Ms. Ira Craddock and "Magnetation"

Submitted by girnigoe on
Printer-friendly version

Ira Craddock (1857-1902)

No wonder Anthony Comstock hated her and hounded her into an early grave.

"The intense pleasure of the orgasm," says Albert Chavannes of Knoxville, Tennessee, a writer on psychological subjects, "is not, as it is usually supposed, due to the ejection of the semen. While they are coincident, it is quite possible for men to prevent, by the use of will-force, the emission of semen at the time of the orgasm.... The enjoyment of sexual intercourse is due to the generating of a current of sexual magnetism, created by a certain degree of affinity between the parties, and increased by friction. When this current has become sufficiently strong, and a certain amount of magnetism has accumulated around the sexual organs, an overflow--orgasm--takes place, which, in obedience to inherited tendencies, sends a magnetic current to the testicles and causes a discharge of the seminal fluid. It is Nature's method to procure conception.

"Magnetation is the application of the power which man possesses of controlling this overflow, preventing it from taking its usual course and causing the usual discharge, and compelling it to take another direction. That direction is the dissemination of the magnetism through the system of both the man and the woman, the woman assimilating the magnetism of the man and the man that of the woman. Magnetation requires for its successful practice self-control, affinity and union of purpose, but under right conditions it permits the full enjoyment of the overflow without the weakening influence of the emission.... Magnetation is the art of regulating the course taken by the overflow of sexual magnetism. Uncontrolled, it goes to the testicles and causes an emission. Controlled, it diffuses itself through the organism."


Those who appreciate similar material will find much to read at this informative site.

Ms. Ira Craddock and "Magnetation"

Thanks Girnigoe. You have such interesting posts. I'm not yet caught up in my replies to all of them, but I always enjoy them.

The full link to Craddock's material did n't show up in your post, so here it is for others who may be interested:

Although I agree with a lot of what Craddock had to say, I think she was a bit confused. The synergy possible between mates with this system is dependent upon the woman channeling the energy upward, too. As I recall, she didn't understand that so many sacred sex traditions do not. They get tangled up in the idea that semen loss (or not) is the issue.

In fact, brain chemistry changes affecting both sexes after intense arousal are the issue. Semen loss is accompanied by those brain chemistry changes, which is why it's an easy error to make. The man WILL feel a sense of depletion, lethargy, irritation, or whatever after semen loss, but the distress is actually coming from the dopamine high and consequent neurochemical hangover.

Her misunderstanding of this point may be why Craddock was not in a long-term relationship, and suffered intense mood swings. As I recall, she ultimately committed suicide once the "powers that be" threatened to arrest her. It's a very sad story, but confirms the wisdom of using our sexual power gently to mutually strengthen our relationships before we place the emphasis on forcing our sexual energy anywhere. It's sad to think of her being so determined to share her piece with the world...and yet suffering for it.

I think a better version of the underlying message is found in the work of her peer, Alice Bunker Stockham, and another Karezza fan, J. William Lloyd

What did you particularly resonate with in her work besides the passage that you cited here?

Ms. Ira Craddock and "Magnetation"

Thanks for the kind words, Lemniscate. The first thing that caused me to 'resonate' was the fact that though I have "heard of" almost everything and everybody, I'd never heard of Ms. Craddock until I found that website during a search on "karezza." I did notice some inconsistency, error, and faulty logic (maybe); and what you say about her apparent misunderstanding on female channeling is surly true, as is the wise observation that the 'proof' is best proven by the state of the 'pudding.' I suspect that if Ms. Craddock had been truely enlightened on these matters, things would have turned out much differently, and not only for her!

Still, there was something about this that grabbed my interest and I couldn't quite put my finger on it until looking again. Here it is:

Comparatively few men realize that, while a man is a sexual animal, a woman is not, but is a maternal animal. The normal woman desires to mother the man she loves--to hold him in her arms, close to her bosom, and to caress him thus, without genital contact. She likes, also, to be held by him, and to exchange sexual magnetism with him on the affectional plane, without genital contact. For there appears to be a secondary sexual centre somewhere in the breast, near the heart, so that husband and wife may, in one another's arms, without genital contact, interchange sexual magnetism which will refresh, soothe and uplift. Men usually imagine, when a woman evinces desire for affectionate caresses in her husband's arms, that she is ready for contact at the genitals. Never was there a greater mistake. The woman cares, at that moment, only for the interchange of innocent affection. And for a husband to display unequivocal evidence of a desire for genital contact then does not attract her; it simply repels, and often disgusts her. It is, however, quite possible that, if her husband behaved with consideration and self-control, and it were the right time in the month, she might eventually manifest a passion that same night which would amply satisfy him. What she needs is to be gradually aroused by the right sort of treatment. Husbands, like spoiled children, too often miss the pleasure which might otherwise be theirs, by clamoring for it at the wrong time.

Some of this obviously triggered thoughts of what I'd read on that hystersisters website. Perhaps it's a guilty conscience that makes that paragraph resonate in my psyche, or maybe it's her reference to that unknown secondary sexual center somewhere in the chest. She wasn't meaning the main chakra there, was she? Didn't seem like it anyhow.

Also, whether or not what she says about women above is true about all women, I'll bet she has projected her own feelings into that paragraph.

This author may not be totally relevant to the discussion here. I'm continually astonished by how little we hear today about these subjects, and thought "every little bit helps" (in education at least, thought not, apparently, in practice).

I merely skimmed her angelic husband material.

Also, the reproductions of both the Stockham and Lloyd books arrived by mail the other day. Lloyd's is an amazing read.
Your book arrived several days earlier.

Despite the importance of neurochemical reality, I have this deep-seated hunch that "magnatation" still plays an important place here somewhere and I'm also reminded of Victor Shauberger, though I'd better not get too far off topic.

Ms. Ira Craddock and "Magnetation"

Anything you feel the urge to talk about is relevant! And, thanks to your inspiration I reread Craddock's material and will do a little blurb on her for the newsletter. I had hesitated before, because the sex-magick folks had blessed her, and Alistair Crowley gives me the creeps.

However, I think Ida was doing her best to struggle toward the high ground. She just may have gotten lost in the orgasm fallout. Anyway, I decided she deserves an honorable mention. :)

It is interesting that she talks about another sexual center in the chest, especially for women. I remember the same concept in Mantak Chia's "Taoist Secrets of Love." He said that center is a key element of the sexual loving energy that flows in a circuit between men and women.

Speaking of "heart," women naturally produce more oxytocin than men, which makes nurturing affection more automatic, and may be part of why we're "yin." However, my husband feels sure that he has sprouted more and more oxytocin receptors as a result of this practice. Not only has that improved his mood (no more depression) and helped him over an addiction, it also makes sensual touching much more fulfilling...with or without intercourse. He's still quite masculine, however. In my view, the male "yang" is just as vital to the equation. For me, it's the "UP" in the spiral upward of any spiritual progress. You may need us to balance your "umph," just as we need you to make sure we don't get to comfy here in duality.

I totally agree with you that beneath all the neurochemistry lies an energetic exchange that is just as real, and the key to the whole mystery. However, the neurochemistry is already too subtle for many people. It may take humanity a while to be able to conceptualize the more subtle and powerful aspects of lovemaking. It is this deeper mystery that fascinates me, and I don't consider Victor Schauberger off topic at all.

Have you read "The Magus of Java?" If not, you'd love it. That book also made me think of Victor Schauberger . It talks about the unsuspected power of the "yin" force on the planet (and includes a story of an amazing demonstration). I sense that that was also part of what Victor Schauberger tapped.

Ms. Ira Craddock and "Magnetation"

Crowley, yes. I was astonished to see that OTO banner on the Ira Craddock page, but I think it's more a case that they have adopted her as a poster child than her having been involved with them.

OK, I just ordered "The Magus of Java" from Amazon. Thanks. It does sound like a book I want to read, though I understand the techniques won't be learned from a book.

I'm amused (but pleased) that you avoid the type of "sex magick" promoted by Crowley et al. I don't know that there is anything "wrong" with it and the concept is actually quite interesting. However, what you are working to promulgate seems far more useful (and, of course more loving and healthy); and more likely to be something for the average human being of our time and place. In fact, I can hardly express how thrilled I am to have happened onto your web site not so long ago. Not everyone cares to spend eons learning about "higher tantras" (or ceremonial hoo haw, for that matter) and while it's all interesting enough, bringing man and woman back together is so much more important...

Have you ever written down your ideas about why you are not interested in sex magick? That would be an interesting read, I think.

Your "reuniting" theme, even as evidenced by your forum avatar, also reminds me of things I've read in some of Rudolf Steiner's material, especially about the alleged conditions in earlier places (Atlantis and Lemuria), though all those easily recognized words are not easily understood (at least by me) and as usual, the reality won't be learned by reading any book. Nevertheless, something very real is hinted at. I mention this material because suspect you have read it. It's free online, if anyone is interested. Earlier versions of humanity? Here it is:

Cosmic Memory: Prehistory of Earth and Man by Rudolf Steiner, including "The Division Into Sexes."

Victor Shauberger must be one of the most important people in recent time. I've had the Callum Coats books from via Interlibrary Loan, as well as Coat's really sub-standard (as in almost unwatchable) video (he needs a good computer graphics program :-). The basic ideas, though simple (as simple as Yin and Yang) quickly weave and combine themselves into almost incomprehensible (to me, anyhow) hints of the Possible. What I mean is.... I can see how its real, but based upon such a, to us alien form of science that I can't really speak about it with my own understanding. Shauberger's mechanisms, for example, could not be readily constructed using the technology of his day. But I think that computer aided design and computer directed machine tools would be able to build the complex shapes needed.

Also, the explosive "normal" orgasm might "correspond" to the "normal" explosive technology we use almost exclusively in our current civilization. The Karezza type relation seems to correspond to "implosion," or do you think I'm wrong about that? I know I am not, as it tends to pull together, instead of driving apart.

Can you please comment on that?

Yes, I can understand that the neurochemistry is already too subtle for many people. I had to read all your files over and over and reformat some of them to print out highlighted in MS Word! I now have a pretty good understanding, but it is not so easy to explain them to another.