Having developed Desires from the Maiden, and then constrained those desires with Values from the Goddess of Love, the next sequential development in female archetypes is the Wife. This has some interesting similarities to the Hero archetype for men, insofar as it focuses on transitioning from an internal focus to an external focus, by considering things like meaning, purpose, and responsibilities, especially the responsibilities associated with a “role”, and allowing others to depend on her. It can thus sometimes feel like there is a masculine energy associated with this transition, partly because socially we have lost track of the models for this archetype, so women often end up borrowing from the Hero archetype as they progress. 

Although there is some overlap with the male experience of the Hero’s Journey, the Wife archetype is distinct. While it is important for the Wife to develop a deep sense of purpose, it is typically needed to manage an excess of responsibility, not a dearth. Unlike the Hero who needs to take on additional Responsibility in order to grow, the Wife must prioritize a nearly infinite list of responsibilities. 

The challenge of the Wife Archetype is figuring out how to prioritize without being overwhelmed, learning to enjoy imperfect completion by focusing on the meaning of the tasks instead of on the tasks themselves. Nonetheless, the mechanics of the Hero’s Journey still apply somewhat - it is critical for women to have an independently validated sense of purpose and meaning, and it is experienced as one of the great transitions of life, into the responsibilities and depth of meaning that is only possible in full adulthood. The meaning and purpose she imbues into her life should be a reflection of her Goddess’ Values. 

Nesting, Responsibility and an Agent-Arena Relationship

The Wife archetype is traditionally associated with the concept of “nesting”, but in a specific way that is partially lost in our modern, individualist world. The archetypal notion of nesting is not solely focused on building a comfortable nest for oneself, although it does start in that place, as the Goddess of Love asks herself “what are my standards for my physical space?” Instead, nesting for the Wife archetype asks the question “what environment do I want to commit to creating for others?”

In refocusing externally, having already developed her own standards as the Goddess, the Wife now asks herself:

* “What role do I want to commit to playing?” 

* “What do I want to be responsible for giving/providing to those I love?” 

* “What do I want to be responsible for in a relationship?”

This new emphasis on voluntarily accepting responsibility creates the experience of meaningfulness that is associated with connecting to a role, or as John Vervaeke might say, an “agent-arena relationship”. The Wife archetype is the agent, and the arena is the nest, which in the traditional archetype, she makes welcoming and comfortable for her husband, and takes pride in doing so, irrespective of her husband’s flaws or shortcomings.

Though she may choose to leave a relationship that is not fulfilling her needs, or that violates her standards, the Wife archetype will not choose to remain in a relationship and give less, because that would denigrate the pride she takes in the way she expresses her love. As Gibran writes, “Work is love made visible.”

In taking responsibility for creating and maintaining a nest, caring for and nurturing an emotional space, the Wife takes on the challenge of being responsible for “tasks”. The maintenance of a household requires diligence and attention to detail, and creates a near-constant flow of mundane, thankless and repetitive work. To work at a task that seems meaningless is one of the most soul-searing and therefore the most challenging forms of work possible. The Wife energy, like Frankl in Man’s Search for Meaning, is able to impose an inner purpose or meaning onto this seemingly endless flow of Sisyphean tasks. The meaning springs from her resolute commitment to providing a nest for her family that provides comfort and warmth, that she can take pride in providing, just as her husband (King) commits to providing safety and order. 

Sisyphus

Because the challenge is an unending stream of tasks (responsibilities), the Shadow of the Wife archetype is the Taskmaster and the Houseslave. The work of nesting is never done; it is an unending and self-recreating infinite series of tasks. This can drive someone crazy, or she can learn to swim in the currents of life, and continue to enjoy life despite the fact that the work is never ending. Her emotions are not shaken by incomplete tasks, and she is not sent into a fury whenever someone dirties a dish; a pile of incomplete laundry does not prevent her from engaging sexually with her husband. She learns to accept the unending nature of the task flow, and to fulfill her chosen role and responsibilities while also letting go of the demand for perfection. 

I think this archetype is perhaps more relevant to all of us, men and women, than we would like. The drive at work to constantly “get things done”, the startup culture of maximizing productivity with hacks and “methods” (which I’m not knocking - I use several myself). And, worse, the proliferation of “bullshit jobs”, or “bullshit tasks” even in jobs that aren’t bullshit, makes our work progressively more meaningless. 

In my own field, doctors and nurses are overrun with the bullshit requirements of data entry into arcane billing systems. Office managers are trying to achieve "KPIs" they don't understand or agree with, or may even be counterproductive. But the flow of tasks is never-ending, and the need to prioritize what work gets done, what is left for another day, and what may never be done, creates an ongoing strain that is the core challenge of the Wife archetype. 

And all of this is often to fulfill a goal handed down blindly from senior management, or the “O-Suite”, that we have no say in, that we don’t understand, that leaves us cut out from caring about our own role, our own job, our own company. That strain may lead us to lash out, or conversely to become depressed and withdrawn, or to distract ourselves from the meaninglessness of our tasks in hedonic pleasures, addictions, office politics, or gossip, or Facebook.

The integrated Wife archetype takes on this flow of trivial tasks and is able to keep her balance because she keeps in touch with the deeper meaning of those tasks, and has committed to the role of fulfilling those tasks. Learning to make such a commitment, without rethinking that commitment every time she struggles with an obstacle, is the key to shifting from the Goddess archetype to the Wife. 

Purpose

Again, traditionally this is symbolically represented as nesting, but in modern terms, it could be any deep sense of purpose. The chosen purpose is usually an extension of the Values she developed in the Goddess stage. Valuing family is the traditional storybook version that leads to the purpose of nesting, but other Values would be expressed differently; Valuing generosity could lead her to found a non-profit, for instance; Valuing education could lead her to build an online teaching company; Valuing community could lead her to take on a service role at church. Regardless, having a sense of meaning or purpose allows her to prioritize the infinite flow of tasks that must be done.

In addition to prioritizing, she also accepts that the task-list will never be “done” - the “nest” (whether it’s work or home) will always be imperfect, will always be incomplete. Someone will always dirty the next dish, the client will always add the next task. 

As she integrates, therefore, she is able to realize that it’s ok for some things to not get done; it’s ok for the nest to be imperfect. She’s able to let go of building the nest, for the sake of enjoying the nest. She remembers that there was a meaning underneath the meaning - that she was creating a nest for the purpose of seeing others enjoy it. She is no longer emotionally pulled by the fear of “failure”, but is able to interpret the concept of task completion and non-completion within the context of the bigger meanings of her life.

In business, our Integrated Wife is not devastated if we miss an “incentive”, or if our boss is upset with us. She does not feel helplessly enslaved when the boss adds another task to her list. She remembers that she’s not meeting deadlines just to meet deadlines, nor to please her boss, but to support her family, or (if she’s very lucky) because she supports the mission of the company. Integrating the Wife archetype, we can all make better decisions about when (and how often) it’s worth burning the midnight oil for the company, for the in-laws, for the kids, and when it’s ok to let the tasks go.

Visual Schema:

Verbal Schema: As the Wife develops in Purpose, she overcomes the Taskmaster (nag) and the Houseslave inside herself, and through greater Meaning, overcomes the urge for merely “Getting Things Done”. Another way of considering this is that the Taskmaster overuses “Getting Things Done”, and the Houseslave cannot use it, so it is used against her.

In kink, this manifests by the submissive’s desire to have “tasks” or “chores” given to her by her dominant, which she can then fulfill without the mental load of deciding which tasks need to be done. She can then enjoy the satisfaction of completing the tasks to an externally-defined standard of perfection, without having to decide how imperfect is acceptable for herself. Having thus pleased her dominant, she does not need to worry about any consideration of the bigger picture. For many subs, this feels like “turning my mind off”, and is a major appeal of kinky engagement. It is far better than turning her mind off in other ways, because she trusts that she is in the care of a dominant who maintains the bigger picture and prevents anything from breaking down. 

These feelings for the submissive are a soothing of anxieties that come from “being put in her place”, from the reassurance that she will be “disciplined” appropriately, and “kept in line”. Domestic Discipline and 1950’s kink are subgenres that rely heavily on this, and are thus usually framed within a married circumstance. The sexy maid lingerie classic also stems from this archetype.

The dominant can order tasks that please him, again, merely for the enjoyment of making the submissive perform it (though it is telling that the tasks are generally domestic in nature). Both parties are able to release their persona fatigue by gaining satisfaction from tasks that are completable, finite, and done “just to please him”.

Taking it Deeper is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Maiden’s realization of the power of her acceptance creates a realization of her own value. Since she can, through her acceptance (now realized as sexual acceptance) raise the status of others, her rejection can also therefore lower the status of others. There is a temptation to revel in this power, to wield it to aggrandize herself over others, to demonstrate her power. The temptation is then one of Pride: whose status can I raise? Whose can I demolish? Who wants me but cannot have me?

Male children are much more likely than female children to hit, kick, bite, or steal. This is in keeping with the typical conception of aggression of the Warrior. Female aggression can be equally destructive, but rather than physical form, it takes the pathway of reputational destruction (social rejection). Especially in the age of cancel culture and online bullying, we can see this archetypically female form of aggression gaining new power, rather than the physical bullying of male aggression. 

This reputational destruction is the Shadow aggressiveness of the feminine archetype of the Goddess of Love. Just as “the Plastics”’ control the reputational status of the New Girl, or the Pink Ladies’ opinion affects the reputation of Sandy (Grease is a phenomenal consideration of the effects of Persona on individual development, as well as the progression from Maiden to Goddess of Love), the Goddess of Love wields the power of her sexuality to raise or lower the status of others under her sway. .

Having learned the power of her sexual acceptance, she now explores that power further. What should she accept? How much? From whom? If she accepts everything, her acceptance means nothing. Thus, setting limits by rejection creates the value of her acceptance, just as the Maiden rejected Gaston but accepted the Beast. But how should she decide what to accept and what to reject?

The Desires she developed as a Maiden now blossom into the Goddess’ Values. She can choose what and whom to accept on the basis of those Values. She rejects behavior that falls outside those values, and rejects people who do not demonstrate those values. Insofar as the Maiden desires protection, the Goddess values strength, competence, and intelligence, honor, status and moral rectitude (in a social species, having a moral code is a sign of fitness, the ability to provide social protections); insofar as the Maiden desires kind treatment, the Goddess values generosity; insofar as the Maiden desires growth, the Goddess values those who are confident and secure enough to allow her space - the space to change, the space to grow. 

She also, once she has articulated these Values, begins to hold herself to those same standards. No longer is she the oppressed/protected child, subject to her father’s ethics, but she is now instead an adult agent capable of setting and upholding her own standards.

The power of unrestrained female sexuality is historically considered dangerous to society, and thus the Goddess of Love is given little note in Victorian romances, which skip straight from Maiden to Wife or Mother. But other cultures have more to say. I’ve mentioned Aphrodite, but Kali also embodies the duality of destruction/aggression and fertility/rebirth. Indeed, any fertility Goddess will often have this motif, since her Goddess-nature channels or supersedes the destructiveness of her unrestrained sexuality. Because she is fertile, she must select. She is the agent of Mother Nature, who is selecting the most fit mate, and rejecting the unfit - and determining fitness is a matter of Values.

After the Maiden’s sexual power of acceptance or selection is awakened, she must learn to wield the power her sexuality gives. She must overcome the temptation to revel in that power by using it destructively or manipulatively, and must also overcome the temptation to completely abandon the responsibility that comes with that power and revel merely in unrestrained sexuality.

She must develop Values that guide her in how to wield her new power wisely and well, letting go of the self-doubt caused by the inexperience of the Maiden’s initial transition into having sexual powers. 

Visual Schema:

Verbal Schema: As the Goddess of Love develops her Values, she overcomes the Vain Seductress and the Slut inside herself, and through greater Judgment, overcomes the urge for mere Prideful Rejection. Another way of considering this is that the Vain Seductress (cocktease) overuses Pride, and the Slut cannot use it, so it is used against her.

As she develops her ability to be true to herself, integrates her own aggression, as well as her confidence in her right and ability to make good choices, she leaves behind her need to control the reputations of others. 

In kink, the dominant may inhabit the teasing role of being sexually irresistible, while the submissive gives up her pride and dignity to demonstrate her desperate sexual need, thus characterizing her sexuality as easy. He might make her do things that are undignified to demonstrate her willingness to sacrifice her Pride. This could be anything from dressing inappropriately to kissing his feet. But such behavior is slutty, and slutty is sexy because of the power of the Goddess of Love archetype.

Slut vs Whore

A quick distinction that we’ll expand fully later on - slut vs whore. The Slut shadow of the Goddess of Love is more specifically about the prideless (often desperate) engagement of her sexuality, rather than the dirtiness/impurity of her sexuality as experienced by the Whore, which is the shadow of the Maiden. We’ll discuss these at length in a few chapters, but just make note of the distinction for now.

Shadows

I will end each section on the Archetypes with this reminder about “The Shadow”, because it is absolutely crucial for understanding the functioning of the archetypes I’m discussing.

On the nature of Shadows.

The author Ursula K. LeGuin, whose writings show a deep understanding about the nature of these archetypes and their functions, has written and commented a great deal on these topics, far more powerfully and thoroughly than I. If I could include the entire text of A Wizard of Earthsea here, I would (and “The Child and the Shadow”, while I’m at it). But, I shall content myself with a few quotes:

“To light a candle is to cast a shadow.” 

“Unadmitted to consciousness, the shadow is projected outward, onto others. There’s nothing wrong with me—it’s them. I’m not a monster. Other people are monsters….”

“The great fantasies, myths, and tales are indeed like dreams: they speak from the unconscious to the unconscious, in the language of the unconscious—symbol and archetype. Though they use words, they work the way music does: they short-circuit verbal reasoning, and go straight to the thoughts that lie too deep to utter….”

The Shadow is not a negative thing. The Persona is not a negative thing. They balance each other. No good could be done in the world if we lacked capacity to suppress our instincts for the sake of others. No kindness, no compassion, no promises, no order. All would be a chaos of true individual competition and the species would not last long. But, in creating the Persona, we also create the Shadow. The Shadow contains our lusts, greed, and rage, sadness, fear of death. It is a vital source of creativity, that spurs us to create things that do not yet exist, to imagine a future greater than our present, to enact change, to grow, to reproduce not only our genes but our ideas as well. In order to do anything, to be anything, we must cast a shadow. But we must be aware and cautious of the shadows we cast.

“Your unconscious mind is not a sink of horror and depravity. That's a Victorian notion, and a terrifically destructive one. It crippled most of the best minds of the nineteenth century, and hamstrung psychology all through the first half of the twentieth. Don't be afraid of your unconscious mind! It's not a black pit of nightmares. Nothing of the kind! It is the wellspring of health, imagination, creativity.” --Ursula K. LeGuin

In particular those of us captivated by wanting to be “good” would do well to remember:

[T]he shadow stands on the threshold. We can let it bar the way to the creative depths of the unconscious, or we can let it lead us to them. For the shadow is not simply evil. It is inferior, primitive, awkward, animal like, childlike; powerful, vital, spontaneous. It’s not weak and decent, like the learned young man from the North; it’s dark and hairy and unseemly; but, without it, the person is nothing. What is a body that casts no shadow? Nothing, a formlessness, two-dimensional, a comic-strip character. The person who denies his own profound relationship with evil denies his own reality. He cannot do, or make; he can only undo, unmake. --Ursula K. LeGuin

If you need a reminder of the structure, look back at the introduction to the feminine archetypes here:

We jumped ahead to the mother, since it was the central archetype, but now we’ll go back and proceed in order.

The Maiden

The first feminine archetype is the Maiden. Like the Hero, this is an adolescent archetype, and is (I believe) overrepresented in our culture. Although the Maiden’s Journey contains some similar elements as the Hero’s Journey (Departure, initiation to a special world, achieving a prize, return), the differences warrant some deeper consideration. This section was incredibly hard to write, partly because of the outsized influence of Victorian notions of marriage, sex, and propriety, that continue to persist today.

But those notions came from somewhere. There’s a reason they persist. If you find a concept persisting for hundreds of years, it didn’t arise for no reason (though it may also not be the whole story - the Victorian middle class ethic can be perhaps summed up entirely as an aggrandizement of the Persona and a fearful rejection of the Shadow… one wonders about the degree to which they felt the need for colonization, genocide and murder as a cultural expression of the suppressed Shadow). And in the case of the archetypes (both male and female), the reasons are deeply biological and evolutionary. 

Just as societies develop cultural norms around protecting the elderly, because they are vulnerable, but also valuable (as a source of information on rare events), so most cultures have a norm of protecting women, because they are vulnerable, but also valuable. Even nature itself has this norm - female newborns have fewer birth defects and fewer mutations across species (including humans), whereas the male death rate at every age, from newborns to old age, is higher than females of the same age. Nature is conservative with female genetics, and experimentative with male genetics - males of most species continue this pattern under the influence of testosterone by preferentially pursuing high-risk, high-reward strategies regarding survival and reproduction (aka sexual access).

That “protection” is, of course, also oppressive (all protection is). Nature requires women to bear, feed, and nurture babies and infants, and in mammals, females do most of the childrearing even after infancy. Our human cultures instinctively mirror this, because the biological reality is unavoidable, and because the hormonal impacts have predictable tendencies.

The Maiden, as the child/adolescent form, is in many ways, oppressed/protected (as all children are and must be), especially sexually. Her Father archetype has created a safe space for her to grow up, remaining innocent and Pure, because he knows her beauty will attract predators.

This is necessary, because young women are vulnerable. 2% of the human population is sociopathic. The male half of that adds physical strength and a greater willingness to dominate those below him in a hierarchy (i.e. those he perceives as weaker). Even if it's just 1% of a population, the remainder of the population has to figure out how to deal with it, how to protect the vulnerable. It creates cultural norms around the stronger caring for the weaker, catering to them, and helping them (opening doors, helping her down off of high steps, walking her to her car, or home, etc etc). 

This creates in many ways a more extended childhood for women, because all of society is concurring with the rules of protection essentially indefinitely. And children are potential victims, not agents of responsibility and action, with a clear sense of their own limits. But children also do not get to choose, to be free. That comes with adult responsibilities. 

But, as humans, we also crave freedom, autonomy, growth. That way lies dragons. And for many women, and many young women in particular, that creates a conundrum. They are dually attracted to danger and safety. They want to expand beyond their confines, but also recognize the reality of their inherent vulnerability. 

And in order to safely obtain autonomy and freedom, one must have power. Maidens are sacrificed on the altar; but the Goddess does as she will. The transition from Maiden to Goddess thus requires an embrace of her inner power. Because women are physically weaker, they are inevitably vulnerable to tyranny and predation; but in a social species, having control over anything desirable (sexuality and reproduction) gives her power. Maturing into the capability to wield that power well and responsibly is much like the Hero’s journey toward Kingship.

So how does the Maiden come into her power? First by letting go of protection in order to gain freedom; by growing beyond her disgust at the wild, the transactional, the harsh, the beastly, by learning the power of her acceptance, and finally by overcoming the aggression she finds inside herself and learning the power of her capacity for rejection. 

We can explore this process through the lens of fairy tales, romance novels, and other myths. There are standard patterns that are followed by these stories, common rhythms, just as there are for the Hero’s Journey. We can call this the Maiden’s Journey.

The Maiden’s Journey

The Maiden’s journey begins with the Introduction of the Maiden, in which there is also some demonstration of her essential inner purity and goodness. She shows compassion to the poor, sick, or downtrodden, despite being poor herself; she shows loyalty to her family, despite poor treatment (Cinderella), or difficult circumstances (Beauty and the Beast). She is unmoved by temptation in some way, usually in some way related to a man (Pride and Prejudice). 

Others around her are moved by the allure of wealth, status, or lust, but she is pure and is not tempted. In modern stories, she is waiting for true love; in older stories, she is loyal to her parents or family. Regardless, she demonstrates her inner purity by being unmoved by some temptation, as well as being unmoved by hardship, even if that hardship is generated by her own compassion or loyalty or purity.

This purity is an innate absence of corruption - something intrinsic to her nature. Because her love is universal, it is fundamentally non-transactional. It sets her apart from the world, placing her outside the ordinary. That non-transactionality lies at the core of her purity, and because it is an absolute, it is sacred.

In stories, there is often further “evidence” of her inner purity. Children and animals are drawn to her gentleness, and she manifests an innocent, diffuse, undifferentiated, universal compassion. She is beautiful - her external appearance, however, is unintentional, and the (unstated) assumption of the story is that her external appearance has manifested to match her inner nature.

In her expression of this universal compassion, she has no preferences, but loves everyone and everything equally. This "fairness" creates a righteous Innocence, or Purity, subconsciously (unstated) based on the assumption that sex is "impure". We will see that part of this assumption is because sexual preferences are inherently "unfair", since it implies she prefers one man over another for some reason. Sexual interactions also, as we will see, require a certain transactionality - they are inevitably an exchange of value, insofar as we value the things we desire. This is one of the great struggles of the Maiden - to learn that accepting a man sexually is not “pure”, because it implies an understanding of exchanged “values”, and thus interfaces with necessary realities of the world - men’s desire and lusts, the need for reproduction, the need for un-stifling protection. 

But all of that lies ahead in the story - when first introduced, the Maiden desires only her own freedom from the bondage of social expectations, and even that desire is vague, just beginning to be felt. The same factors, such as family or a general “goodness”, that are evidence of her purity are also evidence of her captivity. In order to be “good”, by the definitions of social convention, she is not “free”. From Ariel to Belle to Jasmine, to Sleeping Beauty to Rapunzel to Juliet; the Maiden is held captive by her society and dreams of entering a larger world, a new world. 

“I want to be where the people are … I want More” - Ariel

“There must be more than this provincial life” - Belle

“When will my life begin?” - Rapunzel

The Man is introduced as an outsider of some kind. This demonstrates his power by showing his mastery of the unknown space, the larger world that she wishes to enter. By demonstrating that mastery, he offers her the tantalizing option of entering the larger world in a protected space. As an outsider, he is not bound by social convention the way she is, and thus offers the potential for her to explore. 

The Maiden often comes in contact with some of the dangers in the unknown space, and experiences more concretely the need for protection. But she nonetheless needs a form of protection that (unlike her father’s) offers her the space to grow, to change, to blossom. She does not know the form this will take, has only the inkling of the need for “more”. She herself is not aware of the meaning or depth of her incipient sexuality.

Her desire for freedom leads her to make errors, to encounter wolves (like Belle), or to trust someone she shouldn’t (Ariel and Ursula, the eels). She bears the consequences of her errors. She is imprisoned, in danger, vulnerable.

She wanted the freedom, but has now had contact with evil, with the wolves that roam the wilds. She is forced to recognize that she does not have the strength to navigate the wilds alone. Her desire for freedom evolves to also include a desire for protection that does not stifle that freedom.

She senses that this combination - the room to grow, to experience a larger world, and the protection that will allow her to explore that world safely - can only be had from the Man, since he lives in the larger world, and has mastered it; he has the strength to stand alone outside of society, and can allow her to explore and grow safely, if she can get him on her side. And that perception - that he can provide her with what she desires - creates a subconscious attraction to him, but she refuses to acknowledge the roots of this attraction, because it is fundamentally “impure”. 

Why is Desire “Impure”?

Why is it impure? Because desire implies value; he is “special”, above others, and her compassion is no longer quite as undifferentiated as it was. And value implies the potential for an exchange of value - a transactionality that is at odds with the idea of pure and universal love, which has been essentially her morality up to this moment. She is learning that “love” is perhaps not what she thought it was - that it has the capacity for intimacy and growth and danger and adventure. That compassion and sympathy and diffuse vague benevolence are not love; that love is passionate, focused and discriminatory.

“Those who speak of love most promiscuously are the ones who've never felt it. They make some sort of feeble stew out of sympathy, compassion, contempt and general indifference, and they call it love.  Once you've felt what it means to love as you and I know it - total passion for the total height - you're incapable of anything less." –Ayn Rand

Nonetheless, for these reasons, the Maiden refuses to acknowledge this attraction, and finds the Man’s treatment of her harsh and cruel, because he treats her transactionally, rather than compassionately, expecting her to behave with the self-interest he sees in the “wilds” around him. There is however, an innate fairness to even his mistreatment. The Beast does not manipulatively send her father to an asylum to have him out of the way, the way Gaston does; he imprisons her father “justly” - for trespassing. He accepts Belle as an exchange when she offers; harshly insisting on transaction and refusing the opportunity to be charitable (in keeping with the law of the wilds), but nonetheless fair and direct.

The journey then progresses because her beauty and goodness captivate the Man. He gazes upon her and is struck by her inner beauty (which just happens to be outwardly visible). Any man who has been captivated only by her outer beauty, her lands or wealth, has been rejected as further evidence of her Purity until now. But the Man is struck specifically by the extraordinary unconditionality of her love; because he sees it directed at others, and also feels it directed at him, despite his numerous flaws, or his beastly nature. If he can inspire her to love him preferentially, he will be “worthy”, he will be selected by Mother Nature, he will have transcended his flaws.

The Maiden struggles to accept the man’s flaws, however, and especially the transactionality of the “law of the jungle”. The same characteristics that allow him to dominate the unknown, the wilds, that thereby offer her the protection she wants, she nonetheless struggles to accept. But that struggle is precisely the struggle that keeps her bound to her father’s protection, conformity to society, over the difficulty of accepting the dangers of navigating the larger world.

She struggles with the fact that she sees him as “special” (and that he sees her as special). Despite her own inner “Purity”, she has until now insisted on the illusion that she is nothing special, that her compassion, beauty, etc.  is “natural”, not extraordinary. Her attraction to the Man, finding him “special”, challenges her Purity - the universal, undifferentiated compassion that has until now formed the basis of her value system. It forces her to consider that he (and she) may be special.

It is for this reason that a man perceiving a woman as “special” is the root of all romance. Flowers or gifts, protestations of love, violations of social convention (like loud boomboxes in the middle of the night), are all means of communicating to her that he sees her “specialness”. The loss of romance in long-term relationships comes from the man losing sight of that within the context of familiarity, or failing to communicate it.

In any case, when the Maiden realizes that she is special, she concurrently realizes that she cannot merely expect the world to have compassion and kindness as its natural way of being, that the world outside the sphere of her father’s protection is hard and transactional, and wants to take from her, and to which she is susceptible and vulnerable because of her expectation of universal compassion. 

The world wants to take from her, because she has value, and to hold off the world, she needs power. At first, mimicking her upbringing, she seeks the power of the Man. Later, as the Goddess of Love, she comes fully into her own power.

But, for now, accepting the idea of hierarchical values requires accepting a morality beyond the vague “people should be kind and compassionate and nice” that has formed her worldview as a child in the circle of her father’s protection. Values are formed in response to desire - and she now has desires of her own; to be free, to be safe, to be loved and seen as special. 

These desires have been created subconsciously, arising one from the other, and now challenge her entire worldview. She is consciously forced to the recognition of wanting the Man above all others, and subconsciously recognizing that part of her desire for him is the desire for what he offers (protection, safety, freedom, love). This is a step in the direction of power, navigating the exchange of values, navigating the transactions and defending from those who would take rather than exchange.

At the same time, the Man is inspired by the Maiden to take a step in the direction of non-transactionality. He begins to make sacrifices on her behalf. Small, then growing. At first he might have made those sacrifices in a transactional way, but now he begins to make them as gifts. He begins to tame (only in regards to her) the way he approaches interactions - to civilize. Regarding the world, he knows that he can only have what he has the value to transact, or the strength to take. But in regards to her, he begins to believe in something else; something purer - a gift without expectation of return, because the happiness of the other is its own return. He begins, in other words, to believe in true love.

And as a result, the two begin to see each other differently. She accepts and admires his strength, because she herself now has the desire to be protected; she accepts and admires even his transactionality because she herself now has things she values. He accepts and admires her non-transactionality, the power that it has to change and inspire him and others; he begins to feel the power of her accepting him - the transcendence over his flaws that is implied by her acceptance.

Belle: There's something sweet, and almost kind

But he was mean and he was coarse and unrefined

And now he's dear, and so unsure

I wonder why I didn't see it there before

Beast: She glanced this way, I thought I saw

And when we touched, she didn't shudder at my paw

No, it can't be, I'll just ignore

But then she's never looked at me that way before

Belle: New, and a bit alarming

Who'd have ever thought that this could be?

True, that he's no Prince Charming

But there's something in him that I simply didn't see

The Beast also ultimately sacrifices his own needs for Belle to go take care of her father, and this sacrificiality is important, because it shows that his love has become non-transactional. This grows out of smaller sacrifices, becoming less wild, more civilized, to relate to her. From that non-transactionality, she is able to accept his wildness, his coarseness. 

The Maiden’s Journey is fundamentally about learning to accept what was previously unacceptable. By accepting the Beast’s beastly nature, she is able to love him, and be loved in return. Through that love, she gains access to the larger world she always dreamed of, in the shelter of his (less-oppressive) protection. Her loving acceptance catalyzes his transcendence and she learns of the power she really has inside her, the capacity of her acceptance to raise the status of its recipient. She is transformed into the fertile Goddess of Love.

Through that acceptance, she merges the sacred and the profane inside her, overcomes her disgust reflex, and widens her character to include both the higher and the lower, the pure and the impure, the human spirit and the human animal. “Less than the Gods, more than the beasts, and yet somehow also both.”

Underlying this integrated “both/and” Maiden is the Shadow - the Madonna/Whore duality (or, in the masculine, the Saint/filthy). That is, the Madonna never overcomes her inner sexual Purity, and the Whore loses it completely, so neither integrates purity and impurity into a whole that is pushed by desires to create values.

Visual Schema:

Verbal Schema: As the Maiden develops Desires, she overcomes the Madonna and the Whore inside herself, and through greater Acceptance (of the profane), she overcomes the urge for mere Purity. Another way of considering this is that the Madonna overuses innocence/purity, and the Whore cannot use it, so it is used against her.

Just as the Hero grows into adulthood by accepting the responsibility of masculine powers, so the Maiden grows into adulthood by accepting the responsibility of feminine powers - to use her feminine, sexual, appeal to inspire the urge for civilized behavior in men. In accepting her own impurity, she can civilize the impure urges of men by inspiring in them a pure Love.

In kink, these roles can be enacted with the dominant assuming an air of purity, often chastising or righteously punishing the submissive, who is consumed by the filth of her whorish sexual desires. By enacting the Saint-Madonna/filthy-whore roles, we can integrate the Maiden, and prevent ourselves from being trapped by an unending black-and-white innocence that denies, ignores, or hides from the nuances of the problems of the world and is thus unable to solve them. We also escape from undirected compassion and obsession with scrupulous righteousness that leads to a self-righteous sense of moral superiority.

Shadows

I will end each section on the Archetypes with this reminder about “The Shadow”, because it is absolutely crucial for understanding the functioning of the archetypes I’m discussing.

On the nature of Shadows.

The author Ursula K. LeGuin, whose writings show a deep understanding about the nature of these archetypes and their functions, has written and commented a great deal on these topics, far more powerfully and thoroughly than I. If I could include the entire text of A Wizard of Earthsea here, I would (and “The Child and the Shadow”, while I’m at it). But, I shall content myself with a few quotes:

“To light a candle is to cast a shadow.” 

“Unadmitted to consciousness, the shadow is projected outward, onto others. There’s nothing wrong with me—it’s them. I’m not a monster. Other people are monsters….”

“The great fantasies, myths, and tales are indeed like dreams: they speak from the unconscious to the unconscious, in the language of the unconscious—symbol and archetype. Though they use words, they work the way music does: they short-circuit verbal reasoning, and go straight to the thoughts that lie too deep to utter….”

The Shadow is not a negative thing. The Persona is not a negative thing. They balance each other. No good could be done in the world if we lacked capacity to suppress our instincts for the sake of others. No kindness, no compassion, no promises, no order. All would be a chaos of true individual competition and the species would not last long. But, in creating the Persona, we also create the Shadow. The Shadow contains our lusts, greed, and rage, sadness, fear of death. It is a vital source of creativity, that spurs us to create things that do not yet exist, to imagine a future greater than our present, to enact change, to grow, to reproduce not only our genes but our ideas as well. In order to do anything, to be anything, we must cast a shadow. But we must be aware and cautious of the shadows we cast.

“Your unconscious mind is not a sink of horror and depravity. That's a Victorian notion, and a terrifically destructive one. It crippled most of the best minds of the nineteenth century, and hamstrung psychology all through the first half of the twentieth. Don't be afraid of your unconscious mind! It's not a black pit of nightmares. Nothing of the kind! It is the wellspring of health, imagination, creativity.” --Ursula K. LeGuin

In particular those of us captivated by wanting to be “good” would do well to remember:

[T]he shadow stands on the threshold. We can let it bar the way to the creative depths of the unconscious, or we can let it lead us to them. For the shadow is not simply evil. It is inferior, primitive, awkward, animal like, childlike; powerful, vital, spontaneous. It’s not weak and decent, like the learned young man from the North; it’s dark and hairy and unseemly; but, without it, the person is nothing. What is a body that casts no shadow? Nothing, a formlessness, two-dimensional, a comic-strip character. The person who denies his own profound relationship with evil denies his own reality. He cannot do, or make; he can only undo, unmake. --Ursula K. LeGuin

Taking it Deeper is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Because, like the King archetype for men, the Mother archetype is the central adult archetype, we will begin there.

Transitioning into motherhood, a woman’s body undergoes profound changes. Even medically, we know that the immune system of a pregnant woman is different. Her blood flow and blood volume is different. Her heart rate, metabolism, all of it changes. And yet, it is the completion and fulfillment of a cycle that started with her adolescent archetypes. 

Taking it Deeper is a reader-supported publication. Consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

It has been said that in many ways, a woman’s nervous system after puberty is not tuned to herself as an individual, but to the dyad of herself and a future infant. The notable increase in her sensitivity to negative emotion, tendency to worry, perception of sexual and physical vulnerability are not only a response to the increasing strength and sex drive of men around her, that is now directed at her, but deep in her unconscious, the vulnerability includes the echo of her future infant. 

She perceives that she is smaller and weaker than men, and intuits that she requires some male protection. But when she actually becomes pregnant, and her body is consumed with the task of creating life; she is more vulnerable physically than she has ever been. When she gives birth, her infant is helpless and exposed to the world, and she perceives even more fully the need for care, protection, and help, and the vulnerability of her and her infant is deeply felt. 

“I'm currently pregnant and had a vivid dream which told me to embrace feminine YIN energy.  Upon further research, I found that yin energy is characterized as dark, retreating, weak, cold and passive.

My body requires of me now that I embrace this energy.  I can't carry heavy things.  I can't walk fast.  I can't ride my bike very far.  I must move slow.  I must ask for help.  Although it was painful to my ego, I had to embrace my newfound weakness.

But in doing so, I am enabled to take on an incredible role.  I am not just one person, I'm two people.  I need help because I am growing another.  My body knows how to do this, even though I have no idea how it's happening.  My child kicks me when I sleep in a position it doesn't like.  I listen to myself and also to the person inside me, who requires me to rest more and slow down.

And when people offer help to me because of my current incapacity, it brings them such joy!  I've seen crabby coworkers light up as soon as they realize I'm pregnant.  People's faces sincerely brighten.  Everyone is excited for this project me and my body are embarking on and they want to help however they can.

So in that way, embracing weakness has opened so many doors for me.  I am no longer the main character in my own life.  There is another.  And those around me are reaching out to help hold me up.  It's wonderful.

Not sure exactly if this helps you but as women, embracing weakness can open new doors to other kinds of beautiful relations with the people around you.“ —Reddit User

Motherhood thus completes the archetypal cycle of growth that has been brewing since adolescence. The Maiden has to contend with her Desire for a man who is powerful enough to live outside the small world of her father. She recognizes her sexual vulnerability and is drawn toward protective strength. The Goddess recognizes her power to affect others, to pull them to her. The Wife is filled with the purpose of creating a nest for her family; to live not just for herself, but to find meaning in taking responsibility for others. And the Mother then incorporates all of these into pursuing and fulfilling the deepest of biological purposes.

Just as women are higher on average in neuroticism (sensitivity to negative emotion), they are also higher in compassion. The combination of these personality traits, tuned to the needs of a helpless infant, forms the archetype of the Mother. An infant needs a Mother who fully suborns her will to care for it, who can respond through compassion and empathy to needs that cannot be verbally expressed, and who can protect it from harm by being acutely attuned to negative possibilities. This blend of intense compassion and intense anxiety forms the Mother archetype. 

The Shadow of the Mother can be seen in allowing anxiety to cause her to exceed the limits of appropriate compassion or protectiveness, leading toward an over-controlling attempt to keep the child in stasis as a child. As the child matures toward adolescence and maturity, the Mother’s role is gradually worn away, and the attempt to maintain a hold on that role of caregiving and protection leads to an attempt to enforce helplessness (Rapunzel) or stasis (Sleeping Beauty) on the adolescent or near-adult. 

Moreover, as the child becomes more independent, and moves into adolescence, the Mother is confronted with the realization of her child’s shadow - the child is no longer an innocent, but has rage, and lust of his or her own, and in his own right, can do evil.

“The psychological analysis of any normal development will make it clear that, if he is to grow up, it is not merely unavoidable but actually essential that the individual should do and assimilate a certain amount of evil, and that he should be able to overcome the conflicts involved in this process. The achievement of independence involves the capacity of the ego not only to adopt the values of the collective but also to secure the fulfillment of those needs of the individual which run counter to collective values – and this entails doing evil.” --Erich Neumann

The Mother archetype thus has the following Visual Schema:

Verbal Schema: As the Mother develops in Letting Go, she overcomes the Evil Queen and the Helpless Princess inside herself, and through greater Boundaries, overcomes the urge for mere Protectiveness. Another way of considering this is that the Evil Queen overuses protectiveness, and the Helpless Princess cannot use it, so it is used against her.

The greater Love, as also often seen, is to learn to let go. Failing to do so results in the child being “devoured”, as with Norman Bates. But the integrated Mother, in creating boundaries for her protective impulses, lets go of control, of the ability to shield, and indeed, her own archetypal role as Mother, allowing the child space to take risks, and thereby to grow, flourish, and engage his or her own Hero’s Journey.

In playing the Shadow of these roles, dominant and submissive can cope with that change in a disassociated psychodrama, enacting those processes of over-control and helplessness. This archetype is most commonly associated with bondage - the sub takes on a situation of being helplessly bound, trapped, and thus controlled, and subject to the dominant’s desires. Interestingly, the idea of a dominant doing something that makes the sub exclaim “that’s so evil” in discussion afterward is, perhaps, a reference to this dynamic. Importantly here, the sub’s experience of helplessness is the driving action. In a very real way, the Dom must do things that are “evil”, or the sub will not feel her bound-ness. The need for the sub to feel helpless drives the action of both parties here, just as in the preceding sections, the need for the Dom to feel tyrannical drove the actions of both parties.

We can also see once again why these archetypes are traditionally considered to be gendered. The Mother is our most common experience of these psychological challenges and Shadows, and the archetype of the Mother is feminine. Concordantly, it is the submissive side of the Shadow archetype that drives the action. However, if we consider further, we can also see how the archetypes are all human, and can easily cross the overt gender norm, while still retaining their essential gendered-ness. 

Although one partner may be enacting the archetype of the Mother, both Dom and sub are wrestling with the question of how much protection we can truly give to those we love before that impulse itself is stiflingly harmful. Men and women alike face this question regarding older parents. Should they be placed (often over their objections) in a nursing home? Or should the risk of falls, pain, theft, and death be allowed in the name of independence? How much Mother-ing should we permit? Should we take in our narcotic-addicted friend, lover, brother off the street? Or is any protection equivalent to facilitation by preventing them from “hitting bottom”? By integrating the Mother, we strive to avoid the pitfalls of the hubris of caretaking, and the tyranny of over-protection.

Taking it Deeper is a reader-supported publication. Consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Persona Fatigue

This is actually a good point to follow another train of thought. I have come to believe that the kink impulse to enact these archetypes also represents a kind of “moral fatigue”, or “persona fatigue”, which we experience in everyday life. We all are called on to be the Wise King - to do what is right, to uphold a moral standard. We are called to be the Mother, the Caregiver, and to balance our empathetic urge to assist and protect with the need to allow growth, struggle, to allow our loved ones to live and make their own mistakes, while we strain with the worry over their welfare. 

We learn and study, and yet we must convince others that we know what we’re doing, instead of just manipulating them into doing what we know should be done. We restrain our violence, we inhibit our sensuality, all in the name of being “better”. But there is, I believe, a fatigue in this. 

There is a sense of holding myself too tightly leashed, and within that, a desire to relax the hold I maintain on my impulses and just give in. To be the Tyrant, the Addict, the Sadist; to be over-controlling, over-protective, to exploit ruthlessly for my own benefit, to uphold my pride by unrepentantly degrading another and seeing her grovel before me. We feel the power in the Shadow, and restraining it takes a great deal of work. Rather than letting it slip out by mistake, projecting it upon an unsuspecting customer, co-worker, spouse, child, or parent, instead, through kink, we give the Shadow room to speak. Using the libidinous native language of the Shadow, we make play of the work of integration. As well we should - play is a key method by which human beings optimally learn (we become intimate with the unknown - in that intimate space of “Self”, we are maximally ready for the dynamic changes of growth and learning).

As Frost says:

“Only where love and need are one,

And the work is play for mortal stakes,

Is the deed ever really done

For heaven and the future’s sakes.”

So, onward to the other female archetypes. In investigating these, I found a dearth of information or coherent opinions. Perhaps in keeping with the theme, the available exposition was chaotic at best. I expect that my comments will draw ire from various sources - so my admonition is this: feel free to criticize, but if you can, criticize and then replace. To riff on LeGuin above, don’t just unmake, don’t just undo.

Taking it Deeper - Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Why am I using she/her for the submissive role? I’ve already discussed that at length in the introduction, so here’s a link to that:

However, it becomes even more important as we discuss the topic of the “gendered-ness” of the archetypes. So far, I’ve gone through 4 of the masculine archetypes. And next week we will start on the feminine archetypes.

But why are some archetypes gendered? Why are other archetypes non-gendered (for instance, predator/prey archetypes are non-gendered, there aren’t large differences between the mythology of hunter and huntress archetypes)?

Gender and Polarity

Even more strangely, the masculine archetypes clearly can apply to women: Women too need a Warrior energy, a King energy, and a Magician, as well as a Lover.

A female submissive may choose to take on the passive pole of the masculine archetypes, being the Weakling, the Masochist, the Innocent, and the Denied Lover, but these could equally be male submissives taking on those roles. And regardless of gender and polarity, the intent of taking on the shadow form is to promote full integration, not to live in the shadow.

Our society has developed a pervasive confusion between the concepts of “archetype” and “stereotype”;

Taking it Deeper is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

I have not found any particular reason why some people seem to have a preference for one role over another. It may be as simple as habit, it could be something innate, it could be a reflection of gendered tendencies to compassion, activity, or empathy, or it could reflect some other process. Switches seem comfortable confronting the shadow in either role, but interestingly often seem to express a need for both roles, in a way that those who identify purely as dominants or submissives do not. This to me indicates that the choice of which pole is preferred is not only a matter of chance, but reflective of deeper needs, since those who enjoy both do not consider them interchangeable. This is an area where further exploration should be engaged.

Similar variances are seen in the relatively rare Dom/masochists, or service-tops. These are statistically less common, because it appears that most people choose a “global” tendency toward the active or passive side of the Shadow. But such is not necessary. I do not understand the forces that push a person towards one side of the Shadow or the other, to what degree globally vs specifically, and to what degree consistently over time.

The closest thing I have found to an exploration of this is the somewhat oblique paper “Dominant–submissive behavior as models of mania and depression”. Specifically, this quote from the abstract was extremely tantalizing:

“drugs used to treat mania inhibit the dominant behavior of rats gaining access to food at the expense of an opponent (Reduction of Dominant Behavior Model or RDBM), whereas antidepressants counteract the behavior of rats losing such encounters; Reduction of Submissive Behavior Model (RSBM).”

Again, these are merely rat models, and crude ones at that, but it is interesting that the “dominant” urge is driven by some kind of “hyperactivity”, or “mania”, whereas submissive behavior is driven by a “depressive” mode. This correlates in a rough way to a preference for the “Active” Shadow (tyrant, sadist, etc.), vs the “Passive” Shadow (weakling, masochist, etc.). It may also explain (like ambiverts) why some people swing from one side to the other, depending on other factors, like stress or energy levels. Intriguing, but certainly not definitive.

But why then are some archetypes considered “masculine” and others “feminine”? Because, specifically, they are archetypes, and therefore represent our unconscious perceptions of the concept as a whole.

Our society has developed a pervasive confusion between the concepts of “archetype” and “stereotype”; our striving for egalitarianism sometimes crosses the boundaries of scientific observation and common sense.

Taking the Warrior as an example, it’s easy to see. Despite that, on average, men and women do not have a tremendous difference in aggressiveness, the most aggressive person out of a thousand is inevitably male. Thus, the archetype of aggression is male.

The same is true of broad dominance (enforcing order) in general - the King archetype. Exact statistics differ, but almost all agree that the number of dominant men far exceeds the number of dominant women (Links: Here, and Here).

Along similar lines, most of the male archetypes are concerned with achieving enough status, enough development, to be chosen by women as mates, and then to guide, order, protect and nurture society, including children, thereafter. Specifically and importantly, this is driven by preferentially pursuing a high-risk/high-reward set of strategies. Culture here is mimicking biology. The male infant death rate is higher, the male infant mutation rate is higher (largely due to the higher mutation rate in sperm vs eggs). IQ seems to display increased male variability. And for every male CEO, there are 10 men who are criminals, prisoners, homeless, or dead. Understanding this preference for high-risk/high-reward (which is ultimately the same as having a wider, flatter bell curve) is easily seen by analysis of male and female dating strategies on online platforms like tinder.

Female archetypes, by contrast, are more often pulled directly by archetypes that focus on children, in one form or another - selecting a mate, mating, carrying a child, birthing, caring for an infant, caring for a child, or advising younger men and women on that process. Once again, culture mimics biology (for good or ill). There is some interplay among the male and female archetypes as well, as we see in many films or books, the Father cautioning the Mother against overprotection.

Feminine Archetypes

So, let us consider the traditionally female archetypes, with the understanding that males have and need these archetypes as well, but the archetypes are feminine insofar as the archetypal image in the collective unconscious is feminine (just like the Warrior/Aggression and King/Power archetypes are masculine). The feminine archetypes are the Maiden, the Goddess of Love, the Wife, the Mother, and the Crone.

Next week we will consider the first feminine archetype, the central archetype, the Mother. This is also called the Caregiver archetype, and examples of both the Mother / Caregiver and her Shadow abound in film and books. From the Evil Stepmother of Cinderella to Norman Bates’ Mother in Psycho, we see the dark side of the Mother.

But before that, let us consider the feminine archetypes as a whole - they contain within them a rhythm of change that is different from the masculine archetypes, and it is useful to compare the differences. Women mature biologically faster than men, and the biological seasons of childbearing dictate a series of passages and changes that men do not experience. As LeGuin writes,

“Men call women faithless, changeable, and though they say it in jealousy of their own ever-threatened sexual honor, there is some truth in it. We can change our life, our being; no matter what our will is, we are changed. As the moon changes yet is one, so we are virgin, wife, mother, grandmother. For all their restlessness, men are who they are; once they put on the man's toga they will not change again; so they make a virtue of that rigidity and resist whatever might soften it and set them free.” - Ursula K. LeGuin

Although men pursue growth in the major areas of the King, Warrior, Magician and Lover, they can pursue growth in these areas concurrently, over the entire period of their adult prime. The female archetypes, by contrast, have an innate sequence, and thus have a different relationship with each other.

Feminine Failure to Progress

Some of the common tropes of the female archetypes hang on not just the Shadow of the archetype, but the failure to transition to the next archetype in progression. We see this in the Evil Queen of Snow White, for instance, who insists on remaining forever “the fairest”. In this, she is seeking to avoid transitioning to the Crone archetype, and attempting to remain as the Mother/Goddess of Love. In some sense, then, each archetype in itself can be considered a kind of Shadow of the next archetype in sequence.

The “progression” of women through the archetypes is not a progression of replacement … The Wife still contains within her the Goddess of Love, and the Mother still contains the Wife

The “progression” of women through the archetypes is not a progression of replacement, however. The Wife still contains within her the Goddess of Love, and the Mother still contains the Wife. But, having progressed to include the next archetype, the individual no longer identifies as strongly with the previous archetype because her identity has been expanded. There is a degree of loss in this, and some mourning.

As we will see, being overly preoccupied with the adolescent archetypes, the mourning of lost innocence is rather a cultural theme. It is, at times, difficult to remember that those losses are necessary for growth and progress, and that we gain more than we lose.

For men, the entire adult experience culminates and contributes to the development of the King archetype…

By contrast, women move sequentially through the feminine archetypes, each one expanding and adding onto the one before, but each transition also leaves a bit of the previous one behind.

I have tried to draw these carefully - the adolescent forms are circular, the adult forms are triangular.

For men, the entire adult experience culminates and contributes to the development of the King archetype. Development of the Warrior, Magician and Lover are necessary for full expression of the King archetype, but the single overriding adult archetypal drive is the establishment of his kingdom and maintenance of “right order” within that kingdom. A man throughout his adult life cultivates these 4 archetypes, ideally keeping them balanced so as to have a fully mature Wise-King/Father archetype.

By contrast, women move sequentially through the feminine archetypes, each one expanding and adding onto the one before, but each transition also leaves a bit of the previous one behind. Thus, each transition is both an expansion and a loss, bringing both joy and uncertainty in the expansion and both relief and grief in the loss.

Moving from the Maiden to the Goddess, there is a loss of innocence, but a gain of individuality. From Goddess of Love to Wife, there is a loss of freedom, but a gain of stability and meaning. From Wife to Mother, there is a loss of peace of mind, but a gain in love, and from Mother to Crone there is a loss of youth and beauty, but a gain in wisdom and contentment.

Notice however, that the Maiden is never completely left behind in a woman’s life; but the transition from Maiden to Goddess of Love is still largely encompassed by the identity of the Maiden. Transitioning from Goddess to Wife, the first fully adult archetype, she gains the rights and depth of adulthood, but also loses some of the carefree aspects of childhood.

The Mother archetype is the first time that the woman’s identity is less than 50% Maiden, and therein is a loss of youthfulness, but it is also a time where she produces a child of her own, a profound experience that requires her to embrace the fullness of both her feminine vulnerability and her strength, and provides a deep biological fulfillment. And the wisdom of the Crone includes knowledge of all of the archetypes, both male and female, and the purpose of guiding younger women through these transitions.

Next week, we will begin to explore the Mother archetype and the kinky expressions of that psychology.

Taking it Deeper - Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

“All Fours” - 

On all fours, hands or elbows under shoulders. Legs spread to the same distance as when being fucked (wider than you think), feet apart, pelvis tilted back as far as possible to display pussy, encouraging her owner to enjoy her pussy both visually and physically.

Make sure you get access to all of the excerpts from the Training Manual by becoming a paid subscriber.

Head is up, mouth slightly open, rapidly available to accept my cock should I choose to enjoy her mouth.

Purpose and mental frame

This is the most flexible position, and her awareness is also most flexible here. She is ready to be penetrated orally, vaginally or anally; she is ready to be spanked, choked, or have her hair pulled. She is aware of her tits hanging down and her pussy open and available. 

Her verbal responses generally should be kept short, expecting that her body will be used in some way soon.

Elbows option -

If her dominant is behind her or to her side, she has the option to go down on her elbows, so she can display her pussy more easily. If her dominant moves in front of her, she should immediately rise up to her hands again, so her mouth is readily available at the correct height.

In this variation of the all fours position, her chest should be lowered by arching her back, so that her tits, or at least her nipples, are touching or resting on the underlying surface.

Movement

In this position, she may roll her hips or sway her ass from side to side to provide more visual pleasure for Daddy. By doing so, she should be aware that she is (politely) begging for her owner's cock. If she speaks, her words should match the implication of those actions.

Taking it Deeper is a reader-supported publication. Future excerpts from the training manual will only be available to paid Subscribers.

Just as the King and Warrior are seen in mythology, film, art, and literature, the Magician is also a common trope. From Yoda to Gandalf, we see this character pop up as the mentor of the “Hero’s Journey”.

But the evolution of the magician can also be seen in characters that move from naive to knowledge to wisdom. Harry Potter has this arc to a degree, particularly in his impulses to misuse knowledge (though Ursula K. LeGuin’s Ged far outshines this series); the House of Slytherin itself and Voldemort represent the shadow use of Knowledge for manipulation and power.

Taking it Deeper - Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Dumbledore is a classic example of the fully integrated Magician Archetype, incorporating both manipulation and innocence, using a tremendous amount of learning, but not being “captivated” by only learning for the sake of learning, but using it to mentor others, and to wisely apply the learning to wise goals. 

Visual Schema:

Verbal Schema: As the Magician develops in his desire to Mentor, he overcomes the Manipulator and the Innocent inside himself, and through greater Wisdom, overcomes the urge for mere Learning. Another way of considering this is that the Manipulator overuses learning, and the Naive cannot use it, so it is used against him.

The danger of learning and knowledge is the impulse that “I know best”, and to “enforce” one’s view of the world through manipulation or deceit, including withholding information, rather than using wisdom to guide others to grow in their own way. Obi-Wan Kenobi falls prey to the Shadow of the Magician with his “certain point of view”, and although he is redeemed in the end, it falls to Yoda to teach young Luke. Jafar, in Aladdin, is another example of the Magician’s Shadow.

I need hardly comment on the kink aspects of “Slave Jasmine” and Jafar’s controlling (erotic) hypnotism.

However, the Magician can also evolve in kink through something as simple as a blindfold.

When my sub  is deprived of sight, I know more than she does. Because I am planning the scene, I am manipulating and guiding her experience, while she is taken along for the ride (no pun intended). On a deeper level, it is created by the fact that the dominant has often planned the scene, but the details of the scene are unknown to the submissive. Again, the difference in knowledge allows inhabitation of these shadow roles.

Outside of kink, we see the challenge of leading wisely whenever we have more information than another person. Rather than using that knowledge manipulatively, to choose to teach instead. Rather than avoiding knowledge to maintain the comfortable denial of the innocent, instead to embrace the challenges that come with increasing knowledge, and to use that knowledge with wisdom.

This also frames some of the deepest abuse potential in kink - to gaslight, to manipulate with ill intent. A sub who is captivated by the Magician’s Shadow may claim she is too innocent and naive to bear the weight of expectations, or weaponize incompetence. A Dom who is captivated by the Shadow may manipulate the sub into harming herself for his benefit, or to traverse her limits, applying his control unwisely or selfishly.

Shadows

I will end each section on the Archetypes with this reminder about “The Shadow”, because it is absolutely crucial for understanding the functioning of the archetypes I’m discussing.

On the nature of Shadows.

The author Ursula K. LeGuin, whose writings show a deep understanding about the nature of these archetypes and their functions, has written and commented a great deal on these topics, far more powerfully and thoroughly than I. If I could include the entire text of A Wizard of Earthsea here, I would (and “The Child and the Shadow”, while I’m at it). But, I shall content myself with a few quotes:

“To light a candle is to cast a shadow.” 

“Unadmitted to consciousness, the shadow is projected outward, onto others. There’s nothing wrong with me—it’s them. I’m not a monster. Other people are monsters….”

“The great fantasies, myths, and tales are indeed like dreams: they speak from the unconscious to the unconscious, in the language of the unconscious—symbol and archetype. Though they use words, they work the way music does: they short-circuit verbal reasoning, and go straight to the thoughts that lie too deep to utter….”

The Shadow is not a negative thing. The Persona is not a negative thing. They balance each other. No good could be done in the world if we lacked capacity to suppress our instincts for the sake of others. No kindness, no compassion, no promises, no order. All would be a chaos of true individual competition and the species would not last long. But, in creating the Persona, we also create the Shadow. The Shadow contains our lusts, greed, and rage, sadness, fear of death. It is a vital source of creativity, that spurs us to create things that do not yet exist, to imagine a future greater than our present, to enact change, to grow, to reproduce not only our genes but our ideas as well. In order to do anything, to be anything, we must cast a shadow. But we must be aware and cautious of the shadows we cast.

“Your unconscious mind is not a sink of horror and depravity. That's a Victorian notion, and a terrifically destructive one. It crippled most of the best minds of the nineteenth century, and hamstrung psychology all through the first half of the twentieth. Don't be afraid of your unconscious mind! It's not a black pit of nightmares. Nothing of the kind! It is the wellspring of health, imagination, creativity.” --Ursula K. LeGuin

In particular those of us captivated by wanting to be “good” would do well to remember:

[T]he shadow stands on the threshold. We can let it bar the way to the creative depths of the unconscious, or we can let it lead us to them. For the shadow is not simply evil. It is inferior, primitive, awkward, animal like, childlike; powerful, vital, spontaneous. It’s not weak and decent, like the learned young man from the North; it’s dark and hairy and unseemly; but, without it, the person is nothing. What is a body that casts no shadow? Nothing, a formlessness, two-dimensional, a comic-strip character. The person who denies his own profound relationship with evil denies his own reality. He cannot do, or make; he can only undo, unmake. --Ursula K. LeGuin

Taking it Deeper - Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Moore claims that our society has become uncomfortable with the Warrior archetype. I suspect this is because we struggle now with the notion of “appropriate violence”. Culturally we would like to think that violence is never appropriate, and put our heads in the sand about what times violence might be the appropriate moral answer to a situation.

As a result, we struggle now with the mythology of the Warrior, because that myth is fundamentally concerned with learning to channel violence correctly. 

Taking it Deeper is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

As you can see, the notion of violence involves both inflicting and receiving pain, but requires discipline to avoid getting out of hand, and physical strength to stimulate the need for discipline (if one is too weak, the weakness prevents inflicting pain, whereas for the strong, discipline is needed). 

Visual Schema:

Verbal Schema: As the Warrior develops in physical prowess (skill, strength), he overcomes the Sadist and Masochist in himself, and through greater Discipline overcomes the urge for mere Violence. The Sadist overuses violence, and the masochist cannot use it, so it is used against him.

Simple examples are Rocky, or any martial arts movie training montage. More complex examples are the Hulk or Wolverine struggling to contain the aggression inside themselves.

Consider the irresponsible 50 Shades of Grey, or a predilection for “rough sex”; those arise from a suppressed Warrior archetype, since they pursue the experience of force, but without the context of self-discipline. Some of the societal discomfort with BDSM’s engagement with the Shadow can be seen in the reactions to the sadistic/masochistic portions of BDSM (although that is nothing compared to the social discomfort in response to mental/emotional sadomasochism of the feminine archetypes). 

Outside of kink, we find the warrior energy in any moment that requires us to grit our way through a situation, to apply force, whether physical, mental, or spiritual, in order to accomplish our goals. Whether it’s at work, when a tight deadline requires us to embrace the masochism of hustle culture, or in a friendship where we need the discipline to grind our way through a tough argument instead of losing our temper (or the wisdom to know that now is exactly the time to lose our temper), or even in healthcare where we need to cut a patient, in order to heal them. The Warrior Archetype allows us to avoid losing ourselves in either giving or receiving pain, but instead to embrace those processes with self-discipline, and move toward our goals.

Of course, as always, the danger of “captivation” threatens. Outright physical abuse is an obvious manifestation of being captivated by the Warrior’s Shadow, but we can also see it in the glorification of the masochism in perpetual (not temporary, goal directed) hustle culture. We can see it as well in the emotional disconnect that comes from thinking we should never ever lose our temper, or the thought that it’s ok to be unkind; framing it as “brutal honesty”, because you’re “just making them stronger”. Being captivated by the Warrior leads to uncontrolled, undisciplined, unwise aggression, towards oneself, or others, in various ways.

It is also worth noting that the King’s dominance energy is present, in some form, in almost every romantic comedy ever made. By contrast, only action movies truly depict the warrior. 

We can also see the need for the Warrior’s contribution to the development of the King, since in order to carve out and maintain his Kingdom, the King must have the strength, discipline, and capacity for aggression of the Warrior. Furthermore, the Warrior assists the King in nurturing physical strength and health for those in his domain.

Shadows

I will end each section on the Archetypes with this reminder about “The Shadow”, because it is absolutely crucial for understanding the functioning of the archetypes I’m discussing.

On the nature of Shadows.

The author Ursula K. LeGuin, whose writings show a deep understanding about the nature of these archetypes and their functions, has written and commented a great deal on these topics, far more powerfully and thoroughly than I. If I could include the entire text of A Wizard of Earthsea here, I would (and “The Child and the Shadow”, while I’m at it). But, I shall content myself with a few quotes:

“To light a candle is to cast a shadow.” 

“Unadmitted to consciousness, the shadow is projected outward, onto others. There’s nothing wrong with me—it’s them. I’m not a monster. Other people are monsters….”

“The great fantasies, myths, and tales are indeed like dreams: they speak from the unconscious to the unconscious, in the language of the unconscious—symbol and archetype. Though they use words, they work the way music does: they short-circuit verbal reasoning, and go straight to the thoughts that lie too deep to utter….”

The Shadow is not a negative thing. The Persona is not a negative thing. They balance each other. No good could be done in the world if we lacked capacity to suppress our instincts for the sake of others. No kindness, no compassion, no promises, no order. All would be a chaos of true individual competition and the species would not last long. But, in creating the Persona, we also create the Shadow. The Shadow contains our lusts, greed, and rage, sadness, fear of death. It is a vital source of creativity, that spurs us to create things that do not yet exist, to imagine a future greater than our present, to enact change, to grow, to reproduce not only our genes but our ideas as well. In order to do anything, to be anything, we must cast a shadow. But we must be aware and cautious of the shadows we cast.

“Your unconscious mind is not a sink of horror and depravity. That's a Victorian notion, and a terrifically destructive one. It crippled most of the best minds of the nineteenth century, and hamstrung psychology all through the first half of the twentieth. Don't be afraid of your unconscious mind! It's not a black pit of nightmares. Nothing of the kind! It is the wellspring of health, imagination, creativity.” --Ursula K. LeGuin

In particular those of us captivated by wanting to be “good” would do well to remember:

[T]he shadow stands on the threshold. We can let it bar the way to the creative depths of the unconscious, or we can let it lead us to them. For the shadow is not simply evil. It is inferior, primitive, awkward, animal like, childlike; powerful, vital, spontaneous. It’s not weak and decent, like the learned young man from the North; it’s dark and hairy and unseemly; but, without it, the person is nothing. What is a body that casts no shadow? Nothing, a formlessness, two-dimensional, a comic-strip character. The person who denies his own profound relationship with evil denies his own reality. He cannot do, or make; he can only undo, unmake. --Ursula K. LeGuin

Taking it Deeper is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

… what feelings need this kind of expression? Why can’t I just tell my partner about it? Why the urge to act out these scenarios, roles, stories, games? And really, after all, why do children need to play make-believe so seriously?

Today, we will explore the pre-eminent psychological framework to understand this enactment of self-expression, Jungian Psychology. To do that, we will need to go through the basics of Jung’s model of the Self, in order to understand Self-expression.

Taking it Deeper is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

A Jungian Overview

I don’t want to misrepresent Jung’s (complex) ideas, but I do think they provide a foundation of thought that can help us understand the kink impulse and the kink experience. I will briefly give an overview here (at least, as I understand it), and make reference to those ideas at various points. Jung was prolific, and his thoughts complex, so something here is bound to be a misrepresentation. But, we all struggle through as best we can, me no less than others, and perhaps this book will serve its best purpose by giving others something to argue with.

Jung’s ideas … provide a foundation of thought that can help us understand the kink impulse and the kink experience.

In that vein, then, I discuss not only Jung, but relationships in general, in two conflicting and yet complementary ways - meeting needs, and expressing intimacy. I discuss consent and the challenge of balancing the energy in a relationship, especially when interest levels differ within the couple.

Briefly, Jung proposed, in contrast to Freud, that while the ego, or conscious awareness, was the central point of awareness, instead of a superego above and id below, the ego was merely the most conscious portion of a larger “self”, which extended towards an interface with the outer world one the one hand, and an inner world on the other. In interfacing with the outer world, the ego masks the self with a “persona”, which is the mask by which the individual attempts to compromise with society and the world. 

By contrast, as the self extends toward the inner world, it encounters first the personal unconscious, composed of complexes of feelings, including those feelings that have been repressed, ignored, or denied in the process of creating and maintaining the persona, which he called The Shadow. Extending deeper into the inner world, we then encounter the collective unconscious, which contains inherited cultural and (even deeper) biological, evolutionary and spiritual instincts, knowledge, and behavior patterns. 

Jung felt that our experience of the collective unconscious was expressed often in art, stories and myth, and that it provided the emotive power by which art captivates our attention. It is the “truth” of artistic or mythological constructs, which Jung called archetypes. These archetypes are the interface between our personal unconscious and the collective unconscious. 

… that the collective unconscious was expressed often in art, stories and myth, and that it provided the emotive power by which art captivates our attention.

It is the “truth” of artistic or mythological constructs, which Jung called archetypes. These archetypes are the interface between our personal unconscious and the collective unconscious.

Sexual Energy

Another major difference between Jung and Freud was that Jung believed that sexual energy or libido was a generalized source of psychic energy that could motivate a wide range of behaviors, whereas Freud perceived the libido as a psychic energy directed toward specifically sexual gratification. We will see this difference more and more clearly, but it’s actually one of the major differences between kink and “vanilla” sex. Kink has a far wider focus, an engagement with the entire psyche, with one’s fears and dreams, whereas vanilla sex is directed exclusively toward sexual gratification. This difference is one of the major gaps in communication between those who are kinky and those who are not. The latter group look at kink behaviors and think “what’s the point of all that??”; the former look at the latter and think “you’re missing the entire point”. 

This difference is one of the major gaps in communication between those who are kinky and those who are not.

The latter group look at kink behaviors and think “what’s the point of all that??”; the former look at the latter and think “you’re missing the entire point”. 

Similarly, as we’ll discuss elsewhere, this is often why kinky sex isn’t a “moment” - it’s a process, it invades the rest of our lives, and why it can seem like the next sexual encounter starts even before the current one is over.

Jung’s Archetypes

Jung’s four main archetypes were the Persona, previously mentioned, the Shadow, the Anima/Animus, and the Self. The Persona, as a mask worn to conform to society, inevitably is a suppression of that which is “unacceptable”. For a social species, it is also a biological and cultural necessity. As our ego expands out into the outer world of other human beings, the Persona grows. To balance this, we also create and maintain a Shadow - this is the sum total of all the parts of ourselves that we keep hidden from others, and from ourselves. The Anima in men is the archetype of the female that lives within him, and the reverse for women. The Self is the archetype of wholeness, continuity, and integration of multitudes. 

Jung described the path of life as being initially a differentiation of an ego from the undifferentiated “Self” of the newborn, followed in later life by a return to wholeness wherein the ego, Persona, Shadow, and the entire collective unconscious are gradually integrated into the unique Self. Jung called this process (not moment) Self-realization, or “individuation”.

Jung described the path of life as being initially a differentiation of an ego from the undifferentiated (but whole) “Self” of the newborn, followed in later life by a return to wholeness wherein the ego, Persona, Shadow, and the entire collective unconscious are gradually integrated into the unique Self. Jung called this process (not moment) Self-realization, or “individuation”. He felt that the Self was the archetype that allowed continuity through the changes of growth and integration, the base of steady identity from which arises the impulse for realizing our own ideal.

Importantly, our experience of individuation, or growth, involves expanding our consciousness to include the entire “Self”. This in turn is based on our ability to consciously inhabit the archetypes formed at the interface between the Shadow (personal unconscious) and the collective unconscious. 

The Dangers of Captivation

As mentioned above, the archetypes that we need to inhabit will often “captivate” our attention. This can happen with a piece of art, visual or literary, or with a topic, idea, or even a person. That sense of captivation can be damaging, however, if we do not realize that the object of our captivation is only speaking to the need for inner growth. Jung spoke of being “possessed” by the Animus/Anima, as a sense of projecting our archetypal needs onto an object (or a person we are treating as an object), and then remaining fixated on that object, without re-integrating the archetype into our ego.

So, anyway, that’s my understanding of the thing; hopefully I haven’t butchered that too badly, and hopefully it will serve sufficiently for the dialectics I want to discuss. To clarify, I want to give an example of how the process of being possessed and then integrating an archetype might function. 

Suppose I meet a girl. I find her beautiful, and I am captivated by the femininity of her appearance. We talk, and I begin to project upon her the archetype of the feminine that I carry around in my unconscious.

Perhaps she actually matches this archetype quite closely, so the projection gains confirmation (see confirmation bias). I may, if I am not careful and conscious, become “possessed” by the anima, the archetype of the feminine within me. This is something like “infatuation”. But, eventually, her behavior will inevitably divert from my unconscious ideal in a way that I cannot ignore. This deviation shatters the illusion, and I am able to understand that I never really saw her as a person, but merely projected the illusion of the archetype (the ideal Feminine) upon her. As the illusion dissolves, I experience the pain of loss, and a wounding of my personality, insofar as the illusion was something I craved. 

In that pain, I confront the Shadow of the archetype - the negative face of my archetype of the Feminine. And at that moment, I can choose to integrate the archetype, including its shadow, or I can reject the integration and be doomed to repeat the cycle. By choosing integration, I gain greater clarity on the archetype of my individuated Self, and progress toward greater autonomy, identity, and wholeness, while maintaining a sense of continuity through the process of growth and change.

In kink, what captivation looks like is forgetting that the game isn’t fully real. Forgetting your safeword exists, forgetting you’re not actually a slave (or slave owner), forgetting that you are a complete person.

In kink, what captivation looks like is forgetting that the game isn’t fully real. Forgetting your safeword exists, forgetting you’re not actually a slave (or slave owner), forgetting that you are a complete person. In the language we will explore later, it’s forgetting to re-integrate the Shadow - going to live in the Shadow is no better than living in the Persona. It’s not really an adventure if we never come back home. We can’t celebrate the adventure from inside the adventure - we have to have a relational space that’s outside, where we can talk, discuss, debate, critique, and celebrate how the adventure was, and how we’d like the next adventure to be.

Fractal Integration

So… next we consider the idea of a fractal. A fractal is a mathematical construct that has similar appearance and properties at different levels of scale. This, for instance, is a fractal:

As you can see, if you pick out any piece to act as a “stem”, zoom in and rotate, the picture will essentially be the same:

Fractals are a feature of many biological systems, and I think our psychological system may be no different. Jung talked about these concepts (persona, shadow, etc.) on the level of the individual, but I think we can make similar claims about the experience of a pair. That is, any pairing (friend, lover, therapist) can be conceived as a “Self” that has a Persona and a Shadow. And one of the goals of expanding and building that relationship is to fully incorporate and define both the Persona and Shadow into an individuated relationship “Self”.

We may be experiencing a Jungian exploration of our “Shadows” or other unconscious processes in order to enhance intimacy and expand the relationship. There may also be value on an individual level by decoupling our “Self” from our “Persona” and give us an opportunity to re-integrate the parts of our selves that we leave behind in daily life. We will dive more into this in the section on “Intimacy”.

It is interesting to speculate whether similar processes could be occurring on community or political levels. Could different couples embody the shadow of the greater community, and by enacting a psychodrama of conflict, lead to greater unity?

Kink and Integration

Returning to the level of the couple, I suspect that BDSM is helping us to reintegrate parts of ourselves that have been suppressed by “adulting”. By engaging in embodied play, just as children do, we can try on different archetypes to see how they fit. We can wear the King’s crown, or the superhero’s cape and find the King and the hero within us. 

We can see this as some “newbies” begin exploring BDSM - the hesitance they experience is the hesitancy of interacting with parts of their Shadows that they have not well integrated, and they often have also lost touch with (or never had) the “serious play”, the “not quite a game” make-believe of childhood. Re-finding that way of “serious, not silly” play, and re-integrating it into adulthood is a challenge of intimacy (which we will explore later). It feels silly, because silliness is the only form of play we remember. The temptation to break into giggles, or “break frame” is strong at first, because that makes it “just a game”. It allows us to deny the depth of the truth we want to express.

newbies typically aren’t ready to integrate the deepest parts of their Shadows …

It is the self-consciousness of the Persona that prevents them from sinking fully into their “role” … They are still looking at themselves, instead of being themselves.

Even so, newbies typically aren’t ready to integrate the deepest parts of their Shadows right away. The associated feelings of shame, or exhilaration, or “coming home” after their initial forays into kink are likely to be experiences of unsuccessful or successful integrations of the Shadow. And the hesitancy they may feel is the unfamiliarity with this playful, collaborative intimacy, like a tune half-remembered when we hear the music start to play. It is the self-consciousness of the Persona that prevents them from sinking fully into their “role” in the story they are trying to tell. They are still looking at themselves, instead of being themselves. Their “Self” in the Jungian sense is still too identified with their Persona, and not enough with their unconscious truths.

As kink becomes integrated into their Self, however, it is a way of “reconnecting” with those truths, which are now more familiar. Finding the adult version of the childlike make-believe becomes more natural, and can be strongly felt as a “need”, or a necessary thing.

But what, exactly, is being “integrated”? As mentioned previously, the Shadow is composed of complexes of feelings that have been ignored or repressed. These often interface with the collective unconscious and organize around archetypes. Jung expressed that there may be many of these “archetypes”, and for him, 

“the archetype is not meant to denote an inherited idea, but rather an inherited mode of functioning, corresponding to the inborn way in which the chick emerges from the egg, the bird builds its nest, a certain kind of wasp stings the motor ganglion of the caterpillar, and eels find their way to the Bermudas. In other words, it is a ‘pattern of behavior’. This aspect of the archetype, the purely biological one, is the proper concern of scientific psychology.” 

Thus, the archetypes are behavioral; they are embodied; they are actions, roles, feelings, instincts, needs. They are not merely “mental models”, though of course in discussing them here in writing, they are presented that way. In reality, they must be felt, acted, experienced.

But how exactly do we integrate the shadow of an archetype? I propose that the process can be understood in 4 steps (the process is actually much more complex - this is an ultra-simplified model). 

* Accept the reality of the shadow (“I am a dominant, I desire and enjoy having power over another”)

* Embody, live, embrace that desire (active imagination, scene, kink)

* Release excess attachment to that desire, without attempting to release the desire itself (“I’m a dominant, but that’s not all I am, I get to choose how and when that dominance is expressed”).

* Integrate the desire into the rest of our Self. ("My dominance can and does mesh with my other desires/aspects/values").

Taking it Deeper is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

What Archetypes?

But what archetypes exist? We have already discussed some of them; The Self is an archetype - the archetype of wholeness, integration, continuous identity despite change. The Shadow is itself an archetype, representing that which is un-integrated. But, in the collective unconscious, many many other archetypes exist and call to us for our growth and individuation. Each of these archetypes has its full expression, and its own shadows.

Next week, we will discuss a few of these specifically and see how they function.

Quick note: I use specific language throughout my writing, as discussed here:

Specificity vs Inclusivity

One of my deepest beliefs is that language is incredibly powerful. It’s no accident that the monotheistic myths of creation include the idea that God taught Adam “the names of things” (in the Quran), or that Adam “gave names” to all the cattle, etc. (in the Bible). This is why philosophers have debated the definitions of words for thousands of years. 

Taking it Deeper - Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive all my content (including the juicy stuff from Volume 3), please consider subscribing!

We have even seen this in action in more recent memory - before the word-concept of “sexual harassment” existed, there was no way to complain about it, judge, evaluate, or discuss it. We can debate what is sexual harassment and what isn’t, but just having the name gives us a means of gaining power over the concept, as individuals and as a society. 

It is also seen in society when we have cultural conflicts about the use of words, like pronouns, or racial words, or gendered words. We may disagree about any or all of it, but we cannot disagree that words have power. Because words are social and communicative, but also affect our thoughts, debates over words are also inevitably debates over who has control, and attempting to control the thoughts of others is a dangerous path. 

So, I am going to try to spell out some of the language I’ve found useful. I hope you find it useful as well, but I also hope it encourages you to grow your own language. Especially with your partner, present or future. 

1. What is Kink, Anyway?

I originally started exploring this idea in the process of explaining kink to my best friend, who is not kinky, but has been increasingly curious. I feel like the best I've been able to do is to try to combine three separate ideas that point in the direction of kink.

Savoring Intensity

First idea: At some point in the past, somebody thought "Hey, I love coffee, it's really delicious, but what if I brew it at 9 times atmospheric pressure, and concentrate all that flavor into 1/10 of the volume?" That's the intensity part of the kink impulse.

But more important than the intensity itself is the capacity for savoring. The intensity of the experience doesn’t necessarily come from the experience itself, but from our response to the experience; our capacity to dive into a moment, an experience, a flavor or sound or touch. If I were to begin teaching or mentoring a potential dominant, I would begin with food - the capacity to savor food. Wine, or whiskey, coffee or espresso, salad or steak … the point is to pull depth from the experience, to mentally slow down and fully appreciate the entirety of the moment. This capacity for deepening an experience is the first impulse of kink.

The prerequisite for this capacity is an ability to be present in the moment. Later, we’ll see how this is essential for what we’ll call intimacy in general, but the ability to pay attention is critical for learning to pull every bit of experience from a moment.

The consequence of developing this capacity is an appreciation of intensity. When our capacity for appreciation is expanded, more intense flavors become accessible for possible enjoyment. Since the moment is receiving our full attention, we have more processing capacity before a sensation becomes “too much”. 

Perception

Second idea: In Frank Herbert's book Dune, he has a character compare animal and human consciousnesses, saying 

“... animal pleasures remain close to sensation levels and avoid the perceptual.”

Kink certainly involves the sensory, but for the same reason many people, especially children, don't like straight espresso or whiskey (but some adults do), and the same reason animals don’t like spicy peppers (but some humans do), and the same reason some people just have to drive fast, or love rollercoasters, or horror movies, processing more intense sensations/situations requires development of a perceptual overlay that creates pleasure. That capacity to savor is exactly the process by which we develop this ability. Savoring is the act of adding perception onto sensation, thereby creating a layered experience. 

Coffee is bitter, whiskey is sharp, but underneath that bitterness, and that sharpness, is a wealth of rich complexity that can be addictive in its intensity. When we taste coffee, or wine, and try to name the flavors, we are actively adding perception onto sensation. The sensation is what it is, good or bad, pleasant or unpleasant. But dissecting it, pulling apart that moment, forces us to explore the sensation deeply, in order to layer perception on top of it. 

I’m reminded of a dinner I had once. I had just graduated residency, and wanted to celebrate. I drove 3 hours to Chicago, and got a reservation at an expensive restaurant. The waiter came and asked for my drink order. I was driving, so I just wanted a sparkling water. He then told me that they had 3 sparkling waters available. One was moderately mineralized, with a fine bubble; one was heavily mineralized, with a coarse bubble; and one was lightly mineralized, but also had a coarse bubble. And I knew exactly what he was talking about, and I knew exactly which one I wanted to make the meal the best it could be. 

Even water can be dissected, analyzed, perceived. So much more so for coffee, wine, music, and sex. 

If she's tied up and then never has any impulse to move her hands, because I just go down on her in exactly the way she likes, then she won't feel very tied up. 

Within the realm of kinky sex, another way of phrasing the prioritization of perception over sensation is to characterize it as a prioritization of experience over action. If she's tied up and then never has any impulse to move her hands, because I just go down on her in exactly the way she likes, then she won't feel very tied up. 

But if I do anything sudden, or overwhelming, or intense, and she wants to pull away, but can't... All of a sudden, she realizes very viscerally that she's tied up, and begins to experience her tied-up-ness, at which point the hotness begins. The same result can be achieved by excessive teasing, to the point where she wants to take over, push my head/tongue/finger/vibrator to the right spot... But can't...

In such a case, what she wanted was not the sensation of pleasure and orgasm, but the experience of feeling “helpless”. The feeling of struggling and not being able to effect the outcome she wants. She finds it more erotic, more preferable, to experience that struggle, that feeling, than simple sensory pleasure, and would in fact be disappointed by mere pleasure.

But why would she want to experience feeling helpless…? 

Meaning

Third idea: In the classic BDSM book, Screw the Roses, Send Me the Thorns, one of the many memorable ideas that I remember was something like "most people work around their demons, we like to harness ours up and take them out for a ride."

That attitude captures something about kink, and maybe eroticism in general, but it's not really about "demons" per se. It's about the fearless pursuit of meaning. Processing demons is one form of that, but there are many others.

Once we can layer perception on top of sensation, and we can savor experiences, the question arises - just what experiences do I want? It’s no accident that espresso is bitter, that cabernet’s are “hard to approach” and pu-erh tea is musky and earthy. I’ve heard a great scotch described by an enthusiast as tasting of “rope tar, sea salt, and leather … but in a good way”. When seeking experiences, not just sensations, we do not seek out mere pleasure - we seek out meaning.

Suppose, just for a moment, a woman feels that guys are a bit strange for the way they react to a pretty woman. I mean, come on, she thinks, it's just a pair of tits. Are you that captivated? And maybe, just maybe, she thinks she’s missing out. That maybe women should be that captivated by a hard cock too. What would it be like to give in completely and utterly to the fascination and attraction she might feel for her man's dick? To just spend an entire day adoring it, tasting it, feeling it?

But girls take way higher risks if they were to really act out that kind of captivation. Both physical risks and, even more so, social risks... So she suppresses it, or ignores it, or just keeps it to herself. And even with your partner, she doesn't really let it out, because, what might he think of her?

But (maybe) deep down inside, part of her feels that captivation, and wants to give in to it completely and without reservation. How could she experience that side of herself? Even for a while? Could she be safe? Safe from harm, safe from judgment, safe from damage, physical, emotional and social?

Or maybe she feels guilty for wanting that captivation. She thinks she shouldn't, but deep down, she does anyway. Maybe she thinks she should be punished for those "dirty" thoughts, at least sometimes. Or, maybe she feels like she should punish her man for “making” her feel captivated?

Or maybe any other thousand possible things go through her head that aren't really consistent with her persona, or political views, or job, or her conscious view of what kind of woman (or man) she is.... But those thoughts are there nonetheless, persistently, and they form part of her psyche that's difficult or dangerous to embody or act out.

Kink creates a space to reunite those personal meanings with the rest of ourselves by playing them out, embodying them, living them. Because they are reflections of our inner meanings, the actions of kinky play are not about the action, they are about the perceptions, the experiences that those actions imply. And, because the meanings are deep in our unconscious, the play is extremely intense.

So, a definition of kink emerges: 

Kink is savoring the intensity of sexual play with a perceptual overlay that allows for an embodied exploration of personal meaning. 

And, in the community of kink, the rhythms, sayings, and habits we've developed about consent, negotiations, limits, safewords, etc., are all born from the experiences of how we might be able to do that and have a reasonable chance of making it a positive, safe, and ethical experience.

This differentiates kink from “rough sex”. Rough sex on its own is merely sensory. Pain, force, choking, etc. can all be involved, but they are involved for the sensations, not with a deeper underlying meaning. Contrast that with “primal kink” - now, on top of the exact same (in many cases) actions, a layer of context, perception, and meaning has been imposed, and the experience changes. Instead of primal kink, what if it’s a Master/slave kink? Same actions, perhaps, but again, totally different. 

So. To get started, you have to really explore yourself. It’s great to know that tying a girl up (or being tied up) seems hot to you. But why? What is your personal meaning that is exposed by the idea of having a girl bound and available to you sexually? What would you do to a tied up girl? Why those things? What does that say about you? Why do you want to do those things? Why does the bondage particularly bring out those desires? What would you hope she was experiencing? What would you like to make her experience?

On the receiving side, why would you want to be tied up? What would that do for you mentally? What personal meaning are you exploring there? What would you hope your dom was experiencing? What do you want him not to feel? Why? What would it mean?

Taking it Deeper - Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This book is an exploration of relationships and personal meaning, with kinky sex as a mirror that reveals us to ourselves. I make the argument that that’s what kinky sex is - a relational looking glass through which we can explore our own most intimate inner meanings.

Although I pull from various sources, the deepest parts of this exploration hinge on the Jungian(ish) concept of archetypes. The archetypes I discuss most are the ones I know; they are the ones that are a part of my own personal meaning. 

However, this book isn’t a research project. It’s a … structure. An organization of the ideas in my head. Although I use definitive language at points, my statements should not be taken to be universally definitive. They are universal only in the sense that we are all subject to common experiences as human beings, but we are all unique by the same criterion.

Reading other relationship books, like Come as You Are or Eight Dates, I was left with a feeling of dissatisfaction. There is language to address that dissatisfaction, much of which I take from the book The Art of Intimacy, and discuss in its own section. But at the core, I have a few concepts that I’d like to propose.

You might be normal. But, it’s extremely unlikely that you are.

First, you might be normal. But, it’s extremely unlikely that you are. Normal is essentially defined by comparison to the average, and it’s exceedingly likely that you are more than 2 standard deviations from the norm in some way. Intelligence, looks, compassion, traditionality, spirituality, morality, height, income, or … kinks … you’re probably not normal. Something about you is shared with less than 2% of the rest of humanity. It’s probably not unique (though it might be), but it’s definitely not “normal”. The issue is that normalcy shouldn’t be a goal. The question shouldn’t be “are you like other people”, the question should be “are you like yourself”. 

“Rabbi Zusya said, ‘In the coming world, they will not ask me: “Why were you not Moses?” They will ask me: “Why were you not Zusya?”’” –The Spirituality of Imperfection

Second, sex can be about a lot of things. It can be about comfort, closeness, trust, and a physical expression of the emotional love between two people. Most relationship books are talking about this kind of sex. But this kind of sex is not usually rock-your-socks-off erotic. You don’t look back at that moment as a pivotal moment to remember and take forward with you when you’re old and gray. It’s the sexual equivalent of a glass of wine.

Then there’s the sexual equivalent of LSD. Rock-out-with-your-cock-out, I’m not sure what just happened, but I’m gonna need that again as soon as I can move, I-might-die-of-pleasure erotic sex. 

The problem is that all the advice about "comforting" sex doesn’t lead to LSD sex. It can get you from dysfunction to function, but not from function to greatness. You can do all the stuff that’s recommended and end up with really loving, caring, deeply emotional, deeply boring sex. The differences between these kinds of sex is poorly explained (or even acknowledged), and the basis for it is even more poorly explained. 

I can sum it up in one sentence:

Erotic sex is an adventure.

Adventures are dangerous.

And therein we can see why no one talks about it; why the usual advice doesn’t work, and why it’s poorly understood and explained: Because adventures are dangerous. All of our social focus around sex is currently around safety. We are so focused on the ideas of consent and social power and on and on, we’ve forgotten that (great) sex is just fundamentally dangerous, but also necessary. A favorite saying of mine is: “A ship is safest in harbor, but that’s not why we build ships.” Sex in harbor doesn’t really scratch that itch. It’s too safe, too predictable. 

There are people whose lives, and whose sex lives, have been so tumultuous and harmful that they just crave the safety of harbor. That’s their focus. There are those who have only had sex in harbor and have never really considered why you might want to take the ship into the ocean. 

But honestly, that’s not most people. Even people who crave safety often want an adventure again once they get some safety, some rest, and some assurance that the safety will be there for them once they get back. Why? Because adventures are meaningful. They are the mechanism by which we grow, heal, change, explore. And sex, no matter how safe, how loving, how connecting … will end up an empty, meaningless, repetitive exercise unless it’s an adventure.

“But when a direction is chosen freely and followed wholeheartedly, it may seem that all things further the going … the human being likes to be challenged, seeks freedom in adversity.” – LeGuin, The Dispossessed

Now, if you don’t trust your partner enough, your subconscious might say “nope” when you think about going on an adventure with them, so some of the “trust” concepts are important. But, trust and love and emotion aren’t enough. You have to be willing to go on an adventure, and you have to deliberately set out to do so. 

Adventures have a few common traits: they involve risk, which is why you need some trust in your partner. They involve the unknown, or the unseen. They involve darkness, and all that’s entailed there - lust, greed, pain, rage, jealousy. They involve hardship, difficulty, and the overcoming of obstacles. When they are over, you look back and say “that was awesome!!”, even if they were scary or crazy or tense at the time. Adventures are explorative, and usually playful, and most of all, adventures are a meaningful journey and return (think of Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit).

That’s kink. 

You can be kinky with missionary sex in the dark with the lights off, if it’s an adventure. And adventure is best shared with a partner with whom you can return to safety. You can have an adventure in other ways, but it’s best if you have a partner or partners that you trust. And the more you trust them, the more explorative of an adventure you’ll be willing to go on with them.

You can be kinky with missionary sex in the dark with the lights off, if it’s an adventure.

The other reason trust and connection are needed is because any meaningful exploration of the darker parts of our nature will be destabilizing for our relationships. I will confess that my relationships are intense and joyful, but often unstable, because I am deeply driven to pursue meaning, and have not found a balance with creating a counteracting stability. It’s important to understand that seeking intensity and self knowledge is destabilizing. You may dive into the depths of your psyche and find out that you’re not as compatible with your partner as you thought … you’ll need to negotiate, communicate. Somewhere along the way, there will be something to work out, a disconnection that will require reconnection. 

But therein is also the joy - by learning something new about ourselves, we can re-new our connection with our partner. When we are new, our partner can see us with fresh eyes, and our intimate connection is revitalized. If we can navigate the destabilization, survive the danger, we can reach a deeper stable intimacy, deeper bonding, connected with more parts of our inner self. Which, after all, is why we go on adventures in the first place - so we can return home and revitalize our being.

One thing I see frequently is that we don’t have many models of adventure in our relationships. The one that stands out to us most prominently is the adventure of novelty. A new partner, a new toy, a new role. We remember the charge of our first love, or the first kiss with a new partner. The uncertainty, the unknown that novelty presents. But, there is a flaw in novelty as a sole kink…

The variety seeking of the spectator, the thrill hunter, the sexually promiscuous, always ends in the same place. It has an end. It comes to the end and has to start over. It is not a journey and return, but a closed cycle, a locked room, a cell. –The Dispossessed

The kink impulse argues that there are other forms of adventure. Deeper, more meaningful forms. It asks us to explore our inner selves, the parts of our own unconscious souls that are unknown to us. Our animal sides, our darker sides. Those parts remain within us and are never fully explored. They are always dangerous, always uncertain. They are powerful, driving forces. They can destabilize our relationships.

In exploring all this, I have tried to represent some complex ideas, ranging from Jungian psychology to relationship energy management, to balancing consent with needs. If I have erred, I’m sure someone will critique my errors. And last, the wide range of topics in this book may make it hard to follow at times. For that, I apologize and by way of request, quote Rothfuss:

“If I seem to wander, if I seem to stray, remember that true stories seldom take the straightest way.” –The Name of the Wind

Taking it Deeper - Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

What if I told you that, contrary to what you might believe, everyone is kinky to some extent, and embracing your inner kinks could lead to a more fulfilling life? It’s a daring claim, but one I believe is justified because humans are driven by meaning, and kink is a mirror for our inner meanings.

In the following pages, I will argue that comfort and connection don’t (directly) lead to mind-blowingly erotic sex (though they are often prerequisites). Instead, I propose that love itself is a kink, intensifying the meaningfulness of sex by adding a layer of perception that transcends mere physical sensations.

Love is a kink because it intensifies the meaningfulness of sex by adding a layer of perception over the mere sensations. It makes sex more than merely a pleasant exercise. It captures something deep in our unconscious - the desire to be connected, to be special, to give of ourselves and have that gift received and valued by another.

Power-based kinks, too, are so widespread as to be nearly universal. The only question is one of degree rather than type. The vast majority of women prefer men who are taller and stronger than they are. Why? Because this preference serves to heighten their sense of femininity through contrast, with a significant proportion of women experiencing an increased feeling of "smallness" or "daintiness."

Take a moment to envision a scene from countless romantic comedies: one partner (usually the woman unless it’s being played for laughs)  is pushed against a wall and kissed passionately. The passion is visually expressed as force, and we all understand it. And why does there have to be a wall, anyway? Because there’s an element of being trapped, bound, that creates an erotic charge.

Gentleness may convey care, affection, and connection, but passion – dynamic, forceful, and aggressive – is the essential ingredient for deep eroticism. Eroticism requires change, not stability. 

In my experience, barring any history of trauma, most women find excitement in having their wrists pinned while being kissed. It’s a short leap from there to handcuffs. Similarly, I suspect it’s a rare woman who never enjoys sex doggy style. But why? Do you really think it’s all just angles and physical stimuli? Or does that position change the psychology? The inability to kiss? The animalistic emulation? Even the name, “doggy style” references the animalistic aspect, and is thus more emotionally evocative (and erotic) than “rear entry coitus”. 

Imagine a moment - you’re making love in missionary, and then your partner initiates a position change. She turns over, gets on all fours. He moves back towards her to re-enter. 

That moment right there. Stop. Freeze frame. 

The psychological and emotional context has changed. This is suddenly not the same lovemaking. Her position, waiting for penetration; his position, seeing her pussy spread, wet, and upthrust. These carry a different charge. Not better, but definitely different. So different in fact, that both of them could not continue the same psychology of sex they had before. If the man persisted in trying to be fully affectionate and loving and gentle, it would nearly spoil the interaction. It’s not clear to me that she could even try to communicate gentleness or care in the same way she had been. 

By making the switch, he or she requests the change in psychology, and all the physical changes that go with that - more forceful thrusting, having her body moved by his hands, or some pressure on her back. Hair pulling? Holding her hands behind her back? Pushing her chest down to the bed? Depends on their relationship, but all of those are extremely common desires.

That shift in psychology? That’s kink.

Those examples - feeling small, being pushed up against a wall, having her wrists pinned, being fucked doggy style - are all manifestations of kink impulses. The only variables are the intensity, perception, and meaning.

In the first chapter, we will delve deeper into these themes, but for now, remember this: we are all kinky to some degree. What we usually call kinky is reserved for those who want to go further down the rabbit hole than usual.

Thanks for reading Taking it Deeper - Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.