Support our Kickstarter

Finding Peace Between Our Sheets

21MI1rBCwvL._SL120_.jpg

What if one of the largest problems facing human beings is something so simple and so subtle that it's looking us right in the face, sometimes 2 or 3 times a night?

Peace Between the Sheets author Marnia Robinson suggests that orgasm addiction might be the single largest problem plaguing intimate, romantic relationships.

When I first read Peace Between the Sheets I felt angry. Certainly orgasms are beautiful, natural and important to forging intimacy. How could they be the bane of my love life? I thought: this writer must be religious.

But as I read Marnia's book I was surprised to find that the science and the vast collection of mystical and ancient wisdom teachings surrounding the book's argument were very convincing. I also look around and see scary population rates, numbers that are rising exponentially each year, and a growing desire within my heart to have a healthy, long-lasting and monogamous relationship.

Marnia admits that she and her husband are not religious, both enjoy orgasms, and feel no sexual guilt. They simply feel very convicted about this one idea: orgasm addiction is an undercover problem, creating chaos between our sheets!

I decided to interview Marnia Robinson about her book for RealitySandwich.

AE: In your book, you talk a lot about why so many relationships struggle, and you are very specific. You think that orgasms are responsible, in large part, for our inability to truly, not just physically, "come together." Explain this. Aren't orgasms the best part of a sexual or romantic relationship? How could they be damaging?

Marnia: It's not the climax that causes friction. An orgasm feels great, and if it were the end of the story, lovers would be able to do what comes naturally in the bedroom and live happily ever after. The problem is that orgasm -- especially orgasm leading to sexual satiation (a feeling of "I'm definitely done!") -- isn't an isolated event. It's the peak of a much longer cycle.

Sex happens in the brain. It's a complex sequence of neurochemical events even more than it is a genital event. (Masters and Johnson were just looking at genitals when they came up with the "arousal-plateau-climax-resolution" model.) I say "brain" because you can stick an electrode in someone's brain, or spinal cord, and produce the sensation of orgasm without ever touching his or her genitals.

Instead of an electrode, your body uses a surge of a neurochemical called dopamine to trigger the sensation of orgasm in the reward circuitry of your brain. Unfortunately it takes as long as two weeks for this deep part of the brain to return to homeostasis after such intense stimulation. While the precise mechanisms are not yet understood, the central player in this natural programmed "hangover" appears to be dopamine.

It's clear that dopamine levels drop after orgasm, and that another neurochemical, prolactin, surges (a sexual satiation signal) to keep dopamine in check. Receptors for testosterone rapidly decline in the reward circuitry, further inhibiting dopamine release.

One can view the orgasm cycle as similar to a drug or alcohol cycle because it emanates from the same mechanism in the brain, using the same neurochemical, dopamine. When anything -- whether a substance (cocaine, too much sugar) or an activity (gambling, orgasm) -- over-stimulates your reward circuitry, it produces a high, followed by a period of recovery.

That recovery is, in a sense, a withdrawal. The difference between sex and drugs is that the orgasm "hangover" is so much a part of us, so natural and programmed, that it is hard to recognize -- unless, of course, you escape the cycle entirely. It can make you feel uncharacteristically needy, irritable, anxious, depleted, or desperate for another orgasm.

To you it will seem that these traits are just part of your, or your partner's, normal personality. There is often a subconscious urge to do something to make yourself feel better. For example, you may reach for a drink, look at porn, curl up in front of a romantic movie with a tub of ice cream, or have an urge to feel your partner up. Your perception is subtly distorted, and it's natural for you to perceive each other as the source of your discomfort. "If only he would be more affectionate or supportive." "If only she would stop processing her feelings and just have sex."

Obviously, we don't all hit upon the same solution. Some people feel this withdrawal as a "needy hole" calling for comfort or attention. Some just feel it as a demanding urge for relief or temporary oblivion. Others are sure that they simply "need space." For some, the craving for another orgasm is stronger than ever -- but it doesn't represent true libido. As the ancient Chinese Taoists observed, orgasm, and particularly

"Ejaculation, although depleting physical reserves, has the opposite effect on sexual desire. After an immediate postcoital letdown, there is a rapid psychological rebound and an intensification of erotic interest." [Art of the Bedchamber, by Douglas Wile, State University of New York Press (1992): p. 6]

 

In short, the way we currently manage our sexual energy could prove to be the common biological mechanism behind such diverse phenomena as the one-night stand, the sexless marriage, infidelity, and porn addiction. It contributes to the nearly universal experience that "the honeymoon never lasts longer than a year." It is why close friendships that bloom into love affairs so often turn sour. The culprit is the natural perception shifts that follow sexual satiation, and cause us to find each other less rewarding than before.

I believe this is a natural program, which affects all mammals in some form. Not one mammal or bird is completely sexually monogamous. Subconscious, neurochemical mating programs are the way Mother Nature pushes mammals apart. She wants you to fertilize in a passionate frenzy, bond temporarily, and then grow disillusioned and move onto your next partner.

To fool Mother Nature, you obviously have to do something different in the bedroom. This is why the Taoists, and others, recommended learning to make love in a way that doesn't trigger our subconscious mating program -- or rather, triggers only the attachment part of it, not the move on part of it. We can make use of this natural attachment program, which bonds us to our children and parents, in our romances, too, by emphasizing generous affection, playfulness, gentle intercourse, and, of course, by avoiding orgasm. Results include greater harmony and wellbeing, and, remarkably, less sexual frustration.

Would you consider your view to be purely scientific, then, or spiritual, or both?

I believe that all great spiritual traditions call for seeing beyond our own projections of neediness or cravings, for overcoming unloving feelings, and for healing dual perception by perceiving our oneness with others. Therefore, this practice is ultimately a spiritual practice.

However, both my husband and I are not religious. We were fortunate to be raised by parents who believed sex was natural and guilt-free, and we loved orgasm. It wasn't until we had both experienced significant health and relationship benefits that my husband, who teaches anatomy and physiology, began digging up the science that helps to explain how managing sex differently can do just what the ancient Taoists and others discovered it can do: reduce cravings, heal, and promote harmony.

In what way is your research about orgasms different from tantric studies?

"Tantra" encompasses many different practices, some of which emphasize orgasm, others of which call for transcending it, so it's not possible to make this kind of comparison. What I'm proposing is definitely different from using each other to fire up sexual intensity to the point of altered awareness.

Here's a description from a friend describing the benefits from this gentler practice, which I think of as karezza (a name given it by Alice Bunker Stockham, MD a century ago), or controlled intercourse:

"Arousal is very much present, and we are both highly motivated to ride these wonderful waves of energy and to ride them as long as we can. We are finding that these are not the waves that either of us have experienced before. Very full heart, and big belly feelings. It is as if we have moved over some threshold. Cuddling and non-goal oriented touch raise me to a height where I have a dramatically new point of view. I feel like I have entered the flow."

When you talk about orgasms, are you talking about the release of semen? And if so, then isn't it ok for women to climax but not men?

Many esoteric sex texts speak in terms of "semen loss" as the problem with orgasm, but the real problem is over-stimulation of the reward circuitry of the brain. This is why orgasm can set off subsequent mood swings in women, too. The loss idea is right on target, however. After dopamine soars into the red zone in the brain, the body reacts by lowering it below baseline levels. Too little dopamine (or too few receptors for dopamine) feels like "something is missing," as if an essential ingredient for happiness is gone. You can easily feel depleted or needy, whether you're male or female. The chief difference between the sexes is that, often, women feel more intense effects during the second week after orgasm, while men feel more intense effects during the days immediately following orgasm.

Interestingly, the ancient Taoists recorded that orgasm, menstruation, and childbirth are all depleting to women. It is primarily the tantric lore that focuses on semen loss, because the Brahmins equated semen with "spiritual light."

If the best way to experience relational union is to withhold from orgasm, then why does it feel like our bodies are hardwired to go against what is in our best interest?

There's a common-sense belief that if you do what your body evolved to do, it will lead to wellbeing and happiness. For example, most people would be healthier if they returned to a Paleolithic diet of whole foods and protein, without refined starches and sugars. By the same logic, if you're designed to pursue orgasm and multiple partners, shouldn't you be happiest if you manage your intimate life accordingly? Perhaps the man-made ideal of committed relationships is the problem.

This logic assumes that you're designed for your own benefit. In fact, evolution has hardwired you not for your individual welfare, but for your genes' success. What serves your genes? Lots of fertilization attempts and lots of different parents for your (more diverse) offspring. What serves you best? Close trusted companionship (an authentic bond) and lots of affectionate, generous touch. For example, HIV-positive patients survive longer when in relationship. Wounds heal twice as fast with companionship, as compared with isolation. In primates, the care-giving parent, male or female, lives longer. I could go on and on.

The bottom line is that our innate sexual appetite is not a reliable guide to greater wellbeing because sexual impulsiveness naturally leads in the direction of satiation -- and even excess -- followed by emotional alienation, and the erosion of emotional bonds. As my husband says, our subconscious mating program is working brilliantly; it just doesn't have our individual wellbeing at heart.

Do you think that polyamory is in any way a misguided response to the difficulties of orgasm addiction?

I think polyamory is a very logical solution to the fact that mammals are not monogamous. Hunter-gatherer societies are polyamorous. I also admire the efforts of many polyamorists to master compassionate communication and similar techniques to cope, as lovingly as possible, with the emotional fallout from sexual satiation. In addition, I am attracted to the "group hug," brother-sister feeling of all heart-based communities.

Personally, I still think close trusted companionship has more to offer. One reason is that it is easier to find a comfortable equilibrium for this other approach to sex within a stable partnership. New partners have to contend with a lot of thrilling, but unstable, honeymoon neurochemicals designed to lure those sperm to their fertile targets.

As for orgasm addiction, no, polyamory certainly doesn't offer a cure. Multiple partners and lots of orgasm can make sexual urges more demanding than ever because greater sexual satiation causes more intense cravings during the withdrawal period that follows. Unwittingly, someone with a sexual compulsion is using orgasm to self-medicate during the lows of the cycle -- and setting off another cycle at the same time. The image of a hamster in a hamster wheel comes to mind.

A close friend who was very active in polyamory circles said he once thought polyamory offered a solution because he was too needy for any one partner. He figured the solution was to spread himself among many in hopes of meeting his needs. It didn't work, in part because it didn't address the compulsion that was fueling his neediness.

Compulsions aren't "bad," but they decrease your freedom and cloud your judgment, so as a spiritual matter they slow your evolution. Unfortunately, anyone who decides to move beyond a sexual compulsion has to go through an uncomfortable withdrawal period. The people with porn addiction who visit my website find that it takes a good six weeks of abstinence from orgasm to do this. Those with partners willing to engage in lots of affectionate, selfless contact during that time have a much easier time of it. At the end of that transition, people discover their true libido. They realize that their compulsive pattern was not their natural rhythm for orgasm.

You say that we should refrain from orgasm, but you also say that things like "Schedules" are a good idea. Give us an example of a sex-schedule. Why is the "sex schedule" a good idea, and doesn't this take the spontaneity away from a healthy sex life? Isn't it good, once in a while to be hot and heavy?

My husband and I found that making love every night, even without orgasm, caused an uncomfortable build-up of sexual tension. As he said, he felt like a car engine revving its motor all the time. By the same token, if we didn't know for sure if we would be having intercourse or not on a given night, he also tended to rev his engine...just in case.

The solution turned out to be surprisingly simple: spend a night or two between intercourse nights engaging in non-goal-oriented lovemaking, and schedule when we would have intercourse. On no-intercourse nights we wallow in lots of eye-gazing and selfless, comforting nurturing of each other.

By engaging in non-goal-oriented affection, you signal your subconscious that you want to deepen your mutual bond, by tapping into your attachment, or bonding, programming. Such encounters have the added benefit of making intercourse itself more fulfilling and less goal-oriented. You can just be with each other. You don't have to perform. This makes sex a very caring, yet carefree experience. Erections come and go, and you can continue for as long as you like.

As for "hot and heavy," you should have orgasmic sex as often as you want to feel a sense of alienation from your lover during the two weeks following. Remember that the greater the build-up, the more intense the feeling of satiation afterward...and the more powerful the subconscious signal you deliver to yourself that it is time to move on to a new lover. Once you are back in balance, intercourse alone can meet your true needs for connection; orgasm is actually superfluous. This is a key tenet of the mystery of sacred sexuality; one that Mother Nature doesn't want you to know.

That being said, anyone who practices karezza discovers that orgasm occasionally happens, either while you're making love or sleeping. We trust that our bodies have their reasons. What still intrigues us is the power of these inadvertent orgasms to kick off the separation program, albeit in somewhat milder forms. Having observed ourselves for seven years, we're really clear that we aren't interested in "going for" orgasm. We like the harmony, the easy, relaxed communication and the profound sense of trust between us.

Each couple have to find their own way. Our one suggestion is to try a solid three weeks of non-goal-oriented affection, with some gentle, karezza in the third week, and then return to conventional orgasm -- all with the same partner. Only in this way can you really make a sound choice about whether or not karezza has rewards. If you aren't consistent for a couple of weeks, the hangover from prior orgasms is still muddying your perception of your partner, so you won't see all the benefits.

Peace Between the Sheets: Healing with Sexual Relationships has a three-week program in it called the "Ecstatic Exchanges." We found it made the experiment easier to have suggested activities. Otherwise it is too easy to drift back into traditional heat-‘em-up foreplay. The disadvantage of conventional foreplay is that it creates intense longings rather than feelings of wholeness.

Do you see any correlations or analogies between addictive sexuality and other habits or behaviors in western cultures?

Dutch scientist Gert Holstege, who said that his brain scans of men ejaculating look like brain scans of people shooting heroin, once remarked that we are all addicted to sex. Orgasm is the most powerful (legal) buzz available to us. I believe that when we consciously move from compulsion to equilibrium in our sex lives, we strengthen our sense of inner wholeness. This decreases our vulnerability to all addictive activities and substances. Without the feelings of lack, uneasiness and neediness that mysteriously show up after sexual satiation, we simply aren't as susceptible to manipulation of any kind, whether by advertisers, governments or porn producers.

Within four months after my husband and I began this practice, his twelve-year addiction to alcohol was under his control. Within a year he was off of Prozac and his chronic depression had lifted. I think our sexual cravings have a very powerful effect on our inner compass, our reward circuitry. With a working compass, we can steer in our true best interests. This may be why sexual mastery was considered a powerful spiritual path by the Taoists, the earliest Christians, and others throughout human history.

What are you working on right now, and how do you see the future of your work?

At the moment I'm working furiously on a re-release of Peace Between the Sheets, to appear in the summer of 2009. It will feature updated science and a closer look at the many explorers from the past who stumbled upon the gifts that lie in careful union.

I'm also working on a booklet for young guys, age 11, called Things You Didn't Know about Porn. I'm convinced that youngsters should not be turned loose on planet Earth without a reliable instruction manual for how to cope with the reward circuitry of the brain. After all, its impulses serve Mother Nature before they serve us. It's important that we learn to distinguish her agenda from our true best interests.

Our reward circuitry evolved over millions of years in environments that were poor in both sugary foods and erotica. Given today's floods of junk food and intense sexual stimulation, you might say that we're guinea pigs in a planet-wide experiment. How do you think it's going?

It's certainly a lot to think about. You make some excellent points. I'm sure your arguments will generate some healthy conversation. Thanks for taking the time to talk.

Thanks for having me!

 

Marnia's Website can be found here: Reuniting, Healing with Sexual Relationships

 

Comments

Yep, I agree

There's no doubt that sex has a downside. It is truly the whole loving affection of another that we tend to want and sex does seem to throw a wrench into that. I know many people here say sex is a spiritual thing... I tend to agree but who likes a fundamentalist? Sex and alcohol in my life and the life of others around me do tend to make life difficult. I believe what she is saying is on the money. I do feel those feelings a lot after sex but I really couldn't place my finger on it. I also tend to believe that sex is a disorder to our wholeness if like alcohol is used to often. Like the saying goes... the party is over. And we are left wondering why our relationships are in the gutter. I like that holding thing she speaks about... looking into each others eyes without the ride and then all the downtime or search for that other one that never really seems to fullfill what your heart or your wholeness is searching for.

Some thoughts

Very interesting post! Coming from a harrowing past of substance abuse and having some experience with the addictive mind myself, a distinct sense of dejavu came over me when reading the article. The authors introduction to her book and the tone of the interview in general brought me back to the days of regularly being cornered and lectured on the "dangers of drug addiction" by well intentioned albeit completely clueless people. And although being "addicted" to sex is certainly not by any means the same as being addicted to say Heroin, I sense the same logic at work with the authors assertions. Yes sex is a very powerful phenomenon that like most things, has the potential of becoming damaging or unhealthy, especially when there is lack of balance in a persons life. But where do we draw the line between compulsive/damaging behavior and something we simply enjoy? When it causes problems of course. But from my experience, addiction is never the root of a problem but merely the manifestation of it. If there is disharmony in a relationship which is sparked off or centered around sex, I would tend to suspect it's more likely an indication of some greater problem. Like lack of communication perhaps. For what is sex but the ultimate form of the most intimate communication?

Withholding is worth knowing about, but does not make "peace."

I've done this (scheduling, withholding) with my partner.  Withholding (contrary to what the above and other sites have to say-- a faux equality) does nothing for women, and lest you have hopes: it cannot arouse desire or revive a sexless relationship or make her want to have sex with you.  We stopped after about a month and a half, because it was screwing things up big time for us, and reverted to our less screwed up state of sexless marriage and halfhearted contract ("You can have sex on Tuesday, unless I'm bleeding, have a cold, or otherwise don't feel like it.")

Emotions after orgasm are similar to emotions during acid/muschroom trip:  Set & setting are essential.  Present society hates men (men have internalized this,) and does not know what to do with men's sexuality? (contrast: papers on women's sexual needs, papers on men's sexual needs) ...so the set & setting is grim, and reminiscent of silverback gorrillas, evolutionary domination struggles, drugs & chemicals, and so on.  Howard Bloom voices something of the set & setting by which we interpret male sexuality.

But as for post-orgasm feeling, once upon a time, long long ago, there was an idea called "afterglow."

Changes during withholding are dramatic in the man.  I recommend that every man try it, for at least 3 weeks, some time:  It's really different.  Many people here are calling it "sacred."  I think that's a very bad name for it.  It's different.  We should all get a sense for the variations:  There are times where you'll consciously withhold, because the differences will be better in some cases, and times when you'll know that it's not a good idea.  So I'm all for understanding this and working with it.

The most damning thing in this effort to get men to withhold, I believe, is that it's all part of an effort to reprogram men.  I want the focus of attention to be on "the problem of men," and men's sexuality.  Jumping straight to "reprogram 'em!" is premature and dangerous, but easy, for both men and women (to attempt.)  Specifically, I want men to step out of the "Think of the Women" protectorate mode, which is our dominant mode, our dominant programming, for myriad historical and evolutionary reasons, and step into the neocortext for a moment.

First, Know & Love yourself.  You should never be ashamed of being male.  Your sexuality is not against you.  Your sexuality is perfect and good, as it is.  Society says otherwise, but society is wrong.  All those sexual fantasies and desires you have are a gift.  Your "objectification of women" -- liking to see them naked, kinked, wearing colors, and what not -- a gift. Realize that there are massive efforts going on right now to reprogram you, to reshape you.  You are almost certainly, because you are a man who cares about women in our modern society, doubting yourself, and trying to convince yourself to feel sex like many (most?) women feel sex -- cuddling and caring.  We do feel that sometimes, naturally.  But it is an extreme minority, and we shouldn't try to disassociate ourselves so extremely:  Know & express your natural feeling.

You cannot be free unless you can be yourself.

not so sure this is universal

I'm not so sure this is a universal truth regarding our sexuality. It seems more like an individuated path created by two people that works for their natures. She isn't factually correct on a few points regarding the Taoist approach either, again, there may have been a particular Taoist Path that took one particular approach - but orgasm is very much a part of taoist inner alchemy. also, there are other things going on with our brains both before and after sex, you can just separate one event (orgasm) and then assume the brain's chemical life centers around that one event.

bubblefish

If you read the book, I think you'll find that she's not talking about "orgasm" the way you are thinking the Taoists are. She talks a lot about "heart" orgasms (which are different than the kind she is sort of pointing the finger at). Her tone is only "sounding" universal because it's trying to reach people who are suffering.

So, if you're not suffering and can't use anything she's offering, just don't take it too seriously! But I assure you, she's got a heart the size of Mars! She's very sweet and not at all "fundy" in her perceptions here. My advice---read the book. It's really fascinating, if nothing else.

Adam Elenbaas

I'll Look At It If It Differs From "Reuniting"

I am suffering, and most men are suffering, and most of us are going to suffer lots more.

Her ideas may not be "fundy," but they are spoken with the conviction of modern science, and have a lot to say about what goes on in the bedroom.  They're also promoted heavily:  My friend Craig introduced me to these ideas last year, through a site that prominantly promotes her book, and they're pretty sure that they've got the ticket to curing, say, sexless marriages.  I gobbled them up eagerly and tried it all out.

She's going to try to scare the hell out of 11-year old boys about porn, it seems.  That's pretty fundie, by my fundie meter.

I doubt it

I don't see the "necessary" connection between a conviction and any sort of aggression or fear.

If it works for you, then it works.

I've been using Marnia's approach, in coalition with Ayahuasca ceremonies in Peru, for about a year. It has been the single largest blessing in my spiritual/relational development.

Speaking with conviction will find its way into the hearts of those who need the resonance, and there's not need to judge it if you don't vibe with it.

Judgment does not indicate a detachment from Marnia's argument.

At best it conveys another conviction. Scientific convictions are like waterfalls for people to stand under. Some people like to feel canyons of passionate love, to wash away old patterns.

After a while, they might find a lagoon to bathe in. But it would make little sense for those in the lagoon to distract themselves from their bathing by ridiculing those under the waterfall.

Adam Elenbaas

"Men valuing women... correctly."

She wants to teach young boys that porn is B A D.

You can see what they know about men in this picture here, on their website: Men want sex, women want romance.  (Which is absolutely & undeniably true.)  Society supports the woman's romance, but despises the man's lust.

Look more deeply in the website, and you find anti-porn activism. They're pretending it's about both men and women but then there's the special note for women.

"It is easier for men to value us correctly if..."  Yes?  You see it?  This is about making men value women "correctly."  We've got to be retrained.

It's not just her, but our total society, right and left, trying to retrain men.  You, being a person in modern society, probably are, too.  I was myself, up until about a year ago.

If anyone is interested in my more direct critique on her essay, you can read it here.

brain levels

Interesting stuff...what came to mind for me is the two weeks shamans suggest to not have sex(orgasm) before you drink ayahuasca. Maybe they intuitively know this about the dopamine levels and want the brain to be at peak chemical health before drinking the tea?I know that I always love to find science behind strange religious beliefs. such as celibacy to control libido for brain balance rather than jesus is kind of groovy

More to it than that

Both the material in the interview and LionKimbro's response are very thought-provoking. I have done some research (and some fun experimentation) in this area too. In 15 years, the material that spoke to me most was Jack Johnstone's work on male multiple orgasm, which refers not to an ejaculatory orgasm but to a heart-gasm, an emotional whole-body love orgasm. Of course there is ample reference to "higher-level orgasm" in both Taoist and Tantric literature as well, but Johnstone's work is imbued with a gentleness, a kind spirit. It is a major milestone in the sexual healing of men (and I agree that we are generally far more damaged than women).

I question the premise that our genetic biology drives us toward mere survival and reproduction, and that therefore, to experience anything higher and better we have to fight against nature. This is the personal version of the same ideology of Ascent that is destroying the earth. The war against nature. There are other ways to understand biology that don't lead to such a conclusion (see www.ascentofhumanity.com/chapter6-5.php). I think the "fundy"-ness that LionKimbro detects is essentially in this restatement of the Calvinist doctrine of the "total depravity of man."

Some Taoist sources warn against an excessive buildup of sexual energy through withholding orgasm. Too much orgasm depletes, yes, they say, but if you try to become superman by saving up your semen, you will overload your energy circuits and could suffer mental problems, unless you are proficient in the alchemical techniques used to sublimate the raw sexual fluids. An ancient tale issues this warning quite graphically: a Taoist wizard overzealously practices the art of semen retention, and ends up exploding in an eruption of silvery liquid. (Fortunately, the body has means to prevent such imbalances, for example nocturnal emission.)

Wilhelm Reich would agree with this warning. He considered orgasm essential for mental health, and in The Function of the Orgasm gives many clinical examples of its therapeutic benefits. I read it many years ago and can't remember the exact explanation, but I think it had to do with a recalibration of the nervous system through uncontrolled release. We are so seldom out of control! Orgasm perhaps reconnects us to a state of spontaneous flow.

I do think that the fixation on orgasm as the goal of sex can be damaging, and orgasms that are forced in this way are depleting. However, an excess of moderation is a dangerous thing. The body likes to be brought occasionally to its extremes. For example, overeating (eating till you're stuffed) is very harmful, but it is actually healthy to do it once in a while to exercise your eliminative capacities and stay fit. (It's called a "feast".) Excessive moderation is the road to senescence.

Charles Eisenstein

www.ascentofhumanity.com 

 

responding to several posts now

I think it's a little unfair to lump her view of genetic and biological urges to "Total Depravity."

Total Depravity, in 5 point Calvinism, suggests that there is nothing we can do to change our state of fallenness. Just like there is nothing we can do to be "Elect." The Calvinist system is fatalistic. It's not accurate to say that Marnia's theory is fatalistic.

Instead, Marnia suggests that depravity, sexually speaking, is always a choice. We may have wired urges for chemical rewards, pro-creative urges, etc. But the point is not to become dominated by them.

I would also disagree with the idea that we are "so seldom out of control." In an age of information, sensory, and chemical/dietary overload, I'd say we're far, far, far from "controlled."

Not speaking to you directly Charles, but the word "control" is often pointed at pejoratively when a person resents their own ability to make solid decisions and live in knowingness.

I think we confuse knowingness and certainty for fundamentalism because we have resentment built up towards fundamentalist structures, religions, theology, etc.

What strikes me is the way in which such open minded people are not able to envision the good in absolutism. My experience with Ayahuasca has taken me time and time again into the Bardos and asked me to see God in the worst of it.

The pornography example. I'm going to just blurt it out. I think that pornography, largely but not absolutely, is degrading and cheapening our ability to experience consciousness and intimacy.

I think there are healthy ways to sexual exploration and liberation.

I could be totally wrong. But according to whose conviction?




Adam Elenbaas

depravity

I didn't mean to paint Marnia with the same brush as Calvin, or to say she promotes the doctrine of total depravity. It is just that both are outcroppings of an idea as old as agriculture, that goodness comes through the conquest of nature.  

You wrote: "In an age of information, sensory, and chemical/dietary overload, I'd say we're far, far, far from 'controlled.'" I think that the things you list are agents of control, or substitutes for true freedom or true wildness. They numb us and serve as substitutes for the full self-expression and transcendence of boundaries that we actually desire. They are a sham, a lie. Speaking of which, that's the way I feel about pornography too. I don't like it myself, because it feels phony. It pretends to give me something but doesn't actually give it to me. After all, that hot naked woman isn't actually in my bed, and her aroused expression isn't actually for me. Pornography is something that temporarily assuages the hurting from an unmet need, without meeting the need -- a sure recipe for addiction.

As for your very insightful point about control and absolutism, there have definitely been times in my life when I have used "not controlling" as a cop-out to shy away from my creative power and necessity to choose. Sexually, this relates to being afraid to sometimes step into the male-yang mode and take charge. This shying away might be a natural response to a past history, when such taking charge was done oblivious to the signals of the receptive female. Metaphorically, this is what we have done to Earth as well in the imposition of our designs upon it. However, shying away from that role isn't right either. The solution isn't to banish the male-yang energy, but to realign it with the needs of the female. In the same vein, we humans become earth's gardeners and not her conquerors. But we still use our gifts of hand and mind to create. (I talk more about this in "The Testicular Age", an RS post last year).

A very wise (female) friend told me, "A woman wants to be told what she wants." She did not mean that she wants a man to dictate her desires to her. She meant she wants a man to be so sensitive to her desires, and so sure of himself, that he can boldly tell her to do what she wants to do anyway. And of course, this is not only an external male/female dynamic, but plays out as well internally through the anima/animus.  

Charles Eisenstein

www.ascentofhumanity.com

 

Getting Back to You

I don't know a single man who hasn't.  I am reminded of Warren Farrel's, "The strength of women is the appearance of weakness.  The weakness of men is the appearance of strength."

I've seen articles that say, "harms women," others that say, "doesn't harm women."  Women come out and say, "I had a great time and made a lot of money," others come out and say, "It was horrific, and I wouldn't want anyone else to do it."

In other words, it sounds pretty much like every job every man takes, as well.

Nobody sheds tears about the man who's dehumanized because he's working a 9-6 soul crushing job to support his family.

In general, the "research" on porn is linked with an organization that has a clear agenda or a clear set of sexual values that they want to propagate.

My belief is that the reason there is an anti-porn movement, is because conservative forces and women want to have greater bargaining power and control over men;  Civilization is basically whipped.  "Pop-feminists need to oppose male pornography not because men see women as sex objects, but to increase women's value as sex objects."

Are you sure?

"I know plenty of men who consume porn without thinking about where it comes from and the damage it does."

How do you know?  (And... "consume?"  Don't we look at it?  Or read it?)

Do they just look like they don't care?

Recognize too, that-- if you pressure a man about it, and he shouts back, "I don't care!", it doesn't mean that he doesn't care, or hasn't thought about it.

Men say "It's not important," or, "I don't care," or "Whatever," most of the time, and it doesn't actually mean that;  It just means, "Conversation dismissed, not going to go there."  It doesn't mean that there's not thought there.

Re: communications:  I'm also wide open to phone calls, which I think are much better for this kind of thing.  206.427.2545.  (Seattle, WA) Email/posted point-by-points tend not to work so well, in my experience.  Voice-voice real-time conversation can be much more stabilizing, and new insights emerge much easier.  I'm open to that, or IRC or Gmail based IM as well.

agreed

Great points Charles. They are well taken. I especially appreciate how you went a step further with "control." I appreciate the articulation here. Very beautiful.

 

Adam Elenbaas

A man needs freedom, wildness, and telepathic subservience.

Charles Eistenstein, I completely share the seeking of freedom, wildness, self-expression, and transcendence of boundary.

But when you invoke your female friend's words on women's desires:  "a man to be so sensitive to her desires, and so sure of himself, that he can boldly tell her to do what she wants to do anyway," ... I ask myself, "What's your point?"

This is no different than the boss that needs mind-reading employees attending to his (or her) every whim.  The chains reach out and clasp themselves around our ankles.  The message you and I and everyone else here is consenting to is:  Men are here to please women, happiness is not for men, and here's how it must go.

Are we satisfying our wives or girlfriends by doing this?  How is it that my girlfriend's favorite internet video is John Mayer being an asshole, whom she even sent e-mail invitations to come to her birthday, "Just for fun." ..?

I think women have a sense that, "Gee, I really should be attracted to my partner, he's such a good guy, but I'm not," and tries to account for it.  "Maybe it's because he didn't do the dishes last Tuesday..."  The thought that she's attracted to independence doesn't even arise.  It couldn't be that she's attracted to his independence, because she needs him to be dependent on her -- women are oppressed, after all, and need to be protected!  Everything in our society says, "Give to her, give to her, give to her."  Nothing in our society says, "Give to him."

No no no;  It must be that "he just not doing enough for me."

But men pour more and more work into satisfying her cravings, and somehow she's still not interested.  Nobody is happy.  Wonder what's going on?

Here's the answer:  Liberate men.

my point is...

Lion, it is very different from reading the boss's mind. It is not subservience, and not a guessing game of trying to figure out what she wants.  It would only be that way if (in my friend's scenario) the woman knew what she wanted but was hiding it. But her point was that sometimes women don't actually know what they want. Now, this point can be overapplied and abused, and of course it is true of men too, but there is something about it that really rings true. Anyway, read my comment more carefully. It is not about protecting women, it is about respecting them. Here, let me explain with an analogy to lovemaking, if I can do it without embarrassing myself. When I make love to a woman, I dedicate myself as much to her pleasure as to mine (and anyway the pleasure bounces back and forth magnified), but I don't do that by obeying her every whim (except sometimes just for fun) or by asking her "now what do you want me to do?" I do it by taking charge and maybe surprising her with things she didn't even know she wanted. I am inventive, daring, initiating -- the essence of the male-phallic-yang (as opposed to the male-testicular-yin). Do this, I say, Do that. And she complies and loves it. I am not being submissive at all; quite the opposite. Occasionally I might take a more submissive role too, but in general, at this point in my sexual life, I feel more fulfilled in my masculinity in the dominant role. So sensitivity and respect needn't equate to submissiveness. Man oh man was I unsuccessful in not embarrassing myself.

Charles Eisenstein

www.ascentofhumanity.com 

yes, and...

And remember that the male-yang, representing the masculine qualities of taking charge, setting the pace, exploring, initiating, forging into new territory, etc., is only half the complete male. The male-yin is equally important, embodying the masculine qualities of steadfastness, forebearance, husbanding, conserving, renewing, patience, support. Then there is the feminine yin and yang too. Our civilization has been dominated by a distorted version of the masculine yang and feminine yin, to the neglect of the other two poles. See: www.realitysandwich.com/testicular_age. Some men, disturbed by the excesses and distortions of the male yang, abandon it altogether, leading to some of the disharmonies that Lionkimbo inveighs against. 

Charles Eisenstein

www.ascentofhumanity.com

Hah!

Hah!  "Who am I, that I should not make a fool of myself?"  (Yeats, marrying a young girl in old age.)

Yes, yes, yes;  Of course.  Don't worry about it, I know what you're talking about, and readers should as well.

I should have seen what you intended;  I thought you were giving me ye old, "if she's not having sex with you, it's because you're not properly anticipating her every last wish with baited breath."  Flowers, massaging, rose petals from the doorway, long bath, and so on.  Of course, I see what you intended.

"Merely depraved."

OK, so Marnia says that men are just depraved, not totally depraved.

She says to men:  you have a "choice" whether to be depraved or not.  On the one hand, (she says,) you can be depraved, and I'll throw rocks at you by comparing you to a heroine addict.  On the other hand, a woman can guide you into the art of intimacy, of serving her needs, and you can forgo your natural depraved masculine sexual nature, thereby making the right choice towards redemption.

This isn't spiritual, this is fem-dominance. (Not a problem if a man's into that sort of thing, of course.)

Whether our culture is too controlling or not controlling or whatever, I can say that --

In those times when I am spirited, excited, happy, positive, -- one of the things I feel is also "in control" of myself, -- and I never feel like I need to be "more intimate," or that I have to deny any sexual feeling inside myself.

The word "depraved" doesn't even occur to me, though I may have some sexual fantasy that you consider depraved, or degraded, or whatever.  My sexual appetite doesn't stop, just because I get into that positive spirited attitude!  To the contrary, I feel more comfortable than ever with my masculine sexuality, and have a higher appetite than usual (already pretty high.)

What I'm on about is the spiritual & sexual liberation of all people, and the "big gap" right now is for men's sexuality.

I can't see how the answer is possibly "intimacy." Men can't be free like that. You seem to be into it, and I'll try to respect that, but it doesn't make any sense to me.

interesting

But is that a result of her theory or a person whose got an aggresive or violent agenda?

I would never use her theory to attack someone.

I'd spoon them with it (no climax of course). haha

Jk.

 

Adam Elenbaas

Great post and discussion

This book introduces a fascinating discourse, not least in the way it brings the conversation of addiction to the (sexuality) table in a novel way.

 

And the discussion of male sexuality and porn here is also very interesting. Lion, I read some of your writing off this site, and I appreciate your fierce :) passion for male sexual liberation and self-discovery. But as you allow, the junk-food metaphor for pornography is valid, and care should be taken with how much is ingested, especially when/if addiction is a possibility. My body responds to porn, to drugs and to the taste of McGreaseburgers, and I should be careful with my exposure to all of them.

 

Pornography as a theory can be applied liberally in our lives. There's a wonderful essay to this effect, written in the late 80s, called The Pornographic Impulse. In it, Jay Kinney defines pornography as any "tendency to create (or seek out an already created) media image or fantasy which substitutes for that which is represented" and posits that "sexual pornography is only one manifestation of this impulse, and hardly the most pervasive."

Something to say

Following this discussion as it reduced itself to anti porn rhetoric was quite disheartening. To even discover such unenlightened i.e. unrealistic viewpoints on this site is alarming. Firstly porn is a business and like all occupations it has its share of occupational hazards. If there are moral or ethical issues at all, they concern the lack of regulation/enforcement within the industry, and the main reason for this is that sex is still such a taboo. Stemming historically from religiosity and (from what I’m discovering here) some kind of moral superiority by some people. To hold such absolute ideas like porn is degrading to Women (as though one standard of right and wrong can be held for a whole gender) is quite shallow. Before we can even approach the issue of whether porn is good or bad, a whole range of psycho/social/economic factors need to be taken into consideration. And to have your head up in some new age cloud as you pass absolute judgment, leaves you no better than the people who have spent the last several hundred years making sex a dirty word. This is exactly what created an illicit market and set the scene for what the sex industry is today in the first place.

Too me the science and

Too me the science and taoism involved in the concept promoted by the book are a little bit over simplistic. There is definitely an addictive quality to orgasm's and we know the release afterwards can have an effect, but to say an automatic 2 weeks is perhaps simplifying everything. Also they didn't mention alternate ways to orgasm such as the taoist technique of orgasm without ejaculation, which also in turn impacts the bio-chemistry. I think I read about this in the barefoot doctor's guide for modern lovers, but I have practiced it and it basically involves bringing the energy from your groin back to your head, and it will give a different kind of orgasm without the feeling of being drained/dispersal of energy. This doesn't seem to be mentioned as a possibility. In regards to pornography, I think that it is something that we don't properly understand the psychological impact of linking our sexual desires so highly to computers.

Confused by "sin" issue

I thought one issue she brought up was whether or not porn or orgasm is has an addictive cycle to it - and therefore distorts perception for some time afterward. This is not a claim that porn or sex is sinful. The issue is whether they're harmless entertainment and merely "good feelings," or if there's a darker side to them. This is something that personal experience can confirm - or not. I doubt it can be settled at an ideological level.

 

Personally I never viewed the Taoist material on sexual cultivation as an attack on my manhood. I was drawn to the first book I read on Taoist lovemaking ( Mantak Chia's 'Taoist Secrets of Love: Cultivating Male Sexual Energy') because it was all about making me stronger and more virile. Maybe that's why I'm not as triggered as Lion. I heard the ideas first in a book written by a man, for men.

 

One thing I agree with is that Big Business naturally focuses a lot of attention on things that it can get us addicted to - because it's very lucrative. And it will do anything it can to make those things even more addictive. Lacing cigarettes with extra nicotine is one example. Lacing porn with violence, risky behavior, degradation and dominance themes is another. Lacing snacks with hidden refined sugar is a third. Taoist sex, meditation, and many other practices are ways of making ourselves less vulnerable to cravings because they create balance. I guess I'm not convinced that the "freedom to stay addicted to sex" is a freedom I feel I need to protect as a man. I always have that option. Nothing could be easier than jerking off.

It's about the role of men in life.

(1.) I encourage men to learn about withholding.
I said so above, and I said that I practice it (sometimes) as well.

You didn't exactly say to the contrary;  I just want it to be clear.

(2.) Nobody's attacking anyone's manhood.

The author attempts to convince men that men's sex to completion and aggression are bad, but that cuddle and intimacy are good.  The picture we get is of wise healing women guiding men (men, who are burdened with a depraved nature, and a choice they need to make against it,) into the glorious future of intimate relationships, cuddling, and constant vigilance against their self-nature.

This picture is broadly held (example) in our society, by both genders, both political wings even, and it is devestating to men sexually, emotionally, mentally, spiritually, philisophically, morally, politically, legally, and on and on.

Is anyone's masculinity being attacked?  No, definitely not.  It's just men that are being attacked.

Compare:  Feminism wan't motivated because there were attacks on women's femininity.

Where are the words of women?

I find it intersting that so few women have commented upon this post. Men were very quick leap into this subject of the orgasam. Why is it that women were not? Could it be a collective, "A woman wants to be told what she wants."? Are you responding to what we desire, yet didn't know how to verbalize? Or are women still afraid to speak even in such a safe enviroment? Is it because men value the orgasam more, because tradionally many women do not find themselves in places to achieve? Is it a matter of attachment?

Here's my change men: In my very basic knowledge of Tantra, it is my understanding that it is acceptable for a woman to achieve orgasam as many times as she possibly desires, whereas the man should withhold and the woman should play an active role of reading her lover to help him withold. It is that nature of a coy dance that creates an enviroment where lovemaking can last many years, rather then a few hours.

 Each person (male/female) must be aware of thier needs, and truthfully be honest with themselves and thier parnter(s) of said needs. Some people dance well with multiple lovers, some do not. I would submit that holiness doesn't come from lack of sexual desire/acts, but the truth in which we live.

Reply to Monkey Blood

I am not an academic and don't claim to be an "expert" . Like a large portion of society I'm simply a regular guy trying to be conscientious and apply a certain degree of common sense to living. My use of the term the sex industry is a blanket one which I use to mean every situation where sex has been comodified and thus ruled by the laws of supply and demand; From prostitution, to pornography, to(arguably)mail order brides. None of which can be called into question without addressing the whole social structure and male/female power dynamic. Is sex as a paid service a moral/ethcal problem? Off hand, I would tend to say yes. But that would be to ignore the positive benefits these services offer, in for example preventing the build up of sexual frustration in segments of society that don't have access to normal relationships. Like I said; supply and demand. As to your definition of the difference between porn and erotica, I have to admit that I've come across some pretty unsettling stuff on the web. But when you use the word degrading as a distinction between the two, what exactly is it that makes pornography more "degrading" to a womans dignity and integrity than say a younger woman marrying an older man purely for his money? Is it the sexual act performed so brazenly itself? Because I would suspect that in both cases it's all about the money . But if in your use of the word "degrading" you mean the more unusual sexual acts out there, once again I would point out the law of supply and demand at work; One mans meat is another's poison as they say. Which isn't to say that the more unatural sexual apetites that exist aren't gravely disturbing, but being squeamish or taking on some moral high ground certainly isn't going to help.

To quote George Clinton

"I have tasted the maggots in the mind of the universe, and I was not offended, for I knew I had to rise above it all, or drown in my own shit"

Peace!

Let me just... : )

Lots of interesting issues raised! Thanks for the thought provoking debate MonkeyBlood. I would just like to expound on what I meant by supply and demand. Mainly I used the term to emphasize the fact that porn is first and foremost a business. In place solely to make profit, and fueled by a whole range of problems which plague humanity; Problems that exist regardless of whether people are there to exploit the situation or not. And because there will always be people willing to exploit others, I think the more pertinent question is how we as thinking/feeling individuals should address these issue. Unless we are going to question the fair exchange of service for monetary remuneration, the best we can do is ensure that fairness IS achieved. I think this can only come about from openness, objectivity and acceptance of who and what we are. This brings me to the issue of why Men seem to be the primary consumers of pornography. I'm sure you are well aware of the theories on the fundamental difference between the sexes i.e. Men being much more hard wired for visual stimulus or the notion that women view sex as much more of an investment due to their biological roles. All very harsh and clinical sounding, and I'm not even sure of how accurate these theories are. Nevertheless, I think they should be taken into consideration when attempting to tackle such a complicated and critical aspect of being human. Certainly not by adopting any sort of condescending, holier than thou attitude. Because there are real problems to be solved and the question I ask myself is how? As I'm sure you well know, what we do is preceded what we think! : ) Talk about being condescending! Ha ha OK I rest my case

Staying Clear

"As my husband says, our subconscious mating program is working brilliantly; it just doesn't have our individual wellbeing at heart."

This is a fascinating notion, one that I'll be musing over for days. I really appreciate what Marnia shares with others, either for profit or just out of the goodness of her heart.

My only comment regarding the intense posting above is to remind everyone (including Marnia) that, as far as sexuality is concerned, our sphere of authority only truly extends to our personal experience. I see a lot of broad statements (again, some from Marnia herself) about sexuality, both men's and women's. For the many similarities, I believe we all have extraordinarily distinctive makeups. My appreciation comes from hearing about Marnia's experience. I don't think any one has the understanding to knows what works for another, though we might have knowledge that others can benefit from. An elixir to one is poison to another.

I can't imagine a worse idea than someone prescribing for another - or for society - how they should conduct their sex life. However, that is not to say that sharing our own explorations, findings and study from our own realm does not have immense value.

don...what do you think of this?

 

 I wonder....in the "consensus of consciousness" you wrote about, when we all respect each other's ability to choose, will anything be any different than it is now?

How could we not respect each other's ability to choose? Aren't we helpless in the face of choice?

And that consciousness never ends, despite choice, isn't that the most beautiful thing ever?

I respect that too!

Gratitude

I just want to express my gratitude to everyone in this forum, regardless of whether we agree or not. Here's my prayer for sexual fulfillment for every person on Earth.

The absent female experience

There seems to be an ignorance of the female response here. The author does use her own predilections and personal tastes to conclude how women react to sex. To Martin, I offer a resounding "yes!" We cannot interpret an individual's experience of his/her life based on our own modalities.

This article and interview is geared towards men (and it does seem to me to be reinforcing male anxieties, not assuaging them), yet makes sweeping generalizations about all people.

Adam did explain in the comments section the intended audience of both the book and this interview, but that should have been made clear in the article itself.

 For many men, for whom orgasm is as simple and as thoughtless as turning on a light swtich, her advice may be useful. But to group women (roughly 25% of whom are preorgasmic) with orgasm addiction would be laughable if it weren't tinged with cruelty.

I also agree strongly with Jennifer's comments. Orgasm is couched so tightly with the intracacies of emotion, guilt, desire, hisotry, psychology, biology and intimacy that to isolate the orgasm itself as the problem is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. We should be looking much more closely at why frustrations or "hangovers" arise, not just from a biological perspective, but from an emotional one. If we are running as fast as we can to get to the finish line, we will surely fall short of success enough to drive us to frustration. If we treat sex as a journey with nuance and profundity, and if we treat orgasm as a powerful and beautiful part of that journey, I believe that hangover isn't nearly as potent as the author suggests.

As I suggested over on the Masturbation thread from last week, if a person proposes anecdotal evidence as their only support to a thesis, I can disprove their entire theory simply by providing a counter-example from my own experience. Therefore I say- in my experience, great sex never equals a feeling of disconnect or sadness for me. Great sex (whether leading to none or several orgasms) leads me to greater self-confidence, self-love and appreciation for my partner. ~Rev

Great work Rev

 

Really nice response, Rev. I appreciate many of your insights here, especially the idea that so much more than biology is on the table when it comes to orgasmic hangover, repression, etc.

One thing I might counter, though. I do not think that this article reinforces male anxieties. That comment seemed as generalized and subjective as the ones that you're speaking out against.

 

The comments on any post are not at all reflective of the readership. This article has already gotten a lot of hits, far more hits than comments, if you get what I mean.

If you notice, there are a handful of people who are responsible for most of the reactions and reflections here. I have received many personal emails from male readers this week, more than male posters here in this forum, thanking me for this interview.

That doesn't mean the response is affirming something that is universally "true" either. Just---not sure that this article is like...harming anything, you know?

If one is feeling "harmed" by this interview, then I would suspect that one should look inward.

I think it's helpful to think about orgasm addiction, but we don't have to get prescriptive. I think lots of men and women are addicted to a kind of sex that, unlike your positive experiences, do not breed appreciation for either their partner or sex itself.

This could change, and people who feel they need that change might appreciate this. For those who don't, just let it go...right? Enjoy the peace you already have between your sheets!

Marnia's book helped me to establish something new and profoundly helpful. I'm sure things will keep evolving!

Adam Elenbaas

The kind of sex

Yes, Adam, I agree that I made an unsupported comment. I was referring to the anxieties brought up by the men commenting, whom I can't speak for, and I'm sure that many men who read the interview came away from it empowered.

I think you made a very key point when you suggested that the addiction is to the "kind of sex that does not breed appreciation." That's what bothered me in the comments for the Masturbation article and what bothered me here. Ms. Robinson makes such sweeping comments about "sex" "intimacy" and "orgasm" that it appears as though there are only single definitions for each of those terms. We are missing a lot of context here. Again, I would have been appeased if the target audience were clarified from the get go, so that the article couldn't be as easily interpreted as an indictment against healthy orgasm-enjoyers and consumers of pornography, and a treatise on the Differences between Men and Women.

Perhaps I was being hyper-sensitive, but it seemed like Ms. Robinson was talking about universal experiences, when they are certainly not. ~Rev

good grit

Gotcha. An audience clarification. I think that's a valid point. This is all such good grit to grind out my spiritual evolution on!

 

One love,

 

Adam Elenbaas

sugar and porn

new age bridie
When we are children we yearn sweets and chocolate,when we become adults its drugs and porn...all filling a void in our desires...the more we feed these desires the more we crave them..in my experience the same applies to orgasm...i've settled into a very nurturing relationship over this past year...it has evolved to the point that the connection is greater than the sex that comes with...hormonally women are different to men...we all hear stories of women acting out of character and injuring the ones they love because of hormone imbalances...are these same women on orgasm addiction?if they don't get their 'fix' do they then act out and go mad?Creating conflict unneccessarily,all in the hormones finding its way into the psyche...On a different note...........i recently removed sugar from the diet of my 9yr old son...communication has improved,he listens,he responds,his attention is more focused,hes happier in himself and realises that life is much better for him without the kiddy crack that is sugar...We need to listen to each other without all the distractions of sexual fodder and sugar!Great article,felt i had to submit a comment from the female perspective and agree that with too much comes too much complication.. Solas

Rubbish!

Ooh, look, a novel way to hate our sexuality all over again just like our great grandparents did! Only this time we don't have the Christian church looking over our shoulder but long-dead Taoist superstition mongers from a time 1000 years ago, when neither physiology nor psychology was understood. What an astounding mishmosh of self-hate and bad science. Ranks right up there with Andrea Dworkin in the anti-sex idiocy sweepstakes.

id rather see

I don't see hatred of sexuality in this, at all.

I've been practicing Marnia's approach, which feels like cold rain on a hot afternoon. I love it!

It's been incredibly transformational and has taught me how to appreciate sexual intimacy, as opposed to to sexual overload.

For some, this is a great lesson---though not for all.

It's disappointing that you would jump to the conclusion that this approach, how its healed me and many others, would be a "mishmosh of self-hate and bad science."

If you know what good science is, then why not be more rational, less sarcastic and biting, in your response?

Comments like this one often sit with me for a long time and can really hurt. I respect your ability to sound off on anything, but just remember that there are many pure intentions and good people on both sides of this debate.

 

There's a way to make your point. It sounds like you have some knowledge here of science that might be worth contributing. It sounds like you have some knowledge that might build and inspire new life in people.

It sounds like you're really smart.

I'd rather hear about your knowledge than your cynical freestyling, you know?


Adam Elenbaas

Web Research on the Science

OK, I don't know "happydog," and can't speak for him, but I decided to do some research on the science.  "Is orgasming as bad as taking heroin?"

Marnia cites Dr. Holstege, noting that he compared the scans of men (not women, despite efforts at equality washing -- women's show up totally different) to scans of people shooting heroin.

An interview with Greg Hostege shows that he seems to be less than enthusiastic about the analogy, though.

Gert Holstege: Actually real people that are addicted to heroin are not interested anymore in sex – it’s a very well known fact. Because they say “when I take the needle and I inject myself with heroin I get a much better orgasm than during sex”.

Is that true?  A study on the sexuality of heroin addicts.  The long article makes it clear that men not only lose the ability to ejaculate, in fact, they lose all sexual desire, period, and for what (by the graphs) appears to be months on end.

In fact, the whole article paints a picture of sexuality (including orgasm) as positive, and adversarial to (though weaker than) heroin use.  One line in particular:  "Interestingly, addiction to heroin lessens in some male subjects after experiencing an orgasm."

There's nothing conclusive here, but I have personally set aside suspicions that ejaculating is like heroin.  Heroin is clearly something very different.

I hear you.

Just letting you know.

The Test in the Trying this

Most of you who commented are giving your opinions from your past angers, from your past experiences, from your subconscious, unhealed issues. The proof of what Marnia says can be found in trying it out. Personally, I used to be very into orgasms and now I have abstained for nearly 2 years. I feel so much better. They used to make me edgy, nervous, promote depression, give me cravings, etc. Now, I feel that I can meditate better, I can channel that energy into meaningful creative projects. I am not needing anything or anyone outside of myself for my well being. I am not dependent on anyone or anything for my centeredness. I can focus on my true spiritual desires and goals, instead of the next rush from my groin. I have moved my consciousness up from my base of my spine, to higher centers within me. The proof is in how I feel. So, those of you who just have opinions because you don't want to go the extra miles to discipline yourself and try this, you complain because it is not an easy thing. But, it has great rewards. I challenge you to take control of that energy that is at the base of your spine that controls what you do and what you think about. I am not interested in the differences between male and female, that to me is archaic. I am only interested in becoming more spiritually evoloved for the betterment of this planet and my own ascension. That includes holding my seed. I am not into gender differences as they are a human thing and I am more intersted in ascending and not letting that which is coined to be "human" keep me controlled and locked in lower worlds, controlled by subconscious longings. My FREEDOM is much more important to me. I attain being closer to this everyday that I refrain from losing my seed. If you are not interested in World Peace or inner Freedom or ascending spiritually and feeling your own peace in order to bring more peace into this world, than of course you would want to hold onto your mind-blowing orgasm. This is not for you then. I challenge only those that are interested in climbing to their spiritual potential and who wish to promote inner peace and world peace. These are the only ones that I am speaking to. The rest really don't care anyway. They just want to escape reality with an orgasm. I used to be that way. It takes discipline to move that sexual energy up the spine, but I would rather use that energy to open my third eye and my heart chakra, and further open my crown chakra to feel my oneness with Divinity. That is what this is about. If you don't care about world peace or spiritual ascension, then this concept of Marnia's is too far over your head.

Bit of judgement in that airing...

Sun......i'm a tad confused with your post...i agree with what you are saying to some degree as i have experienced all that you say,some good points but....to disregard the human body and temperament is a bit thankless,constantly trying to rise above this human condition can be hidden by the ego trying to find a place on some occult masters programme hidden within the web...there is a time to give and a time to receive...if we all abstained then people would be no more...interesting that someone disregarding the human experience would not want to share any seeds...seems a bit selfish and controlling...everyone has their own reasons for abstainence...you did 2yrs...i did 5!!!combined with sweat lodges,shamanic workshops and working with the human experience...I went bk to basics with myself and learned to love everything,saw the boundaries i was creating and soon dissolved them....stopping negative behaviour patterns that affected my life...i've just got the skin i was born in...and my ancestors thoughts are always with me...and i with them...and all future progeny that will come...displaced people will keep moving till they find their home...orgasm or no orgasm...!!!! Solas

This book is needless like

This book is needless like dogs training to a damn cat.

Peace between sheets

very educational. I found that after sex with my new lady freind who liked to go slow for 2 or 3 hours before climaxing, I was in a state of painful withdrawal for days or weeks. When we parted (after two years of lust) I believe the depression was from withdrawal of the excessive sex.

Sexual addiction is about about brain chemistry and like Menninger said "a pitiful attempt at self medication." In this case like the atricle said "medicating the lows."

 

Thanks a million

 

Fred Joseph