Comparision of your work to Chinese Taoist Sexual Practices; I must be mistaken!

Submitted by pin_cushion on
Printer-friendly version

This is a question that I have for Marnia that I would like to ask here because I think that other readers must be wondering the same thing.

Marnia, in your nine minute video on YouTube, you say that we need to seriously consider the sexual practices prescribed by the ancient Chinese and Indian sages, et al.

I have read several books on the subject of Taoist sexuality and Tantra, including "The Multiorgasmic Man" and "Tantric Secrets for Men". I have found that the advice in these books has not been able to help me in any way. They encourage you to practice squeezing the PC muscle, among other things, to hold back ejaculation; and I mean that literally: "hold back ejaculation". First of all, I have never been able to do this effectively, certainly not for a lack of trying. Second, the authors of these books are still totally focused on orgasm, thus the name of the book, "The Multiorgasmic Man"! They do talk about a transcendent experience, but they encourage you to seek to experience the orgasm without ejaculating, suggesting that the loss of semen is harmful to men.

Marnia, you clearly not only advocate avoiding ejaculation, you advocate avoiding all orgasm, at least in the conventional sense. I don't believe that you have ever recommended using the PC muscle to "hold back" ejaculation.

The sexual practices prescribed by the ancient Chinese and Indian sages, as I understand them to be, seem to be completely different from what you recommend, as they appear to be centered around orgasm.

Therefore, I must suffer from a complete misunderstanding of what it is that the ancients prescribed that you agree with. What recommendation of the ancients do you agree with?

This is a good question

And I have become more and more clear about the answer over the years. The Taoist whose work I really resonate with is Lao Tzu, in the "Hua Hu Ching."

I now think of Chia's work as "Neo-Taoist." That is, "sort of Taoist." Smile But that's actually not fair because even in the early texts one finds Taoists saying all sorts of things that are not entirely consistent, and Chia's work wouldn't be out of line with some of them. If you like scholarly texts and want to get a good look at translations of various early Taoist works, have a look at this book:

Recently, I wrote an article that really pinpoints the difference, and intersection, between what I feel I've been learning, and what Chia recommends. It has taken me years to be able to zero in on the distinctions, though. Early on, I thought maybe Chia's techniques would be useful for some people, so I didn't dismiss them.

And, I might add that Chia himself has shifted. The tone of his first book (that I read), "Taoist Secrets of Love" is quite different from his "orgasm bandwagon" books of more recent times. The one for women absolutely shocked me, it was so far away from his earlier work:

Anyway, thanks for raising this. On my site I generally try to find the common threads of these various traditions, rather than focusing on their inconsistencies. My thought is that probably some folks in all of the traditions worked out the fundamentals, whatever contradictions showed up in some of the sources.