Cupid's Poisoned Arrow

Might be productive to set up a meet up group in LA (or a similar open-minded place, like SF or Seattle) to discuss karezza. Karezza seems difficult, sort of like yoga or making music is difficult, but worth discussing and striving for. Any meet up groups set up yet?

It *is* tough to learn, in that it's like skiiing or snowboarding. You learn the most by realizing what causes you to lose your balance. But the research is fun! ;-)

The idea of groups is great, but over the years I've found that sex is such a private thing that most people feel funny sharing their explorations in the kind of detail that helps most. That's understandable...and maybe even a good thing...because I don't think there's "one right way" to make the principles of karezza work. I tried to convey this aspect of it by quoting three different husbands who use it differently in my "Another Way to Make Love" article: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/200908/another...

In any case, you can share your experiences and ask questions at this Facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=71679586606 Or in this anonymous forum: http://www.reuniting.info/forum/

Marina's ruminations, although thought provoking and basically correct, miss the point...why intercourse? Ever since the Inversion, woman has been led to believe that coitus is her ultimate sexual expression (it is not). I agree that a woman's orgasm is not restricted to reproduction, in fact it has much more to do with male transformation than procreation.
Also, male orgasm is not synonymous with ejaculation, since the two are distinctly different processes, and yes, men become adapted to excessive ejaculations (not orgasms), but women do not. Where Marina goes wrong, is that she fails to acknowledge the emotionality of female orgasm, the need for emotional affinity that drives woman's innate sexuality, The emphasis of physicality over mental perception is a common error. In our workshops and studies of woman's sexuality over the past 50 years, women following the female sex paradigm have multiple orgasms daily for decades and what is noticable is that instead of physical adaptation to erotic stimulation, their sensitivity increases remarkably.
If you are interested, visit our web site at www.esybron.org and contribute your voice to increasing our understanding of woman's true sexuality. Be sure to check out our blog.

I agree that lovers have many options other than intercourse. See earlier post: "The Lazy Way to Stay in Love" https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/200909/the-la...

Thanks for the link. I had a look, and I'm not persuaded that the issue here is patriarchy's evil actions with respect to women's sexuality. It may be that climax is only the beginning of a far longer neurochemical cycle that occurs between the ears of both men and women. In my experience, it can trigger hidden neurochemical shifts that can create emotional alienation, even if it can also increase some people's sensitivity. If you're interested, I can recommend some earlier posts, which spell out some of the science behind my unfamiliar claims.

While people of both sexes should certainly have as many orgasms as they desire, they may, if they honestly experiment, find that there can be too much of a good thing, whatever their gender. They may also find that voluntarily passing up orgasm and focusing on bonding behaviors may actually offer surprising benefits.

This phenomenon remains invisible for as long as the focus is only on the short-term effects of orgasm by whatever means. Orgasm always seems like a great idea in the moment. ;-) Given the focus of those on your site, I doubt they would be open to conducting such an experiment. I fear we'd be like two ships passing in the night.

My husband and I practice non-ejaculatory intercourse on a daily basis as a bonding and meditative experience. Although there are no ejaculations or climaxes, our time together is indeed orgasmic for both of us. The flows of energy, the moments of expanded awareness that envelop us, are unbelievably rewarding and nourishing to us as individuals and to us as a couple. Although we occasionally indulge in rollicking, finger-licking, knock-your-socks-off climaxes and ejaculations, and believe that it’s healthy to do so, we always return to our “peaceful passion” practice with gratitude, love and delight. Marnia Robinson's writings and her dedication to providing a scientific basis for the value of this style of lovemaking have been helpful in our teaching others what we have discovered to be so joyful in our own relationship.

http://PeacefulPassion.com

http://www.news.wisc.edu/18218 "Hormone study finds monkeys in long-term relationship look strangely human"

I think you overstated the Church's opposition to karezza. I don't think that you are Catholic, but you seem fair-minded, and for that reason I thought you might be interested in knowing what the Church actually teaches about karezza.

Understanding the Church's teaching about karezza is difficult because not everybody appears to agree on terms. For example, your article said that karezza is the same thing as "amplexus reservatus" and linked to a treatise by John Ford SJ to make that point. But the Ford treatise distinguishes between "karezza" (which it says is when a female orgasms during intercourse but the man does not) and "amplexus reservatus" (which it says is when neither partner orgasms during intercourse). The treatise goes on to state that:

1. Any act of intercourse in which the woman orgasms and the male does not is immoral and contrary to the natural law. This position is not very different from some Eastern (Buddhist) teachings, which suggest that if a couple engages in this sort of intercourse, the woman will become estranged from the man. Based on what I have read of your work, I think you'd agree with this idea as well. You might not "prohibit" female-only orgasms in the way the Church does, but you probably would suggest that such orgasms will have a negative effect on the woman's feelings toward her male partner.

2. Any act of intercourse in which neither partner orgasms (i.e., karezza in your definition and amplexus reservatus in Ford's) is neither good nor bad in and of itself; it is only good or bad with reference to the intention of the partners. Ford describes this as the majority Catholic position (some Catholics having said, as you do, that it is always good regardless of intent, and other Catholics having said that it is always bad regardless of intent).

This act would be good if the partners were doing it in addition to "regular" sex acts which might lead to a child, or if they were doing it because they had as many children as they could handle but wanted to experience the closeness of intercourse without using contraception.

This act would be bad if the partners were doing it because they never wanted to have children, or if they were focused on bodily pleasure to the exclusion of the possibility of having children.

Make of this what you will. Again, I recognize that you aren't Catholic and may not share the Church's view that marriages must be open to children. I just thought you might appreciate an attempt at clarification.

NOTE FROM MARNIA: Karezza's creator (at least as to this name), Alice Bunker Stockham, suggested both partners avoid orgasm. This concept has been adulterated by later authors.