"Yes, but if one admits women into the power structure, they will feel comfortable ...", some will continue. This is a half truth. Yes, it is important to include women into that structure. The Festival Gathering has a host. It is seeking a hostess. But that is not enough. No intelligent woman would lower her guard, merely because she was put "in charge". She will have seen far too many men eager to trade their pride for sexual favors, to view such an easy offer with anything but suspicion.

Nor, in truth shall we be making it here. We will not be establishing a matriarchal facade, in some futile effort to bribe women into dropping their guard. We have far too much respect for both sexes, to consider such a possibility. No. We will seek a solution that meets the needs of all, rather than a false cheat of a solution that tries to cause the other to forget and deny her own needs and concerns.

The most obvious solution, is to tell the women who might come, that nudity will not be required of them, but merely of the men, and then only in the course of the ritual itself. No disservice to Faunus is implied by this. The cultic requirements that come down to us in the historical record, only require male nudity.

The myth that was offered in later days to explain this, told the story of Faunus coming upon Hercules and Omphale, after the two had finished making love, and exchanged garments before going to sleep (1). Faunus came upon the two in the dark, desiring the sexual favors of Omphale. Feeling her soft robe, he mistook Hercules for Omphale, and made advances upon him. These advances proved unwelcome, and Faunus, ever since, had required skyclad observances from his male worshippers.

"And you literally believe that?", somebody will ask. No. We believe in myth, only to the extent that it gives us a feel for the personalities of the gods, and the nature of the relations between them, quirks included. "So, why worship such an unreasonable being?" Good question.

Let's start by asking our skeptic what it is that he means, when he says "reasonable". Reasonable by whose standards? We're sure that comment just earned us a few groans. "Moral relativism, what a cop-out!" When dealing with members of our own species, yes, it is a "cop-out". There is enough of a common, basic nature to humanity, for us to have the perspective needed to judge the reasonability of the decisions others make. But, what do we really know of the gods?

What are they like? Where do they come from? In mainstream Christianity, it is argued that God doesn't even come from this universe, but exists altogether outside of it. Some would argue that the same is true of the Olympians and their relatives. For all we know, they may be right. If so, then the great god Pan would make a visitor from another galaxy seem like a next door neighbor, by comparison.

Anybody who has ever owned a pet knows just how different two species can be. Watch the pleasure that a dog experiences, as he rolls in something that smells awful. To a dog, that's a wonderful experience. Imagine that dog trying to understand why his master is so repulsed. He won't get it. All that he can do, is just accept that what is pleasant for a human, often is not what is pleasant for a dog. If that is true for two species that, when you think about it, at least are related, imagine how different the experiences of somebody literally from a completely different reality, might be.

Some of the ancients did claim that "men and gods are of one flesh", ie. of similar nature, but that wasn't a universal experience. Some of the gods, especially Aphrodite, do seem to be so close to us in spirit, that we can have an easy, cheerful and trusting familiarity with them. These are the gods with whom we seek the deep connection that people usually think of, when they refer to "worship". But, not all gods are like that, it seems to many of us. Some, like Pan, or especially Eris, are more forces of nature, to be approached with varying degrees of caution.

With Pan, it is a moderate degree of caution. We don't go to him, seeking moral guidance. He doesn't seem to be a good source of that, or especially interested in playing that role. To fully open oneself up to him, perhaps, would be to be reminded what the root of the word "panic" is. But to open oneself up to him, a little, and bring a touch of that divine madness into one's heart, is to regain a little of that spontaneity that life is so good at beating out of us, as we grow up. It is to find the ability to overcome one's inhibitions, instead of being ruled by them.

It is to find courage, in the best possible sense of the word. It is not the only blessing that we should seek in life. Untempered by conscience, it leads to self-absorption. But, it is a blessing that we need. To have principles accomplishes little, if one can't overcome one's hesitation to speak up. To feel desire, brings one little but pain and frustration, if one can't overcome one's shyness. What learning to put aside a little bit of one's socialization, if only for a second, gives us, is the power to seize the day.

We aren't about to pretend that we always have that power, ourselves. But it is a thing worth having, and it makes the trip to Pan's abode, however strange it may be, worth the bother. Maybe that's part of his point. Maybe we need the trip to be strange, and hard to understand, for us to gain the blessing we come to seek.

So, as we have said, we will require the male participants to be nude, as Pan/Faunus requires, and make nudity optional for the female participants.

This simple solution, however, presents us with new problems. How comfortable will the men feel, about being required to gather unclad, in front of women who are free to attend fully dressed? Would such a rule not prove to be an irresistable lure, for the sort of woman who would just go to stare and laugh? What sort of men would we be left with, aside, perhaps, from the desperate and unthinking who would think that the women would be impressed?

This solution will not be completely discarded, but it does need work.

We have heard the "argument" that if a woman isn't comfortable attending an event unclothed, then she shouldn't be at it at all. This response misses an important point. The willingness to take part in something is not an "all or nothing" deal. Some need to be coaxed. Some need to be allowed to come to take part gradually, in small steps, in their own time.

Any heterosexual male, who has ever had a healthy sexual relationship, need only look to his own experiences. Ask a group of young women, if they would like to have sex with somebody, someday. Almost invariably, they will say yes, of course, and what a silly question that was to ask outside of a convent. So, sex is, we shall agree, something that the average woman would like to have be part of her life. But, how foolish would one have to be, to then argue that since the women "really want it, too", that one should greet a woman, at the beginning of one's first date with her, with a demand that she sleep with one immediately, if she wished to see you for one minute more?

We don't do that, do we? We don't do that, among other reasons, because it closes the door to future possibilities. The same principle applies here. A sensible man appreciates the value, of deferred gratification, because he knows that new possibilities present themselves in time, if he is willing to work and wait for them. The problem is, that Pagandom has too often come under the sway of insensible men, who demand the fulfillment of their wishes now, in full or not at all.

On those terms, "not at all" it shall be.

Continuing, now ...