Rollo Tomassi thinks all old men must pay for young ass

In response to my re-posting this post  (excerpt from post)

Either you are fucking multiple attractive young women who are in love with you, or you do not understand and do not have the skill sets involved.

There is no such thing as a man who could do that but chooses not to.  A fox sees grapes he can’t reach, and then tells himself those grapes were sour anyway.

And then he tell himself that all other foxes are deluded if they think they are getting high grapes.   “Your girlfriends are not really having orgasms you idiot!  Even though I have never met you or your girls, I know that!  God, how dumb can you be to think you are actually getting high grapes!”

on Rollo’s blog, and tweeting a link to it on my years old twitter account, Rollo replied:

[TL;DR Rollo is full of shit because he’s married. YaReally is too because he isn’t married yet. Read me instead because.

You aren’t full of shit. And the shit you are full of is not because you are married.

Read for comprehension.

You confuse some of your shit with the rest of your insights because you are not seducing and fucking young ass.

Or because you are too whipped to admit you are fucking young ass.

Take your choice.

Hehe,..I guess I should feel honored you’d start a Twitter account just to tell me all of that X.

From what I remember though, you’ve been ‘buying’ young ass in SEA for some time now. I’m not sure how that constitutes ‘seducing’ young ass, but hey, if you feel that what I write should be disregarded as ‘bad teaching’ because I’ve been married for 20 years, you can always look to Roosh for inspiration on how to live a rewarding life.

I still love you X. Yours has always been one of my earliest blog reads and I still pop over from time to time.

I agree with you that not censoring is the best method, because it shows the nature of the beast.

You have in your comment proved my point.

You believe that even though you have not met me or my girls, that I am lying about my personal experience. You HAVE to believe that.

Because YOU are not fucking young ass, it means I am paying for it.

That is exactly my point. You do not have a clue how to fuck young ass. And therefore you have no choice but to assume that I’m paying for it.

Discussion with commentors continues from here.  It’s surprising to me how much resistance many guys have even to the very idea of being with much younger women.  It must be about an identity crisis!  It must be about hormonal imbalance!  It must be about way out of whack priorities!  It must be this or that or that or this – but not about how great and life improving it is to be naked with young women.

People absolutely can’t stand having ambitions that seem out of reach, and will go so far as to deny other people the possibility that others have and are reaching good ambitions that they dare not have.

Advertisements

Making love requires high level cognitive development

So many things can go wrong for a developing brain.

And in order to maximize brain development, so many aspects of what it can do need to be trained up in concert.

Women have evolved to be able to quickly spot signs of physical and mental fitness. Now a lot of guys think that women don’t chose well; they are attracted to stupid brutes, and their choices can harm society.

And while it’s true that women don’t chose who to fuck based on math ability, it’s not right that the evolved instinctual preferences are stupid.

Let’s list again a few of the neuro-developmental problems that women quickly pick up on and quickly find unattractive:

• Autism spectrum disorders
• Atypical empathic responses as social deficits (sociopaths can be charming and display above average empathic ability)
• Cluster A personality disorders, including
  • Paranoid personality disorder:  irrational suspicion and mistrust of others, interpreting motivations as malevolent.
  • Schizoid personality disorder: lack of interest and detachment from social relationships, apathy, and restricted emotional expression.  Schizoid personality disorder is sometimes called Dismissive–avoidant attachment style, and refers to people who don’t want to emotionally bond with a mate.
  • Schizotypal personality disorder: extreme discomfort interacting socially, and distorted cognitions and perceptions.
• Cluster B dramatic, emotional or erratic disorders such as Antisocial personality disorder: disregard for and violation of the rights of others, lack of empathy, bloated self-image, manipulative and impulsive behavior.
  • Borderline personality disorder: instability in relationships, self-image, identity, behavior and affects often leading to self-harm and impulsivity.
  • Histrionic personality disorder: attention-seeking behavior and excessive emotions.
  • Narcissistic personality disorder: a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy. Sometimes narcissists get an initial edge in the dating market when compared to dweebs, but after their masks are seen through, they get a major disadvantage over people with more sophisticated neuro-development; girls break up with narcissists. Narcissism is less of a disadvantage for pump and dump, but is a death blow to long term relationships. And even for pump and dump it’s less effective than a well rounded confident developed persona.
• Cluster C anxious or fearful disorders, such as
  • avoidant personality disorder: pervasive feelings of social inhibition and inadequacy, extreme sensitivity to negative evaluation.
  • Dependent personality disorder: pervasive psychological need to be cared for by other people.
  • Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (not the same as obsessive-compulsive disorder): characterized by rigid conformity to rules, perfectionism, and control to the point of satisfaction and exclusion of leisurely activities and friendships.

Skills that women find attractive that point to high communication between various functions of the brain:

• Dancing.  Dancing coordinates body and mind and emotions, plus requires being in simpatico with your dance partners. The best dancing requires being able to experience flow moments.
• Playing music, especially in a band.  Again coordinates body and mind and emotions, and the best music always involves flow moments.  Being in a band requires simpatico and coordination with others.
• Sports.  Body mind and strategy coordination, and team sports requires extra social ability to read and respond to your groups signals.
• Leadership.  Being socially comfortable at all is a high level skill that requires a well developed brain, however actually being seen of as a leader, and being effective at it is a display of many high level skills functioning effectively, over time.

And finally:

• Love.  I’ve heard so many stories of people meeting impressive people, and instantly being captivated by the force of their open love.  In my own life I’ve chosen mentors based in large part on this amazing ability.  My Grandmother was an incredible force of love, and my Father was a powerful man too.  Love is a very high level skill, that requires tremendous neuro-development.  Buddhists train for decades and decades in order to be able to open in love.  And it really shows.  It not only has a dramatic effect on personal happiness and well being, but provides a  social edge – people are immediately affected by the force of interpersonal openness.

I remember the first few times that I had sex, I was stuck in the narrative in my head.  I was not embodied.  There was what I considered as “me”, this storyline, running along in my head who thought that it controlled my body like strings control a puppet.

I was not integrated.  I was divided up into pieces.  If there were emotions, I’d often struggle with them.  It wasn’t that I was happy or sad or angry or horny, it was that emotions were impinging upon me.  It got so extreme at times that it was closer to the truth to say that I was hearing voices in my head than that I was having thoughts.  My self was disjointed.  I was not embodying emotions, and was forever separate even from the contents of my own mind and body.

So of course I could not meld into my lover.  I could not even meld into myself!

Nowadays when I have sex, it might start out as mechanical, but quickly becomes genuinely spiritual.  I am finely tuned in to my own bodies sensations, in a non-dual way – I embody them, while at the same time having control over them.  Just like being into and singing a song – you can control the mood and tempo of the music, but you are IN the music.  I may be subtly squeezing and releasing my perineum, while feeling energy in a ball below that and through my legs and below my feet, while simultaneously feeling a big pond of hot sex lava in my belly, while simultaneously having a heart so full of love that it fills my whole chest and spills down my arms to warm up my palms, while at the same time having energy up my spine and into my third eye, while at the same time breathing energies in and out of the top of my head, while at the same time screaming my head off in high pitched squeals, or low forceful grunts, or soft repetitive cooings.

And the whole time I am so finely tuned into my lovers signals, that if she approaches orgasm I don’t notice it at all; instead I FEEL it.  In my own body I FEEL her approaching orgasm, and my own pleasure increases dramatically.  In fact if I’m not warmed up it will be difficult not to come myself.  But if I’m in my full flow moment, her sex feeling and mine combine, and we both know it and both feel it, and the power and energy rises and rises, and is mixed with erotic force and love.

Making love is a high level orchestration of mind and body, and requires great neuro-development.  It’s an ongoing development – there is no end to the sophistication possible.

Mantak Chia, and the yuuminess of yummy.

I have most of his books, in PDF and word doc format. I’ve only read a few of them.

I think he has some good information and techniques, but find his books filled with unnecessary repetition and metaphysics. For instance his first book about sex has a few good excersises, and much repetition of why it is important not to come, and a lot of not very clear metaphysics around that. His concept of chi is quite muddled, mixing up ideas of breath, and pseudo-scientific physics, along with subtle energies.

But the nuggets are good. I hope to approach the rest of the books, and find which practices are strongest for me, and perhaps attempt a re-write of some of that from my own perspective.

I really appreciate energetic practices, and I can understand his enthusiasm for wanting to promote them. I just don’t see that we need to fill in the blanks of what we don’t know with a lot of pseudo scientific “explanation” for what chi is. We have no idea what chi is.

I’ve had Daoist and Chi-kung training with maybe 6 teachers. Some were quite advanced. But I resonated most with an energetic healer, who taught us maybe a dozen forms, of which I focused on three. I find that one, very simple form, if done slowly and with deep mindfullness can open up worlds. Many teachers feel, for instance, that simple standing chi-kung is the strongest and most effective form.

When practicing some standing chi-kung movements, I usually start with these few basic forms, and then go free style.

I appreciate that I have some training in moving energy about not using movements. I don’t use the forms I was trained in though, such as going from organ to organ, and instead focus lately mostly on the central channel. This last year I don’t focus much on the spine. I’m mostly involved in having all chakras light up and resonate with each other, and opening the central channel to above and below the head. And sometimes I play with the spark between those poles.

All forms were “discovered” , and I’m not shy to discover also.

Regarding sex, I have discovered a few things I’ve never read about:

1) Mixing with a lover in the lower dantien, especially in her cervix and in the second chakra, is not only intimate, but can allow a person to share the energy there, giving and receiving, and use a lovers energy for making love with her.

2) The energy has to rise up to the heart before you get your big powers. Only after intense love happens does the full flow start.

3) After energy is rising all the way up, it is VERY important to be able to go below the feet. Just as you can have sex, as a beginner, with your attention above your head, to awaken Kundalini, so you can have sex with energy below your feet, you can hold a chi ball below your feet, and keep your sexual energy there while having sex. This is very powerful chi kung, and rather advanced, but it is accessible.

4) Partners make a huge difference. A young man or woman has excess vitality, and can learn from and be inspired by much older lovers, while an older person gets more juice from a younger lover. Men especially. As one Indonesian I met remarked “I don’t like men my same age, as I already know what they know. An older man has wisdom that I don’t have, that I need. And the man gets to have the energy from the younger woman”. She was no meditator, just a sensitive 22 year old. And the way a partner holds their energy, especially how they orgasm makes a huge difference. Some women dissipate their energy out when they orgasm, and this can be nearly as draining as ejaculating, as energies resonate, so you dissipate with her. If the woman does not naturally come into you, she can be taught to. Sex embodiment devotion. When I ejaculate I encourage her to “drink it”, inside her cervix, emphasising that she can absorb that energy, as food for her, as a little gift. And sexual chemistry can’t be faked. For myself, I require a hyper-feminine woman, as I am slightly effeminate at times – I need the polarity of a very feminine woman to get a big spark. With one lover I may be near impotent, and with another have undying passion and unstoppable passion.

5) You can get a full flow through the central channel, through to above and through to below, and all chakras light up, and this can be so intense that you MUST scream. The lion posture may be spontaneously taken, palms flat, back arched, perhaps tongue sticking out. And the mark of a full flow is a feeling of intense POWER.

Update: I really should get in the habit of at least giving a once over read to my posts before hitting the send button.

I meant to say “I’m mostly involved in having all chakras light up and resonate with each other, and opening the central channel to above the head and below the perinium, and below the feet.”

I could add that opening the “bubbling brook” points in the palms of the feet took a while, but I’m finding it much more difficult to get a strong flow through the legs.

The points in the palms of the hands very often glow, mostly in resonance with the heart, but increasingingly everything seems to resonate together, and in my palms I can feel apana, and the forehead, and the perinium. And in my perinium I can often feel the crown chakra, and the forehead chakra.

Lately I’ve been working on a soft feeling in the heart, and
flavoring everything with an open heart. Getting that chakra more awake and giving its input.

All of that is sex, to me, and with a good lover, the practice is put into high gear. Sex is chi-kung, and chi-kung can be powerful sex.

Rationality and chi-kung

The differentiation between pre and trans rational has been promoted and popularized by Ken Wilber. One of his most engaging and easily accessible books is titled “A Brief History of Everything”

A pre-rational skill is identifying a thought with an object. Children do this. Magical incantations are often based upon this lack of differentiation between the idea and the object. Pre-historic hunters used to draw a picture of a deer in the sand, dance around it and then stab it with their spear, killing it, before the hunt. The deer was considered already dead by this act. Some people don’t like to say fearful words, for fear of bringing about the real event.

Pre-rational magic might actually work. Just because the thought visualization is not as clear and distinct as it could be, doesn’t mean that it can’t work at all. But it can also just be wishful thinking, and nothing more. And it has a hard time telling the difference. The hallmark is superstition.

Transrational skills begin at the edge of rationality, what is called “vision logic”, where a person can not only hold a point of view, they can not only at the SAME TIME see another persons point of view, but they can hold and array of views, even an array of arrays, see the whole broad landscape at once.

After that point we get into seeing divinity, not as an idea, but as directly perceived and felt.

Then we move closer to causal awareness, and then back out to the fish market with non-duality.

Chi-kung can be practiced either through the cognitive lens of re-rational, or transrational. A pre can be a strong chi-kung practitioner, but usually, it is only in the transrational cognitive development stage that wide and full mastery is available. There is less confusion and greater differention for someone who does not equate an idea with an object, and so a person can weed out facts from fictions, and feel into things with greater subtlety.

Rational mysticism, part 2.

I’ve been chewing on a few ideas this last year.

One is that expanding awareness is making creative connections between more and more of experience, including memory and knowledge. This is felt as the muse. A creative writer comes up with remarkably strange yet strangely apt metaphors. A musician pulls together different styles, and adds a dash of some exotic new tang. A scientist will “discover”, in a flash of creative insight, a pattern that was never before seen.

To do this, one must deeply respect truth. Trust that cognitive dissonance, that creepy feeling we get that something is making us uncomfortable, that sense of disgust or aversion towards some aspect of life, trust that cognitive dissonance points to an unresolved tension.

One such tension that has grabbed me lately is the tension between impermanence and the human search for meaning. This is a seemingly irresolvable tension – like a koan. I hold it and chew on it, because I trust that the tension can resolve, if I can widen my being and see clearer. It doesn’t do just to choose one point of view for pragmatic, religious, or emotional reasons. I must find out what is true.

A tension I tried to introduce to these forums, especially the jhannas and kundaliniheat forums, is the one between OBEs seeming meaningful, valuable and real, and the studies that have been done that show that they do not see the same world that walking and awake people see.

Another tension is between the notion that the world is similar to a dream, and the many verified facts that show that it is not.

I find it valuable to not be a true believer, and yet to still adopt the attitude you mention – if there is a blank space in experience that does not match theory, leave it blank and put a big “I don’t know” sign there.

We don’t want to be like creationists, who, in the face of opposing evidence, strengthen their “faith”, because without that, their life loses meaning and purpose.

I think we can, indeed have a duty, to find a purpose that includes the widest possible co-ordination of the facts.

That is the job of the muse. To organize all these disparate facts into a cohesive whole.

And we must include science. Science changes, sure, but usually it builds upon itself in increments, as the physical sciences are based upon measurements, which are usually reasonably accurate. Science is the creative theories that tie together these measurements. Many of these theories can rub up against our ideas, to produce wonderfully troubling and enriching cognitive dissonance. The stuff of life. A big foot for our grapes, so we can face a little death to become something nobler.

Yes, it’s true that energy work can have effects that we have no theory for yet. There is no need to limit our experience to what is explainable.

But I don’t think we have reason to extrapolate from some non-local effects full power over all objects throughout time and space. Just because a nine volt battery can produce a spark across its terminals, is no reason to speculate it could light up all of time and space. The non-local effects of our minds may be limited. It gives a dreamy feeling to believe otherwise, but the proof is in the doing, not in the dreamy feeling.

Regarding infinite possilities, I’m reminded of the plotting of a mathematical function onto a piece of graph paper. Remember that from high-school? You can graph something like X to the power of 3, and you get an infinite number of answers, depending on X, but they all fall upon a line. The infinity of answers is limited to that line.

And so objective reality, although it can be interpreted in many ways, constrains which interpretations are possible. Coffee is never going to be interchangeable with blood – that interpretation is not open to us.

Energy work may have effects we don’t understand, but as far as we can see so far, they are not infinite. They seem constrained by objective reality also, even if they can be non-local.

Is the world a dream? Towards rational mysticism.

One problem with mystics and mystic wannabes is that they so often have an underdeveloped rationality. It gives mysticism a bad name.

For instance, an inordinate amount have the magical/mythical belief that if but ye had faith, ye could move mountains.

On some respectable web forums, dealing with Kundalini and meditative absorption, some posited that reality may be so dream like as to possibly be as mutable by mind as it is in a dream:

— Joel Hikari wrote: > Reality as you perceive it is nothing else than a thought form. All what you can see around you has been created using the power of manifestation of thoughts. Thoughts DO control reality.

Ok, test your meme Joel. Test your mental construct, against others that disagree, and see whose is more robust. Can yours create a rocket ship that can go to the moon?

I mean, create it for real, not just “if” you really believe hard enough.

The peter pan principle only works for children and
psychotics.

fdragonflyco wrote:

>Science is the very energy that allows us to continue the concept that anything is possible.

That’s not an accurate reflection at all of what science does. Science does not show is that it is possible for Pi to equal any number. It shows a specific value for Pi. Science shows us the constraints that the universe operates under. Science measures what is “out there”, and tests it against our theories. Theories are adjusted depending upon what is measured. Do you see the difference? Science may invent new ways to deal with what is out there, but these new ways are dependent upon the specific limitations on how things out there interact and work.

Maybe I’m just not being clear enough, or maybe there is some resistance to the idea that the world has set patterns, that are measurable. The earth follows a mathematically describable elliptical orbit around the sun. This is one example of an objective fact, that is independent of the magical powers of the observer. It did not take the evolution of aware creatures to bring this orbit into being. The objects appeared before the subjects, and may long outlive the subjects.

Science measures and discovers the limits of physical interaction – these interactions are givens – the mind does not create or change these limitations – they are properties of the physical universe, before you were born, and after you die.

> What is scientifically possible in this moment has nothing to do with what will be possible 10 years from now.

Certainly we will discover new aspects about the universe that exists out there. It is still a universe that exists, independent of your ideas about it. We will learn to see it more clearly, and manipulate it better.

>…There is a very wide gap between excepting the world as it is and believing you can fly or walk through walls. We all create our worlds with our minds, if we didn’t there would be one concrete interpretation of every scientific measurement we have identified in this moment and there would be no progression.

No, we don’t all create our world with our minds. What we create is the interpretation of our world. The facts are given to us, and from the facts we order them into our interpretations of the facts. We don’t create facts. Turn on the local news channel, and tell me if you created the middle east conflict with your mind.

> There is a very human compulsion to expand from a given measurement and this compulsion comes from the human mind interpreting through it’s own reality.

Yes, you’ve got it. We interpret. We start with a given, then order that as interpretation. We don’t create the givens. We interpret them. We can’t interpret our way into being a giant balloon filled with lighter than air lead.

If you think we can, prove it. Not with ideas, but in real life. Prove it.

>; Science and the ability to measure progress is the very proof that everything and anything is possible through thought.

That is precisely incorrect. It is the proof that the limits of how things actually work can work for us – we can create tools out of these limits. It is the understanding of limits, boundaries, that allows for creative construction.
—

Another poster mentioned that the reason people cling to certainties, such as the world not being similar to a dream, is that in this busy modern world, we need the solace and comfort of rock steady notions.

We all look for certainty – pattern recognition is hard wired into how our brain functions And cognitive dissonance hurts – when we see information that doesn’t fit with our current world view, it’s easier to dismiss the new info.

We are infected by memes, and these memes inhabit us, and pull our strings. Then we get meme wars. My idea is more robust than your idea.

But don’t assume that reality is a meme that is eny more entrenched than is an idea of unreality. Both are memes. People defend both views.

Wasn’t it Nagarjuna who said “To believe in reality is foolish. To believe in emptiness is even more foolish”

Do you want to protect the fish in the sea? Do you take pleasure in making love? Emptiness shmemptiness.

Edward-Casper Dahle wrote: For a while I’ve been playing with the thought that the reality or the waking state of the mind is a dream. A projection of the mind, just like the dreams when you’re sleeping may be a projection of the mind.

Some people think that truth is worth pursuing, and that there is a difference between fact and opinion. Others think that we should respect the faiths of others, all viewpoints are equally valid.

Science won. You don’t get to vote on what your opinion is on how many electrons are in the outer valence shell of hydrogen. The quantifiable world has, inarguably, been dominated by those that measure it. The mind only subjectivists and their Peter Pan theory of that if you believe hard enough you can fly and walk through walls aren’t the ones producing the DVD players that you use.

So, sure, you can “believe” that there is no substantive difference between a dream and the waking world. But it’s a rather impotent belief, and one that does not take into account as much information as does one that can notice that only in this world can we have an intersubjective reality – communication among people.

We require the material of objects, objective reality, to carry our signals. No matter if the material of objects is fundamentally empty, or made out of space. It makes no difference. What is objective is that what is around us affects us indipendantly of our will, and our will is not omnipotent in affecting what is around us. There are both exteriors, and interiors. Objects, and subjects. You can think anything you like, but if you want to think coherently, I can see no other conclusion.

Ken Wilber is most articulate about this. He sums it up this way. “You don’t create your world with your mind. Psychotics create their world with their mind” Ancient sages used to talk about standing in front of Elephants. Mind over matter? If you can’t prove it, it’s an idea that you want, not a search for truth, that can accept painful truth.

Timothy McKee wrote:
> You make a statement that you have not heard any successful arguments against objective reality. I think there have been many successful arguments against objective reality, way too numerous to name. The UniverseEqualsHolog ram perhaps would probably be a good place to start. or even the idea of the moon not being there if you do not see it.

Regardless of if the universe is a hologram or a piece of tuna, it still has an objective, measurable component that we can discuss. I can grab at your part of it, and influence you, and you can influence me, regardless of what you are thinking, or if you are asleep or awake. The universe also has a subjective component. But you can neither reduce the objective to the subjective as vice versa. Neither reduces to the other.

Even strict subjectivists will tell you that mind over matter is not a good idea when standing in front of a speeding train. The peter pan principle is merely that. A principle. A nice idea. If you can make it work in the objective world, we’ll all be thankful.

Timothy McKee> wrote: I think the “measurable component” has proven to be problematic. Perhaps the subjective/objective e dyad has limitations in itself. Certainly the Gurdjieffian triad transcends the dyad.

Can we be specific about what is problematic about a community of peers sharing observations to come as close as possible to the most inclusive and reproducible theory? It’s what physical scientists, and meditators do. We build consensual reality through intersubjective dialogue. To me this implies the common sense notion that we don’t create the world with our mind, we observe our world, interact with it, and discuss it.

There is a world of difference between subtle powers and magical thinking. For instance I practice chi-kung healing, and don’t understand how that works, that awareness seems to be able to transmit without touch. I feel and perceive this. The biggest rational picture I can make of this is to include into my picture the words “i don’t know” in the blank spots.

If extensive double blind research showed that the effects are purely hypnotic and suggestive, etc, I’d have to include that into the facts that I have to use to build the most coherent world view.

I can’t just pick and chose which facts I’m comfortable with. *I* can’t. Many do.

I love cognitive dissonance. If something doesn’t fit, that is something that is interesting.

There are many people who really love the world view that they hold some hidden inner omniscient power over all, that they could uncover. The facts don’t support such a view – it is magical, wishful thinking.

Prove me wrong – many would love to see it. There are millions of dollars in rewards for any demonstration of psy.

We do measure our world, no problem. I don’t see meditators working in factories pumping out DVD players with their refined intention of will. I see mechanics and materials scientists and electrical engineers making them. The measurers win the philosophical question of whether there is an external reality.

And as for a Dyad, I am not directly familiar with your reference, but I assume the third would be non-duality. Which we can’t exactly talk about, nor does it negate the objective component to reality.
—

One reason I go to all the trouble to point out the errors in these mythical world views with their magical thinking, is that I think the mystical and meditative paths have a lot to offer, but if the practitioners wind up looking like new age nut jobs, with little grasp of basic thinking skills and scientific understanding, our case loses traction, and we wind up sidelined and misunderstood and ignored.

If the meditative insight of oneness gets translated into words and ideas through a pre-rational world view, there will be the idea that our personal ego contains the world, and therefore we can manipulate all of everything.

We need to develop our rationality, and translate meditative insight through robustly rational and transrational organs of image organization.

We have to include all the knowledges of science, and use our rational skills, as well as our transrational skills. Leave being pre-rational to the creationists. It looks naive and out of touch, at best.

Kundalini sex is not Tantric sex

Tantric Sex, as I understand it, has at least three main levels.

The first is an extension of regular energetic chi-kung awareness. The intensity of sex catapults ones practice farther, as channels and chakras are exercised using much more intense energy. One doesn’t merely raise kundalini during orgasm, but raises it as the act of sex. One also lowers energies and moves them all about. Kundalini is sex. Orgasm is optional, and usually avoided.

The second aspect is devotional. The beloved and and oneself unite, and in the communion there is a respect for our essence. This is becoming who we really are, which is prayer.

The third aspect is non-dual. Not just a union, but beyond time or space or any possibility of separation. Without this third, really we should not use the name “Tantric”. We should call it Taoist, or energetic, or chi-kung sex. Tantra has the notion that kleshas and perceptions can arise as self liberated. It is extremely subtle, and usually only approached after many years of intense meditative and philosophical engagement. Merely raising kundalini and not coming does not tantra make.