orgasm addiction starts in womb?

Submitted by fleur_rare on
Printer-friendly version

Hello again,
in a book about PRENATAL BONDING ANALYSIS (a psychotherapeutic branch developped by György Hidas and Jenö Raffai) I found something very interesting. They mention some scientific research on how the orgasm of the parents affects the baby in utero:

"In the third trimester, when prenates are monitored during parental intercouse, their hearts fluctuate wildly in accelerations and decelerations greater than 30 beats per minute, or show a rare loss of beat-to-beat variability, accompanied by a sharp increase in fetal movement (Chayen et al, 1986). This heart activity is directly associated with paternal and maternal orgasms!"
(Chayen, B., Tejani, N., Verma, U. L. and Gordon, G.(1986). Fetal Heart Rate Changes and Uterine Activity During Coitus. Acta Obstetrica Gynecologica Scandinavica 65: 853-855.)

"When prenates experience pain, they do not have the air necessary to make sound, but they do respond with vigorous body and breathing movements as well as hormonal rushes."

This sounds alarming to me. It could mean that babies get addicted to orgasm in womb rightaway. There is so much increcible publicity FOR orgasm of women and vigourous sexual behaviour these days, that anybody thinks it is "normal" (and therefore good) and you are a poor uptight slave of old believes, if you are trying to put some attention on the negative effects of orgasm. A generation ago orgasm of women wasn't that common - I am quite sure that my mother never experienced any.

If there are babies hooked on crack, it means that the dopamin-cycle of the mother is getting through to the baby. It means that much more new-borns have been hooked on orgasm since the sexual revolution, or at least are born with a stronger sensitivity to it.

And by the way, they have observed that the fetus tries to get away from the penis during intercourse. Traumatic fetal injuries are occuring that lay path for later problems in life.

Any more studies on that? Have you researched on this already, Marnia?



Gary just read that crack babies *aren't* as damaged as they were predicted to be, which is good news.

A few weeks ago I read that abstinence from sex during pregnancy was not an unusual taboo in many cultures around the world. (In fact "temporary chastity" was called for in many, many situations in different cultures: fishing, harvesting, menstruation, rituals, wine making(!), even the first few days of marriage!)

Who knows what goes on at subtle levels when pregnant women make love? I can't believe that gentle lovemaking with lots of stillness would be especially risky. But kinky, risky sexual behavior might well be different.

Wish I knew more. Thanks for sharing this tidbit. What do the authors recommend?

Did you see that this doctor finally dared to say that orgasm can produce depression...without mental illness being the cause? It's a baby step, but it's a step.

I just hope people remember that intercourse and intimacy are extremely HEALTHY, both physically and psychologically. We seem to have trouble finding balance on this planet.

paternal orgasm

...maybe just because of vigorous moving?

I don't think that Karezza-love would have those effects. First no dopamin-cycle, second no vigorous movements, third no lying on a pregnant belly. But how can we know... we should ask the babies if we could.

They (Hidas/Raffai) don't recommend anything concerning intercourse during pregnancy. They just put those examples there to make sure that the baby has feelings and reactions and is a complete human being already. And therefore can be contacted and shouldn't be overseen.

The bonding-analysis-babies are developping much faster after birth and are happier and more accostable than other kids. They cry less...

My niece who is pregnant right now is doing this analysis. I'm a little bit shocked that she has been going on in orgasmic sexuality even if I told her about the negative effects of orgasm. And it was she who gave me the book of Hidas/Raffai! It's a pity. The orgasm-publicity is so strong that people just can't believe that it could do any harm. (they still believe it prevents prostates from exploding...)

By the way - she has one of those fairy tale marriages... Her husband works in another city and is away often. He could not make up his mind to work in the city where they are living because of several "economical" reasons...


Hmm... but the quote said the paternal orgasm was associated with the change in the fetus's heart activity. It makes it sound like something the man's body is doing somehow affects the fetus enclosed in the womb. A psychic-level connection then? Just curious...

What do Hidas/Raffai suggest? Is it like how some mothers talk to and otherwise bond with their babies before birth?

I'd think karezza would have very positive effects on a baby!

the prenatal bonding analysis...

...has a procedure that they unfortunately don't describe exactly in the book:

It starts with a text that is read to the woman in the first session, they seem to work with light trances, and the VERY first thing is to get IN CONTACT with the UTERUS! not the baby! the uterus has to let the woman in. Usually even women that try to talk and bond with the baby in utero don't get in contact that clearly. Once the uterus has let the woman in, she can start to look for the baby. They get all sorts of impressions then... sounds, images, feelings, emotions, words...

At the end of pregnancy for the last three weeks or so they start to explain to the baby what will happen. Separation and birth and outside world... As they go through the analysis the mother usually gets into her own birth-traumas and has a good chance to heal that. Important thing about her own traumas is to tell to the baby: hey that was me and this is NOT the way it has to be done. (they found out that even analysis-babies did the same things wrong as their mothers, like not turning before birth or messing with the umbellical cord etc.) And than explain how it has to be done to be the smoothest possible. It seems they really go through every phase of birth, so the baby knows how to deal with it. (they seem to have texts for this, too)

There's homework to be done for the mother AND the father EVERY day. Mother: Rocking in a rocking chair for 20 (?) min per day, singing to the baby and telling a story. Father: Stroking mother's belly, singing to the baby and telling a story, too.

Mozart Babies

were considered de riguer in their day - the concept being that babies exposed to Mozart in utero were supposed to be smarter and more creative. While I don't have any research on the validity of this claim, it appeals to me instinctively and is in sync with the Japanese gentleman that photographed ice crystals to show the effects on crystal formation of various sounds. His worked is showcased in the wonderful, quirky DVD, "What the Bleep" - a must see in my (not so) humble opinion.

Mozart created beautiful, symmetric crystals while heavy metal created fractured, stunted cystals.

You know I have been in Sedona too long (or perhaps not long enough!) when I add to this thread to suggest that lust is energetically destructive in all it's forms and orgasmic sex during lovemaking, when motivated by lust could be considered energetically destructive to babies also.

No wonder the poor babies' hearts are racing - must be scared to death!

To take this further - I can only speculate this - I think the heart space of the lovers during procreative sex is something to consider. This is where Kareeza would indeed be a beautiful love song between lovers that would surround the in utero baby in loving energy.

To take things further, doing Kareeza while listening to Mozart? Oh my!



they even recommend ... play classic music to the babies in womb. And the babies sure remember the music when they are born. It calms them down when something is wrong.
I don't know if it is Mozart they recommend, but if Emoto found it changes the water crystals so beautifully, it seems to be a good idea...

"when I add to this thread to suggest that lust is energetically destructive in all it's forms.."
Thanks for adding it, that's what I feel and see and think, too.


Lust is energetically destructive in ALL its forms? Isn't it creative too?

Fleur_rare, thanks for describing that. I'd heard of similar things, but not about contacting the uterus. I just started a new practice where I'm getting in touch with organs like my heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, etc. Does that seem weird to anybody? It does to me, but I'm keeping an open mind. Supposedly these organs are somewhat sentient, like our soul is made up of five organ souls, and inside us, they form the voice of the main soul, which can then express through the consciousness, though the consciousness seems to have its own contrary agenda a lot of the time. I'm skeptical, but I'm not letting that stop me anymore. Incidentally, the reason I started this practice is that it's one of the prerequisites for sexual alchemy practice. It's Mantak Chia's Inner Smile.

I, too, am

uncomfortable using "lust" as the label for whatever it is we're trying to steer around. First, I don't like the term because of past associations with religious threats. Anyone who hears someone saying unflattering things about lust is presumed to be a right-wing religious nitwit.

Second, I believe that our life force energy is also our sexual energy, our sexual desire, and our spiritual energy. We need those energies for everything most of us want to accomplish.

The problem is that imbalance can transform sexual energy into selfish, compulsive or even exploitative energy.

So what *do* we call this challenge? Is there shorthand for it, other than the term "lust"? I've tried to use "genetic mating program" and "genetic autopilot" concepts, enhanced with greater knowledge about neurochemistry to point to the location of the slippery slope. But that doesn't reduce itself to an easy soundbite.

"Lust" is a lot easier...but I still shirk from using it. Creative solutions anyone?


Hi Shiny,

I like that image of the two heart cells settling into harmony. Smile Thanks for sharing it.


[quote=Marnia]So what *do* we call this challenge? Is there shorthand for it, other than the term "lust"? I've tried to use "genetic mating program" and "genetic autopilot" concepts, enhanced with greater knowledge about neurochemistry to point to the location of the slippery slope. But that doesn't reduce itself to an easy soundbite.

"Lust" is a lot easier...but I still shirk from using it. Creative solutions anyone?[/quote]

I've gotten to calling it "pleasure-greed". Greed may be another of the Seven Deadly Sins, but I don't think it elicits the same reflexive response, it might slip past the filter.

Caught on the Horns of the Dilemna

Point well taken - lust for life is a good thing so yes, we are talking about something else. My computer is blocked here at the airport, so I can't google "lust" on my free wireless - it's blocked. At least no bells went off and no internet police came to embarrass me!

Sexaholics Anonymous chose to characterize "lust" as the "drug of choice" in their literature, so I have been used to that reference - even though we accept all spiritual persuasions and sexual orientations.

Thanks for sharing the sensitivity - let's see what input comes our way. The question is synanoms for lust!


I think it's fine

to use "lust" as shorthand in the meanwhile. I'm just griping because I have wrestled with this dilemma before...and not really come up with anything as handy as the term "lust." Still, I really steered around it in my book, for the reasons mentioned above.

Lloyd on orgasm-sex during pregancy

"My objections to the female orgasm in conception are as follows:

When a woman has an orgasm she has a discharge of vital-force and is left demagnetized, as a man is after an orgasm. I believe she demagnetizes the germ in so doing and that in this state it is less fit for impregnation than if there had been no orgasm - but this may be mere theory.

And this I know, that a woman can conceive without herself having an orgasm. There is every probability, I would say, considering the sexual lives of the average, that the majority of women conceive without it. I believe she conceives more easily and surely without it, for it is reasonable to infer that the spasmodic motions and abdominal contractions of the orgasm would tend to expel the sperm and then leave the parts negative and flaccid, instead of avid and receptive.
There remains the further question of Karezza in pregnancy: I feel sure the woman is better off in pregnancy without the usual orgasmal intercourse. It is liable on the man's part to be too violent and to cause her injury. And for the woman herself to have an orgasm might certainly bring a miscarriage.

But on the other hand, I believe an occasional very gentle and quiet and tender Karezza (the man being careful of his weight) is most beneficial to the pregnant woman, and even to the unborn babe which is thus bathed in the magnetic aura and enfolded in the love of both its parents.
The woman feels it a very great comfort to have her husband’s love embrace at such a time and often peculiarly longs for it. I have never seen or heard of any bad results from it and I recommend its considerate use."

"...might certainly bring a miscarriage..."

"I feel sure the woman is better off in pregnancy without the usual orgasmal intercourse. It is liable on the man's part to be too violent and to cause her injury. And for the woman herself to have an orgasm might certainly bring a miscarriage."

Isn't that statement interesting?! There should be some scientific research on that one...

Orgasmal intercourse during pregnancy might endanger the fetus in two (or more) ways:
Injury because of the movement/weight of the father, injury because of the muscular and hormonal effects of the mothers's orgasm. And what about the hormonal effects that the ejacualation fluid and the sperms cause in the mothers pregnant womb and body...?!

I heard that the fluid/sperm relaxes the cervix and womb muscles and that way helps in birth.
I tried this myself as a cure against menstruation pain and it worked. (Wouldn't do it anymore because of all the bad after-effects, for sure!)

And if you want to stay pregnant you surely wouldnt want to slacken the cervix!!!


To me this suggests that we really need a middleground that keeps men satisfied, too...from the start. Otherwise, how is a man going to be able to go for hot sex most of the time, and suddenly put on the brakes when a pregnancy occurs? Our current culture, and lack of awareness of our options, makes this most unlikely. At least if I were a man, I don't know how I'd manage it.