The role of gender in intercourse

Submitted by Love Gnosis on
Printer-friendly version

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.

Interesting post

I've been collecting sacred sex traditions from all over the place, and a number of them refer to the importance of stillness, frequently, during lovemaking. This would allow that perfect balance of giving and receiving that you mention. Some traditions also emphasize the movement of subtle energies, circulating by way of visualization, rather than physical motion.

It's true, Aphrodites, talk

It's true, Aphrodites, talk is cheap but if you ain't doin it, why talk?

It's strange, but I've noticed I always talk more in here when I'm NOT getting laid.

Perhaps I should take your lead and try to only reflect when I'm ACTUALLY having the expriences.

Then again, its the times post-sex that one tries to get one's wits about oneself and make what sense of it one can.

I agree, Love Gnosis, that the man should not have to be the active principle all the time. In some traditions, the feminine is seen as active, the masculine passive. The point is, I guess, that both genders have both. What could be more active than being pregnant and giving birth? Nothing that men do paralells this kind of activity that woman does.

You point out that men in native american cultures both take life and protect life, while women are seen as the nurturers of life. But what about abortion? There's a good example of women taking life (so as to protect her own life and perhaps that of her family by not putting too much burden on it in the form of another mouth to feed).

I've been thinking a lot about woman's power to kill, which is largely unacknowledged culturally (perhaps because it is active and therefore falls outside of our cultural view of women as receptacles of fate rather than shapers of their own destiny?). I believe that while abortion and war are very different things, they share some similarities. For example, they both come from a sense of threat, and from a sense of needing to preserve one's self-identity (this correlates only in the case of war starting because another force is threatening to take over your home, which is very different than starting a war outright. But even in that case, wars and attacks on other people usually start because of a shortage of resources needed to keep the lifestyle - or self-identity - intact).

Anyhow, I think that while each sex has an inclination toward activity or receptivity, ideally its a play. So while the initiation may take place more by the man, the roles usually reverse, or dissapear alltogether.

And being responsive is not the same as being passive or inactive or inert.
An inert and inactive and passive sexuality (if one can even call that sexuality), is not the receptive principle.
Being receptive is an act, in and of itself.
It can be quite difficult, actually. To really receive someone. To let them know they have been received. There's nothing at all passive about it.

I'm With You HS

Yes, there are differences between the sexes, but I'm not convinced that gender is one of them. I know of lots of women with male characteristics (active rather than passive, goal oriented rather than nurturing) and vice versa. I think we do people a disservice by assuming that because they're one sex or the other they will be like the stereotype.

Vive la difference!