include physical
sexual congress.  I mean, running the index finger of
one hand into the index and thumb of the other hand
that are closed to form a circle can suggest either or.  LOL!

> Its not so much that he believed it should be the "highest" degree
> really, as I see it, I tend to think of the XIth as sort of a sidestep
> from the basic template.

     "I like to think of the XIo as a sort of pendant to the IXo, 
although I'm not sure what the thoughts of OTO leadership are on it."

I seem to remember something about XI? having or needing to be at least IX?, 
first.  In some sense, to me, that makes sense.  Not sure what sense, 
though.  Just don't have a major problem with it, I guess.

> Theres much more to that ritual than just cocksucking you know.  :)

     "In fact, cocksucking has nothing to do with it. Besides some of the
very obvious symbolism Crowley uses to discuss the XIo in openly published
works, see De Arte Magica Chap. XI and XVIII."

Ok.  That's a graphic example, can't say as I'll argue you on this.  LOL!

93, 93/93

K.T.

EOF