The traditional role of men in the act of intimacy is usually that of the active one - i.e. he does the thrusting whilst the woman receives it. This may be all well and good within the traditional fertilisation-driven sex framework, but can we really RE-UNITE within such an approach? If it is about focus on the man being the giver and the woman always the receiver, then how can we reach union given that both genders have an aspect that the other needs? Isn't there truth in the phrase "in giving you receive"? Isn't the very nature of a womans body that of nourishment and life-generation, and mans that of the active agent serving life and protecting it?
My view of a proper form of karezza would be for BOTH partners to be active and passive and in a role that aims on stillness rather than the man having to thrust his way towards fertilisation or her\his orgasm or for him to be the only kisser or caresser. The man has this desire to kiss his woman on the lips and to caress her body however real men also desire a woman's gentle graceful touch. Whilst a man and woman are mutually kissing each other and caressing each other they will soon feel that the dichotomy between "giver" and "receiver" is slowly eroded as they both unite as one polarity. Obviously, any increase in energy could destroy this subtle union if either of them get too excited by the flows of energy.
This is from what I've learned anyway and although it is incredibly hard to get into the sort of union; it can be extremely rewarding when you find yourself merging into one entity. I have been told that "well, shouldn't the man be always doing the kissing or the thrusting?" but I genuinely say that it makes sense that neither party should focus on being solely active or passive during a particular session. Although I would urge men to initiate the act and then just focus on mutual caressing. The man can be advised to kiss the womans bosom, neck, etc whilst she caresses his back and neck. This way we allow a good polarity in energy exchange rather than the energy building up in the woman and not being directed back to the man in return. It is also less likely for a man to ejaculate this way, because if he becomes too dominant a "giver" he will basically run out of energy and it will drain downward to be expelled in his genitals. There will always be this temptation to just throw the woman down and copulate widely because of the old animal instinct of power and domination - it just needs to be diminished by positive focus.
I think part of the issue is that we men like to be seen as an active principle. The way I see it is that men have certain roles where this sense of active control comes into play. For example, it is understood by native americans that we as men TAKE life (and also protect), and you as women GIVE life and nurture it. Thus men were in control of the hunting ground and the building of shelter and the policing of the community, and women in control of the soil, of medicine and the education of the community. Both genders need each other to attain the experience of re-uniting. One cannot dominate the other in all aspects.