POSTULATES, SELF & THE OBSESSIVE IP

MP3 DOWNLOAD

This is the fifth and final tape in the set on upper level technical data of TROM and like its
predecessors it mustn't be separated from the other members of the set. The title of the lecture
is "Postulates, Self and the Obsessive IP." 

One of the most puzzling aspects of the IP to the beginner is the fact that the being does not
perceive the IP in its exact form, that the being perceives the IP as mass and not as a postulate
configuration. 

Actually this isn't as unusual as it sounds at first glance because we must remember that the IP is
embedded in an area of confusion. We know that when a person goes through the IP state in
games play, that as they go into the IP they first go into confusion, then they go into the IP and
as they come out the other side of the IP again they go through this state of confusion. 

It's well known, Ron Hubbard has documented this on many occasions, that a spiritual being
tends to see a confusion as a mass rather than what it actually consists of. In other words instead
of seeing a collection of randomly moving particles the being will perceive it as a mass, and this
is generally true. 

So it's no real surprise that the spiritual being views the IP as a mass and not as a postulate
configuration, and then we also add to this the known fact that the rational mind abhors the IP
condition and almost refuses to experience it. So the combination of those two things, that the
being tends to view a confusion as a mass, and we add that to the fact that the rational mind
abhors insanity, abhors the IP state, it is indeed no surprise at all that the IP state, the IP barrier
is perceived by the spiritual being as a mass. 

Now we must ask ourselves just what does the spiritual being associate this mass with. Well it
clearly doesn't associate it with the IP state because he's unwilling to experience the IP. So what
does he associate the IP state with? Well we know there are two IP's in the set. 

Let's consider the XY set and let's consider a being that is occupying the X postulate as his game
postulate. And that postulate is in the class of self. And his opposition postulate is (1-Y) and
there is the barrier between them and he looks across and sees the barrier there as a mass. 

Now what does he associate, in terms of IPs, in terms of sensation what does he associate this
sensation with, in terms of the postulates or as close as he can get to the IP state? What would
he associate the barrier with? What would he associate this sensation that he's sensed with?
What would he, in terms of postulates? 

Well now this isn't as difficult a question to answer as we might believe at first glance. In fact it's
an extremely easy question to answer. Let us, first of all, consider what happens when the
person with the X postulate wins the game. What does he associate with winning the game? Well
when he wins the game he not only notices the opponent is driven into the class of Y but he
notices that the opponent seems to go through this mass, this barrier which we call the IP barrier
and tends to experience the postulates there or goes through a confusion of postulates and
then ends up in the postulate Y. 

Winning the Game 

So when the games player in X wins his game he sees (1-Y) go through a period of confusion, of
postulate confusion, and then end up in the overwhelm of Y, and this he associates with winning
the game. 

Losing the Game 

Now the thing he associates with losing his game is himself being driven through a period of
confusion and ending up in the postulate of (1-X), being driven into (1-X). So it's no real surprise
to discover that the situation or the thing that the being associates with winning his game is the
IP over the other side of the barrier. 

In other words the person in the X, playing with the X postulate associates game sensation with
the Y(1-Y) IP because that is the one that's associated with his winning of the game, you see. So
that to him is game sensation. Every time he wins his game the opponent gets driven through
that IP. So that's the one he associates game sensation with. 

In other words, the reason for the association is that he, by using his X postulate, his game
postulate he generates the sensation and he sees it in terms of the game loss over that way. And
he sees the other person going through from (1-Y) into Y so he associates that IP with his X
game. And he does not associate his own game loss with the game sensation. 

Now this reasoning is quite general. To put it another way, lets come in from another angle on
his side of the fence. On his side of the barrier is the X(1-X) IP, isn't it? If he loses the game then
that's the one he's going to go through. The IP on the other side of the barrier, the IP in the class
of "not-self", is the Y(1-Y) IP, so he will associate the game sensation in the game with the Y(1-Y)
IP and he doesn't associate the game sensation with the X(1-X) IP. 

In fact he won't register that as sensation at all. The only one he registers as sensation would be
the IP on the class of not-self. Now this rule is absolutely general. It's so general that you can
define, in the goals package; you can define which postulate the being is operating on by the IP
that he regards as game sensation. You can determine which postulate he's operating on, or at
least, when I say which postulate, which postulate or its negative he's operating on. 

In other words if he's operating on X or (1-X) then the IP that he considers to be sensation will be
the Y(1-Y) IP. And if he's operating on the Y or (1-Y) then the IP that he regards as sensation will
X(1-X) IP. 

The General Law of Game Sensation 

Now this leads us to the general law of game sensation in the goals package, the general law of
games  sensation.  And  this  law  states  that  the  IP  that  the  games  player  regards  as  game
sensation is the IP that is within the class of not-self. 

Now on a previous lecture I've already pointed out how the games player as his play becomes
more  compulsive,  as  he  becomes  more  compulsive,  that  he  becomes  obsessed  with  the
generation of game sensation. So we find that as the games player becomes more and more
compulsive that the player becomes obsessed with the sensation and becomes obsessed with
the generation of this particular IP. 

The Obsessive IP 

This is what we would predict and this is what we actually find does happen in games play and
this is so much so, it's so marked, that we call this IP, the Obsessive IP, the Obsessive IP. So of the
two IP's in the goals package the one in the class of self is not registered as an IP at all, it's got
nothing to do with sensation as far as the games player is concerned, it doesn't generate any
games  sensation  for  him  and  it's  simply  associated,  if  he  associates  it  with  anything,  it's
associated with game loss. 

But the one where his attention is fixated and the one which is very important to him and the
one which we call the obsessive IP is over there in the class of not-self and it's very easy to
isolate this IP. You've only got to know what the games player's games postulate is. 

Once you know this game postulate you know what the obsessive IP is because the obsessive IP
is the IP that doesn't contain his game postulate. Get it? That isolates it immediately. You see
there's only two IP's in the set and the obsessive one is the one that doesn't contain his game
postulate. 

Equally, of course, if we knew that this particular games player was obsessed with a particular IP
in a particular goals package we would be able by simply looking at the IP he's obsessed with, we

would know which side of the goals package he is on. We could determine that it's either a
postulate or its negative. We would know which side of the game he was on, which postulate he
regards in the class of self. 

So it's a two way proposition and we would never be let down. And there are no exceptions to
the rule. The rule is a completely general rule. Now let's give some examples of this rule, and it
might seem a little bit long winded the way I've approached it but I've approached it in this
manner because I want you to really grasp it and understand it. It's not an easy one to grasp and
because it can seem a little strange at first glance. 

You might say to yourself, "Well surely the IP on his side of the barrier, the one which he is in, in
the class of self, would be the one that would be much more real to him, much more important
to him in games play." But that is not the way it is. That is not the way it is. 

The IP that the person regards as important and the only one he associates with the generation
of game sensation is in the class of not-self. That's the general law. If you understand that you
can understand a tremendous amount about life and livingness and sensation. It gives you an
enormous predictability on games play and the goals packages in everyday life, as you'll begin to
understand before we get to the end of this lecture. 

To Eat Goals Package 

Let's take a very simple example. Let's take the 'To Eat' goals package. Now the 'To Eat' goals
package is one of the more interesting goals packages. I haven't said very much about it so far in
the supplementary lectures, in fact it's hardly mentioned in the write up. 

It's one of the two bodily goals packages, and it's a very easy one to erase with the average
person unless they are into such things as starving themselves to death or overeating. Unless
they've got some very heavy compulsions and inhibitions on the subject of eating, the goals
package will erase quite comfortably. 

Mosquito Bites 

Just in passing, I'd better give you some data I have on the 'To Eat' goals package because it
won't appear anywhere else. You would think off hand that there would be a double bind in that
goals package. That games play would be completely and utterly compulsive in the 'To Eat' goals
package like it is in the 'To Sex' goals package but that is not so. The human body does have a
very tiny tolerance of being eaten. 

You see if games play was completely compulsive and it got itself down to a single games class
set, the goals package was down to a single games class, the body would be in the class 'To Eat'
and 'To Not be Eaten', wouldn't it. That would be the final remaining games class in the set in the
goals package. 

But the body can get into the other games class, it can just get into it. And that is the class of 'To
be Eaten' and 'To Not Eat'. It doesn't like being in that class, but it can just get into it. What
makes me so sure that the body can just get into it, and the fact that the body doesn't like being
in that class is the enormous reaction that the human body does have to being eaten. 

You get this little tiny insect like a mosquito comes along and sticks his proboscis into your arm
and takes a microscopic amount of blood away from you as it's dinner and flies away and your
arm produces quite an enormous bump, and you get a similar thing with a gnat bite or an ant
bite. 

In  other  words  the  bodies  reaction  to  such  a  tiny  nibble  from  such  a  tiny  insect  is  quite
disproportionate to the amount of damage that's being done to the body. So one can conclude
from this that the human body has a very great intolerance to being eaten. It simply doesn't like
being eaten at all. It reacts violently to other organisms that want to take a nibble out of it. 

But it can be eaten and it does have some tolerance of being eaten even if the tolerance is only
very slight. It's a fascinating goals package, as you erase the 'To Eat' goals package you would 

learn all sorts of things about this subject of eating. The big game amongst animals, of course, is
'To Eat'. You'd think well it would be the same amongst plants, but no it's not. 

Plants Play the 'Must Not be Eaten' Game 

Amongst plants the big game in the 'To Eat' goals package is not 'To Eat'. Plants for many
millions of years have polished up all their possibilities on the subject of eating. You know,
they've  perfected  their  root system  and  their system  of  photosynthesis, of  converting  the
carbon dioxide in the air and the sun light and combining the two together to produce their
chemistry and that's all been set up a long while ago. 

So the postulate 'To Eat' in the plant has pretty well got to the limit. All plants today have pretty
well got to the limit on that. Now the big game amongst plants is 'To Not be Eaten'. That is the
big game for plants and if plants are evolving at all, they're evolving more and more in that
direction of 'To Not be Eaten'. 

In other words they haven't reached their limits yet, they're still exploring the possibilities there.
We humans ought to be very grateful to the plant kingdom's subject of not wanting to be eaten
because the plants produce all sorts of very interesting drugs that we use in medicine. The vast
majority of these drugs are simply in the plant to prevent the plant from being eaten. 

You take the marijuana plant which has got in its leaves and stems the drug cannabis. Well
cannabis, of course, as anyone who’s tried it knows, is a bit of a mind-bending drug. And it's quite
clear the purpose of this drug is to deter animals from eating it. 

You get this little zebra and he comes along and takes a nibble at this cannabis plant and the
cannabis blows its mind and the zebra goes whoopee and gets a high and goes off and tries to
mate with a lion and that's the last that's heard of the zebra. You see? So, that plant is not going
to be eaten by that zebra again. You get the idea? That just gives you one example there. 

Sometimes the chemicals used in the plant are quite lethal to animals, they can be extremely
poisonous. In fact some of the most violent and most deadly poisons known to mankind are
plant poisons. The only other really deadly ones that are known to mankind are the animal
venoms of the spiders and the snakes. 

But the plant kingdom has got its own set of rather nasty venoms, it has. Every person who goes
into the woods and picks what he thinks are mushrooms and takes them home for the evening
meal is likely to find out that not everything that looks like a mushroom is edible. Some of these
little plants contain some rather nasty venom. And the reason all these chemicals are in the plant
is to prevent the plant being eaten by animals, so that the "not being eaten" game of the plant is
big business amongst plants. 

And the plants are always doing a lot of work on this subject and improving their possibilities of
not being eaten. So the big game amongst plants is 'To Not be Eaten'. But the big game amongst
animals is 'To Eat' you see it's a slightly different stress between the animal kingdom and the
plant kingdom. 

Now for a person operating on the 'To Eat' postulate, the obsessive IP would be the 'To be
Eaten / To Not be Eaten' or in terms of enforcement, the 'Must be Eaten / Mustn't be Eaten' IP.
That would be the obsessive IP that we would predict and that is the one we do find. 

If you examine that IP in therapy and get close to that IP, you'll find yourself rapidly into the
subject of digestion and you’re right at the very core of this whole subject of eating, as far as the
human being is concerned. And his whole idea of whether he can digest this food and whether
he can actually survive it and whether he can eat it. His whole fixation as a being in terms of
eating is on this subject of 'To be Eaten / To Not be Eaten'. 

The IP, that 'Must be Eaten / Mustn't be Eaten' IP is what he regards as the sensation of eating. If
you want to know what the sensation of eating is, why it's the IP 'Must be Eaten / Mustn't be
Eaten'. That IP is the sensation of eating. If you don't believe this is so, if you don't believe what I
say is so you should simply get the idea of 'mustn't be eaten, must be eaten'...'mustn't be eaten,
must be eaten', 'mustn't be eaten, must be eaten' get the idea of the IP there and you will find it
will produce quite some queasy sensations in your tummy. 

Where the IP 'Must Eat / Mustn't Eat' doesn't affect the body in the slightest. So I can tell you
which one is the one that the body is obsessed with. The body is obsessed with the 'Must be
Eaten / Mustn't be Eaten' IP, which is the one we would predict because the body is obsessed
with the eating and not being eaten, that is it's obsession. 

But its game postulate is 'To Eat'. That's for sure, that's the body's game postulate is 'To Eat' and
from that, of course, we would predict that the obsessive IP would be the 'Must be Eaten /
Mustn't  be Eaten'  IP. That  is the one  that is the  obsessive IP when we come to test this
experimentally with a human body. 

So simply on the subject of eating we see evidence straight away. By the way, any queasy effect
from playing with the IP's of the 'To Eat' goals package can be easily resolved by simply erasing
the 'To Eat' goals package. So I wouldn't recommend that you play with the IP's of the 'To Eat'
goals package until you've erased 'To Eat' in therapy. I wouldn't recommend it; otherwise you can
give yourself quite a queasy tummy. 

Once the 'To Eat' goals package is erased out of your psyche, of course, it won't matter what you
play with on the subject of the 'To Eat' goals package it won't adversely affect your body. 

Must be Killed / Mustn't be Killed IP 

Now I'd like to give you another example. I'll take up the example already mentioned of the
adolescent lads driving their car 60 miles an hour towards a brick wall to get the thrill of seeing
how close they can get to the wall when they pull up. Now what is the postulate structure? What
are the postulates here and what are the IP's here? Well the actual postulate here is 'to kill' and
the thing on the receiving end of their postulate is their body. 

Their game postulate is 'to kill' so the IP is the 'must be killed / mustn't be killed' IP. Now the
game is to drive the car and therefore their body, which is in the car, as close as possible to that
IP. Clearly if they hit the wall at speed the body will go through the IP, go through the wall as well
probably,  but  will  go  through  the  IP  'must  be  killed  /  mustn't  be  killed'  and  go  into  the
overwhelm of 'must be killed'. 

They will succeed in killing their body. They will win their game, you see. But the game sensation
as far as the adolescents are concerned is that IP 'must be killed / mustn't be killed' and they’re
seeing how close they can get to that IP. How close they can drive their body to that IP, without
killing their body. 

And the purpose of the game is to pick up the sensation from the 'must be killed / mustn't be
killed' IP. Now that we can see that game we can understand it in terms of, winning the game,
losing the game, the IP's and the postulates. It's a nice little example of what we would predict
and what we see in practice. 

Once you understand the IP's and the game postulates and the IP's, in the class of self and in the
class of not-self, you can take a little example like the adolescent boys in their car, driving their
car at 60 miles per hour toward a wall, and suddenly the whole thing makes enormous sense,
doesn't it? 

Now before I explained it, it didn't make all that much sense, the idea of a gang of lads getting
into a car and driving it at 60 miles an hour towards a wall in order to experience a thrill. It was a
bit tricky to understand this in terms of postulates. But once we got the IP's we know what the
sensation consists of exactly. We can put the whole thing together and now we understand the
whole situation. We understand it much more than the adolescent boys ever understand it. 

To Sex 

However, it's not until we take up the subject of the 'To Sex' goals package that this subject of
self postulates and the obsessive IP really starts to become valuable to us. When I discussed the
subject of the 'To Sex' goals package on one of the earlier supplementary tapes, if you recall, I
said that the male becomes obsessed with depriving the female of her 'Mustn't be Sexed'
postulate and driving her from 'Mustn't be Sexed' into 'Must be Sexed'. 

Do you recall that material? Well that was really just a sort of explaining it without mentioning
the IP's. The truth of the matter is the male as he operates on a 'To Sex' postulate. His obsessive
IP is the 'Must be Sexed / Mustn't be Sexed' IP. So what really obsesses him is the depriving the
female of her 'Mustn't be Sexed’ postulate driving her through the 'Mustn't be Sexed / Must be
Sexed' IP into 'Must be Sexed' and it is that situation that brings about the male orgasm, the
male sexual orgasm. 

Now similarly for the female, she operating on her 'Must be Sexed' postulate and is obsessed
with depriving the male of his 'Mustn't Sex' postulate and driving the male from 'Mustn't Sex'
through the 'Mustn't Sex / Must Sex' IP into 'Must Sex' and that is the female orgasmic situation. 

So in the 'To Sex' goals package, to the male sexual sensation is the 'Must be Sexed / Mustn't be
Sexed' IP and to the female sexual sensation is the 'Must Sex / Mustn't Sex' IP. 

Now this state of affairs is tremendously valuable to us on the subject of sexuality because it
allows us to determine with invariable accuracy, and I stress the words "invariable accuracy", we
can determine whether a being is in the male or the female universe when discussing this
person's sexual quirks. Now this is something that Sigmund Freud would have given his back
teeth for, this bit of information, to be able to do this. And it's something that's been puzzling
sexual therapists all the way down the line, you know. 

There are more sexual quirks per square inch of humanity than there are quirks on any other
subject under the sun. And people do get very worried about their sexual quirks, and what
worries them about their sexual quirks is that they don't know whether they are in the male
universe or in the female universe, this is what basically bothers them. I remember I had a
preclear in London back in the days when we were running engrams and this chappie had a
sexual quirk and his sexual quirk was that it used to give him a sexual thrill if a girl was wearing
Wellington boots. 

Rubber Wellington boots, used to turn him on sexually, you see. He would get an erection and so
forth, and he was always pestering his girlfriends to wear rubber Wellington boots, you see. And
now this was a harmless enough sexual quirk but the unfortunate thing about it was that if he 

wore rubber Wellington boots he would also get sexually aroused and his problem was, as he
expressed it to me, he didn't know whether he was being masculine or feminine. 

He feared that he may be homosexual because you see he was sexually aroused when the girl
was in the Wellington boots. But if he wore the Wellington boots he was sexually aroused too,
he would get an erection again, you see. So he just began to wonder about his masculinity. He
wondered whether he was a male or he was a female. 

Well now unfortunately in those days we were running engrams and there wasn't too much I
could bring to bear on this subject. We cleaned up his prenatal bank; I remember that, we found
out that it was what you might call a continuing problem. That his dad apparently had the same
fixation upon Wellington boots and that had got into the prenatal coitus engrams and the thing
had got passed on to his son through his childhood and so forth. 

It was a rather complicated story but it was one of these continuing aberrations, you might say,
or continuing quirks that were being passed down the male line, from father to son. God knows
how many generations it had been passed down. But he'd certainly got this quirk, and as far as
we knew he'd inherited it from his dad. I was able to take a lot of tension off this situation for
him and he was certainly nowhere near as bothered about it when he left me as when he arrived
but I won't go so far as to say I erased the whole of the thing. I couldn't have done because I
didn't know anything about the 'To Sex' goals package and I didn't know anything about sexual
sensation. 

Given that same PC today I know it would have been easy to resolve the whole thing. But he was
happy and he went on his way and thanked me very much for what I'd done for him. There was an
example of a sexual quirk that was bothering the person. 

Ok, well let's examine that sexual quirk now and we can determine with great accuracy which
universe this person was in. Was he in the male universe or was he in the female universe? Well
he was very sure of one thing, very sure of the fact that when girls wear Wellington boots it
made them more amenable to sex. That was what was in his mind. That was the basis of the
quirk, was that he had this idea, this fixed idea that if a girl wore Wellington boots it made her
sexier and she was more in favour of going to bed with him, at least that was what he thought. 

In other words it made the girl more amenable to sex. Well now once you know that, you now
know that the quirk there, the thing that was exciting him was actually the subject of the IP
'Must be Sexed / Mustn't be Sexed'. You see that? It is because the fixation was upon the female
being more amenable to being sexed. You see that? She is more amenable to sex. So clearly that
was the obsessive IP. He was obviously in the 'Must Sex' postulate and the female was clearly
over the other side of the fence. So he was clearly in the male universe. Remember as I said early
on in this lecture if you know the obsessive IP you can determine the game postulate that the
person is operating on. 

You can determine which side of the goals package they are on once you know the obsessive IP,
and if you know which side of the goals package they are on you know what their obsessive IP is.
You see that? 

So knowing that he regarded that wearing Wellington boots made girls more amenable 'To be
Sexed', fixed him right away. If we put that postulate into the class of not-self then he must be
on the other side of the package over on the 'To Sex' side of the package which is the male side
of the package. So you see it? Straight away that problem is solved. 

But what, you might ask, about he himself being sexually aroused when he wore Wellington
boots, how come? Well surely that was an example of him being out of gender. Nope he's still in
male gender because, look, it's still the person wearing Wellington boots who is more amenable
'To be Sexed' and that is what's turning him on. So he's still in the male gender even though it's
his own body. 

The rule is that it's the obsessive IP. It doesn't matter if the obsessive IP is associated with his
own body or someone else's body or where it is. If he's turned on by that IP and that IP means
sensation to him and that IP is 'Must be Sexed / Mustn't be Sexed' then he is a male. It fixes it. It's
got nothing to do with whose body is involved, it could be a girl's body, it could be his body,
another man's body, a male body, or you can be a female. I mean a female can have the same
thing. But whoever is fixated upon that IP is in the male universe. If they're fixated upon the
'Must be Sexed / Mustn't be Sexed' IP they are a male and if their fixated upon the 'Must Sex /
Mustn't Sex' IP they're a female. It fixes it. 

Gender Obsessive IPs 

Now the IP's of the 'To Sex' goals package the two IP's there we call them the gender obsessive
IP's. In a general goals package we just call them the obsessive IP's. But because they fix gender,
fix it thoroughly, because it fixes gender we call those the gender obsessive IP's. 

So for the male the 'Must be Sexed / Mustn't be Sexed' IP is the male gender obsessive IP and
the 'Must Sex / Mustn't Sex' IP is the female gender obsessive IP. Now let us take some more
examples of this and we'll see how it works out with other quite common quirks. And don't kid
yourself on the subject of sex if you've audited a number of preclears, like I have, you'll realise
how common sexual quirks are and how bothersome they are to people and how much time they
spend worrying about them. 

One of the more worrisome sexual quirks that male's suffer with is fear of homosexuality. Now
this is a sort of common situation that occurs to a young man or to an adolescent. He gets set
upon by a pack of other adolescents or a pack of men and gets raped and because this sexually
excited him he begins to believe that he's a homosexual. 

It's awfully common, it's awfully common, it can happen in childhood to young boys in childhood.
It can happen at schools and so forth. Some lad gets picked upon and feminised by the other
boys and the lad gets a sexual thrill out of it. It gives him a sexual kick and he thinks, "Oh my God,
I'm a homosexual!" 

Well now let's examine this situation in terms of what we know. Let's take our adolescent boy
that's pack raped, and he gets a sexual thrill out of it. Well the IP here is clearly the 'Must be
Sexed / Mustn't be Sexed' IP. That's the one his body was driven through. His body was driven
into 'Must be Sexed', in the rape situation. His body was driven through the 'Must be Sexed /
Mustn't be Sexed' IP and driven into 'Must be Sexed' but while this was occurring he got a sexual
thrill from it, right? 

Well he's in the male universe isn't he? It's his gender obsessive IP. So naturally he would get
sexually aroused by the presence of this gender obsessive IP even though it's his own body. He
would be aroused by it if it was happening to a female nearby him. It's his gender obsessive IP.
You see that? It will give him sexual sensation. 

But the puzzle is what worries him. He thinks, "Well it didn't ought to happen on his own body."
Well  why  not?  The  rule  is  that  it's  the  relationship  between  the  game  postulate  and  the
obsessive IP. It's got nothing to do with the gender of the body. It's simply to do with the
postulates. 

We're only concerned here with the postulates. It's got nothing to do with the body, just the
postulates that are involved. You see that? Once you understand that, you've got it. So this
young lad worrying about being a homosexual is completely false, there's nothing wrong with his
sexuality. 

This incident where he was pack raped and he got sexually aroused by being pack raped doesn't
mean he's a homosexual. There's no suggestion in the incident that he's anything else but a
male. But he would have to understand this technology and work at the 'To Sex' goals package,
and so forth, and get to a point of understanding this technology before he could grasp this and
breathe a sigh of relief, and realise what's going on. 

Alright now, here's another male, he's got a sexual quirk. He likes to wear feminine clothes and
he gets sexually aroused when he arouses men and makes them sexually interested in him when
he wears feminine clothes. Now which universe is he in? Well, what's the IP here? By wearing
feminine clothes he's depriving other males of their 'Mustn't Sex' postulate, isn't he? He's
making them sexually interested, therefore he's driving them into 'Must Sex' and therefore he's
in the feminine universe. 

It's a feminine sex game, that is. He's clearly out of gender. He's out of his masculine gender and
he's into feminine gender. You see that? We fixed this one, that's where he is. This cross clothing 

of children into clothes of the opposite gender and so forth by various parents is a fertile area
for sexual quirks. 

For example take a woman with a sexual quirk to dress her son as a girl, she dressed her son as a
girl and it gives her a sexual thrill. Now which universe is she in? Now, I don't think there's a
psychoanalyst or a psychotherapist on the planet who could solve that one. They would nearly
always get it wrong. 

Well let's examine the IP here; by dressing her son in feminine clothes she is going to deprive him
of his masculinity, right? In effect, the shear presence of the ionisation of all these feminine
garments around the young lads quite weak male sexuality would simply drive him into the
female universe and would deprive him of his 'Mustn't be Sexed' postulate and drive him into
'Must be Sexed' so the IP that is giving his mother a thrill is the 'Must be Sexed / Mustn't be
Sexed' IP. 

She's driving her son through that IP into 'Must be Sexed'. Now this is what gives the male the
sexual kick so when she does this she's in the male universe. Only a woman in the male universe
would get a sexual thrill from dressing her son as a female. 

Now what about the woman who gets a sexual thrill from dressing her daughter as a boy? Well,
the presence of all these masculine garments around the rather weak feminine sexuality of the
female child would deprive the female child of her 'Mustn't Sex' postulate and drive her into
'Must Sex'. In other words it would masculinise the young girl, so what's the IP here? Well the
child will be driven through the 'Mustn't Sex / Must Sex' IP into 'Must Sex' well that's the
feminine gender obsessive IP. 

So the mother would do this to her daughter is in the female universe. It will be a female sexual
quirk. So you see that whatever the situation is with this understanding of the gender obsessive
IP we can tie up the gender obsessive IP with the gender. 

This fixes which side of the package we're on. We can always, without exception, knowing the
quirk and knowing just the barest information about the quirk and the effect of the quirk has on
the person we can determine whether the person is in the male universe or the female universe. 

Quite interesting isn't it? It's quite interesting that we can do this and thereby resolve so many of
these problems. Now any sex therapist would, you know, they'd give anything for this technology
and they're very welcome to it. I hope it helps them, I really do, I hope it helps them. 

It's about time someone came along and solved humanities problems on the subject of sex. You
know there's so much garbage written, there's whole libraries of garbage written in books on
the subject of sex. It's about time someone come along and spoke the truth on the subject and
settled everyone's minds so they knew exactly what the score is on this subject. And they can
put their minds at rest, so a person with a sexual quirk, knowing this technology, only has to look 

at the IP's and they'll know at a glance which universe they’re in. They'll know sexually they're in
the male universe or they will know they're in the female universe. It's as simple as that. 

So  you  see  this  subject  of  sensation  and  the  IP,  self,  not-self  and  the  postulates  has  got
enormous ramifications, doesn't it. It doesn't sound like very much when we start in on it but we
now find that it's of enormous social value in our society not just on the subject of sex. I mean if
it was only useful on the subject of sex it would be wonderful data... wonderful information, but
bear in mind it applies to every goals package as I've already indicated with the examples of the
young lads, the adolescent boys driving their car into the brick wall, and the example of the 'To
Eat' goals package. There are other examples there, so it applies to any goals package. Well I
hope this information, this data on this subject proved useful to you and thank you very much. 

End of tape 

LECTURES MAIN PAGE