Richardson advice on polarity-touching during sex

Submitted by lamat on
Printer-friendly version

I am confused because I don't understand something Diana Richardson says about the polarity of men and women, and how this can be used while making love in order to create a deeper conection.

In one place I've found this:

"Reach out to your partner and place your relaxed hands on their positive pole. Channel your love and warmth through your hands into them while allowing the eyes to meet...[This is] very important as it sets the stage for the interplay of polarity once penetration occurs. When the positive poles are alive to each other...an incredible interchange of energy is possible. Lovemaking can become increasingly dynamic, the bodies twisting and turning around and into each other for hours, as if possessed by life itself."

Yet, in another, this:

"The first chakra in man is positive and in woman it is negative. in the heart chakra it is exactly the opposite. through this a circle of energy can be created between man and woman. the breasts of a woman are the doorway to her sexuality. The vagina does not open itself until the energy in the breasts is flowing. Raja: Men often have a strange idea of how to excite a woman, for example by rubbing the clitoris. But if they knew that they simply have to place attention on the breasts, and women becomes automatically open. We must love her through the breasts. Men always think that women function in exactly the same way as we do, and even the woman begin to think this, they must also function like men. But when we are able to value our opposite polarities, then a circle of energy is created."

So, what I understand is that a man should touch a woman in her breast, but what I don't understand is where is a woman supposed to touch a man. This is beacause I understand that man in itself has a positive polarity, but woman a negative polarity. If man is positive and he should touch the woman positive pole, I tend to think that woman, being negative, should touch man negative pole, i.e., his chest. But in the the first quotes it seems to be said that both man and woman should touch the other positive pole, so that woman should touch the man's zone between the anus and the testicles.

If somone could explain me this I would really appreaciate it. Thank you!

Thank you Marnia for your

Thank you Marnia for your reply. Now, knowing there are'nt any necessity of touching some specific part during the intercourse, I still don't understand if the suggestion of Diana Richardson is that woman should touch the postive pole of man (i.e. the root of his penis), or the negative pole (his chest). That is because if man is positive and he contact the positive pole on woman, I think by common sense that woman should touch, being negative, the negative pole in man, i.e., his chest. Please have a little patience with me!

I think the idea

is to let the genital connection absorb the man's positive polarity, and a chest-to-chest connection absorb the energy from the woman's positive pole. Does that make sense?

Those are just guides. Do what feels right to you.

 

poles...

From The Heart of Tantric Sex, page 34:

"Male energy represents positive and female the negative, counterparts of a single phenomenon. Each half alone is incomplete; it is only through each other they exist. However it is important to understand that each polarity, either negative or positive, contains its very own complementary opposite pole (see fig. 4). The man, while essentially positive, also has an inner negative pole (an inner woman), and the woman who is essentially negative, contains a balancing inner positive positive pole (an inner man)."

Figure 4 shows pictures of a woman and a man, with "breasts/heart" labeled "+" and "vagina" labeled "-" on the woman, and "chest/heart" labeled "-" and "penis" labeled "+" on the man.

Now you quote Richardson: "Reach out to your partner and place your relaxed hands on their positive pole." That seems clear enough: The man should put his hands on the woman's breasts, and the woman should put her hands on the man's penis.

You say "If man is positive and he should touch the woman positive pole, I tend to think that woman, being negative, should touch man negative pole, i.e., his chest." Well, I don't see where Richardson says anything that would support that idea. On the other hand, the quote in the previous paragraph is pretty clear: put your hands on your partner's positive pole.

I must say... I like The Heart of Tantric Sex in general, but, (as an engineer with a pretty good understanding of physics) the stuff about positive and negative poles and magnetic fields drives me nuts. It's pseudo-scientific nonsense. It explains nothing, so why even present those theories about poles and magnetic fields?

If men and women had real magnetic fields (of the sort that physicists understand), then holding a magnetic compass above a person would cause the compass needle to align with the body. But that doesn't happen. I have worked with an extraordinarily sensitive magnetic field detector, and it was unaffected by my presence. I conclude that I have no magnetic field whatsoever, or if I do, it is much, much weaker than the earth's magnetic field (which is rather weak compared to the field in the proximity of some magnets you can buy in hardware stores).

If men and women somehow affect each other with their alleged magnetic fields, then the effect should be much, much larger from a hardware store magnet. Lonely guys and gals could solve their lonliness problems by taping a magnet on their bellies (aligned opposite to their own magnetic poles, of course!).

So if Richardson's "magnetic fields" are not of the type that physicists deal with, then what are they? Some sort of metaphor? Some other phenomenon that physicists don't deal with? Well, OK, I can accept that, maybe. But then I would ask, what does the theory about human "magnetic fields" and "poles" really explain? Does the theory have any predictive power? If not, what value does the theory have? Why even write about it?

I'd love to see a response from Bianca. Smile

Science

I used to get miffed when people mis-used scientific terms and theories, but now I do not care so much any more. I haved come to understand that most of the time the authors are using these terms because they create certain imagery that is useful to what they are talking about. The energy that moves through the body may not actually be "magnetic" in the way that scienec defines the term, but imagining a magnetic field helps to understand what is happening. Thus, the term is useful, if not scientifically correct.

I would advise that when you are reading spiritual works you try to take off the scientist hat and just read between the lines of what the various authors are trying to say or visualize. These are not scientific journals where you are required to derfine your terms and explain how everything was measured.

Having said all of that, there is scientific proof that various organs in the body, including the heart and brain, do generate electric fields. See the work of David Cohen for references. The fields may not be strong enough to affect the experiments that you do, but they are there. I do not know if the body has an overall magnetic field. However, considering how much electrical activity happens in the body, there has to be one even if it is too weak to affect a compass.

Thank you for your answer.

Thank you for your answer.

It's true that the text is clear when it says that each sex should put its hands in the other positive pole.

What gave me the dubts was this statement: "But when we are able to value our opposite polarities, then a circle of energy is created"

I didn't know how to understand this and put it together with the other statemens, so to make a coherent piece of theory -so to speak.

However, I were aware that if

However, I were aware that if the thing was to "value the opposite pole" expectable was that man touchs woman's first chakra, while woman touchs man's chest. But because the only explicit concrete statement of which part to touch was that man should touch the woman's breast, I tried to make some hipothesis on how to conjugate all this, but, because of my ignorance, prfered to ask if some of you could have the issue clear.

Now, I belive what Marnia said actually makes sense, and would add that probably it's suggested tan a circuit is created when man touchs the woman's breast, because both poles are conteced; and probably in chest to chest contact this occurs in both man and woman, as Marnia said.

Thank you very much for your answers

I don't take this too literally either

I've had a ton of acupuncture and that is another example of eastern energy, qi, whatever. I am not sure about any of it, but I do think it is a useful way of viewing what goes on between sex partners. There is value in acting "as if" there is energy as they define it. I find this definitely is a useful concept.

For example, part of Karezza can be just connecting, getting the penis near or at the entrance of the vagina, and there seems to be something to some sort of energy exchange that results in the penis and vagina kind of liking each other a lot and digging on each other LOL. Not the mechanical model of fertilization or friction based sex at all, because it is "energy exchange" keeping the penis involved and erect rather than friction. And I find this model kind of works in the real world...

Whatever it is, there *seems* to be an energy exchange and it seems to work even if my partner isn't aware of it. I find physical manifestations of this to be real, so I find it quite useful as a way to view sex.

Personally I do believe in

Personally I do believe in subtle energies because I have had the experience of perceiving them (whether this perception is real or not, I let this open; however, naturally, I believe in them!).
About measurable electrical and electromagnetic energies of our bodies, I know there's been made a lot of research regarding human heart and brain. This web may be of some interest: http://www.heartmath.org/

Opposite polarities

Lamat, I could be wrong, but I think she might mean that we are opposite (men and women) in that one has the positive pole in the heart and the other in the genitals (in opposite *locations* if that makes sense).

My lover and I can most definitely feel a current of energy that flows between when he touches my breasts while I hold his penis. It's so nice to lie together and just hold each other in that way.