Barbara Carrellas is an author, sex educator, and theater artist. Her most recent books are Urban Tantra: Sacred Sex for the Twenty-First Century and Luxurious Loving: Tantric Inspirations for Passion and Pleasure. She conducts Urban Tantra workshops throughout New York City and is the co-founder of Erotic Awakening, a groundbreaking series of workshops which toured the United States and Australia. Believe me, her list of amazing accomplishments goes on and on.
Barbara is currently directing her partner Kate Bornstein in Kate’s new solo show, “Kate Bornstein is a Queer and Pleasant Danger.� They also frequently perform and tour their sex positive, gender-bending lecture/performance piece, “Too Tall Blondes Do Sex, Death & Gender.� Barbara is also the Dean of Femmenergy at Miss Vera’s Finishing School For Boys Who Want To Be Girls, a crossdressing academy.
I corresponded with Barbara over email on her new book Urban Tantra. Here’s Barbara…
For those who have never heard of Tantra, or zone out whenever they hear something that sounds remotely New Agey, what is Tantra?
Tantra is a spiritual path that considers all aspects of life (including sex) to be potential paths to enlightenment—or if you prefer—paths that can lead you to a connection with the divine or give you a direct experience of the divine. Tantric sex is a way of practicing sex that facilitates and welcomes that spiritual experience.
Tantra is not a religion. Believe me, if it was I wouldn’t be doing it. You do not have to join any group, take any vow or say any special words to practice Tantra. You do not have to swear allegiance to anyone, and nothing bad will happen to you if you do it “wrong� or differently from other people who practice it. I love Tantra because it is such an effective spiritual practice. The spirituality does me; I don’t have to do it.
Some people think they won’t like Tantric sex because they think that there is no fucking—that it is only about breathing and eye gazing. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, you can fuck as much and as long as you want to. If you are a man, you can even learn to have multiple orgasms without ejaculating, which means you can fuck a lot longer. But in Tantra, sex is a lot more than fucking. Sexual energy exists well beyond your genitals. Tantric sex is a full-body/full-spirit experience, so people who practice Tantra are less genitally focused. When your entire body is pulsing and vibrating with pleasure you’re more likely to talk about the atoms in your body dancing to the rhythm of the universe than you are to describe the experience as a great fuck.
Other people are turned off by the idea of Tantra and Tantric sex because of its image in America as couples therapy for white, middle-aged, middle-class, apolitical, woo-woo, New Age, sarong-wearing workshop junkies. In fact, Tantra is practiced in a wide variety of styles by a wide variety of people, including some of my friends who are young, leather-clad, gender-fucked anarchists who are into BDSM. Tantra embraces all genders, sexual styes and sexual preferences. It is primarily concerned with inner mystical experiences, not relationships and wardrobe.
Tantra was once a supremely revolutionary practice. Tantra in India in its early days probably looked something like the social revolution in America in the 1960s: experimentation with sex and drugs, group ecstatic rituals with music, dancing and sex, loving whomever you chose regardless of race or background, and questioning the moral, ethical, and philosophical precepts of the day. In the twentieth century, Tantra was reintroduced in the West by a few brave sex, gender, spiritual, and political radicals who ventured to India in search of an active spirituality that would embrace and empower everyone in all aspects of life, including the sexual and political. The practice of Tantra today can once again be revolutionary in the face of the current cultural rise of fundamentalist sex and gender politics.
You mention in Urban Tantra’s prelude that you came to Tantra because of the AIDS crisis. Can you talk more about this, and how Tantra has served as both a sexual and spiritual awakening for you?
I came to Tantra out of sheer desperation. By the late 1980s I had lost dozens of friends and colleagues to AIDS. I went to a support group called the New York Healing Circle, which had been founded on the love-yourself-heal-your-life principles of the metaphysical pioneer Louise Hay, the first person to declare that AIDS was not a death sentence. There I met Annie Sprinkle, a well-known porn star who had lost as many friends in the sex industry as I had in my Broadway theatre community. We were both looking for a way to cope with our grief and to find some spiritual solace and guidance. We also knew that our friends who had lived at the edge of the sexual revolution were not going to settle for safe, latex sex for long. It was just not going to meet the needs of a community who’d had years of mind blowing sex enhanced by all manners of brain and body stimulating drugs. We were determined to find some way for them (and us) to have safe sex that would be as intense and amazing as it had been in the bars, the discos, the dungeons and the swingers’ clubs. We found that answer when we began to explore the ancient Eastern sexual practices of the Tantric and Taoist traditions.
I had two experiences in those early days that planted my feet firmly on the Tantric path. Both were versions of what I now call breath-and-energy orgasms. I learned a breath and visualization techniques called the Firebreath Orgasm from my first Tantra teacher, Jwala. It’s quite simple. You lie down and use your breath and your mind to “breathe� circles of energy up your body. The first time I tried it I thought I’d taken LSD! Energy was shooting out the tips of my fingers. I was laughing and undulating and seeing visions. I was having a full body orgasm with absolutely no genital stimulation!
Amazing as that was, it was shortly followed by another technique that was as incredible. My dear friend Joseph Kramer, a visionary erotic pioneer, used to throw what I called Joe’s breathe-and-dance-and-run-and-play-until-you-come parties. (He called them Tantric Group Rebirths.) As my title, implies, a group of some 40 to 60 gay men plus Annie and me would breathe and eye gaze and dance and run and build up as much energy as we possibly could in 45 minutes. Then we would lie down, hold our breath and tense every muscle in our body. When we let go, anything could happen. Sometimes I would feel like I was bodiless, astrally traveling for a private meeting with the goddess. Sometimes I had visions of my dead friends that were so real I could touch them. Sometimes I cried or screamed or giggled so hard I hurt.
The long term of effects of these repeated transcendental orgasmic experiences was completely life-altering. The way I looked at everything in my life changed. There was no turning back—and why would I want to?
Urban Tantra discusses Tantra from the perspective of urban living and culture. What obstacles do you think urban dwellers have to face when trying to have a healthy sex and spiritual life?
Those of us who live in urban and suburban cultures have too much to do in too little time. We walk through more identities in one day than our ancestors walked through in a lifetime. For example, here are just some of the identities I juggled—often on daily basis—in the course of writing my last two books: author, Broadway theatre manager, sex educator, workshop facilitator, friend, daughter of two parents in their late 80s, gardener, herbalist, meditator, artist, and lover. I also went from caregiver to estate executrix when an old and dear friend of mine became seriously ill and died.
When we live like this, we quite naturally focus on our actions, not out feelings. We have so much to do there is no time to stop and ask, “How do I really feel about this?� Unfortunately, our feelings are our best barometer as to whether the actions we do and decisions we make are really right for us. We become human doings instead of human beings.
Sex becomes one more thing we do—when we have time! In writing a modern Tantra book for book for urban and suburban people in the 21st century, I had to address this issue of time. So, I came up with a way that Tantra can be learned and practiced in as little as 20 minutes a day. Now, this is not like instant Tantra—just add water and chug. It is more like sexual meditation. When people first learn to meditate, they are told, just give it 15 minutes day. Watch how your life begins to change. The same thing is true for Tantra. Just try it for 20 minutes a day and I promise you will begin to transform your sex and your life.
What do you think are the biggest obstacles most people face when trying Tantra for the first time?
The biggest obstacles are strongly held personal beliefs about lack and limitation. For example:
“This might work for other people but it won’t work for me.�
“I don’t have time.�
“I don’t have the right partner.�
“I don’t have any partner. “
“I don’t understand it.�
To practice Tantra you have to be willing to change your mind about how sex works. By changing your mind, I mean allowing your mind to expand so it can accept more and more possibilities. For example, having a breath orgasm is easy. It’s believing that one is possible that can be difficult.
It’s easy to avoid trying something new because you don’t understand how it works or how it could work. Many seemingly impossible things happen when we start raising sexual energy. Peoples’ faces appear to change. We see, hear, smell or feel things that may or may not “really� be there. We have sudden bursts of emotion or sensation that appear to have no cause or connection to the feeling preceding it or following it. Sometimes we see the divine. It’s so unlike our everyday reality, it’s like we’ve entered a parallel universe. It’s easy to be skeptical. Easy, but not smart. Nothing great has ever been achieved by affirming, “That’s ridiculous; it won’t work.� Lots of things are ridiculous and many of them work.
Urban Tantra conquers many stereotypes about sexual orgasms and what leads one into experiencing an orgasm. For example, you state in the book that you’re convinced orgasms “happen� primarily in the brain versus in our genitals. Can you talk more about this, and braingasms?
Energetically speaking, the kinds of orgasms the majority of us experience on a regular basis are little more than genital sneezes in comparison to what is orgasmically possible. I like to talk about the Totality of Possibilities of Orgasm. In the Totality of Possibilities of Orgasm we can include experiences like the breath and energy orgasms I had with Joseph Kramer and Jwala. We can have gigglegasms, crygasms, angergasms, even quiet little blissgasms—an astounding range of emotiongasms that can exist together with, or separately from, genital orgasms.
In Urban Tantra I tell the story of how I began to really understand the role of the brain in orgasm. My friend Alison Partridge, a paraplegic sex therapist in Adelaide, Australia, has physical sensations only in her hands and arms, breasts (one has less feeling than the other), neck and head. Yet, when her clitoris is stimulated she can have an orgasm. Where does she feel her orgasm to be located? Well, sometimes she orgasms in her nipples, sometimes inside her head. She reports that there is a distinct difference between nipple orgasms and the ones inside her head, but that both are wonderful. She has even discovered that by changing positions during sex she can have multiple orgasms. Alison’s experience illuminates the presence of numerous previously undiscovered neural pathways by which orgasmic energy can travel through the body to the brain.
More recently, I have heard how quadriplegics with feeling only in their head and neck can have orgasmic experiences when a partner lovingly and erotically sucks their ear, or a one-inch-square latch of skin on their neck. After hearing so many stories about the infinite possibilities of human eroticism, it’s obvious to me that we have not even begun to scratch the surface of what is orgasmically possible.
Towards the end of the book you talk about channeling sexual healing and extra sexual energy to do good in the world. For example, you channeled orgasms to the people of South Africa when they were protesting and struggling against apartheid. Do you see orgasms as more than individual acts of sexual gratification but vehicles of communal positive energy?
Orgasms are not only vehicles of communal positive energy, they are powerful sexual prayers. Orgasmic prayers are especially effective because of the unique power of the erotic. Let’s face it, when you are erotically connected to something or someone, it occupies a much larger space in your awareness than something with which you have no erotic connection. So, every time I sent the people of South Africa an orgasm I was reminded of the healing that was needed there. I paid more attention to what was going on there; I sent money; I did whatever I could to support my sexual prayers.
We are now becoming able to prove with quantum physics what the ancient Tantric already knew: that we are all connected by a vast energetic web. We can send and receive energy through this web. As the entire universe is made up of energy, it’s seems pretty easy to understand how powerful energy—such as orgasmic energy—can have powerful effects.
What do you think is the state of self sexual health and exploration in the U.S.?
::sigh:: Woefully skewed. We do not even know what is erotically possible for us because we live in a society which practices and promotes such extreme sexual reductionism. What is sexual reductionism? Well, let’s just say it hit its defining moment the day Bill Clinton declared, “I did not have sex with that woman!� A blow job was not sex?! Good grief! Than what is sex? Apparently it’s only intercourse in the missionary position with the person you are and will always be married to. How pathetic.
This theme has continued over the past decade, as the abstinence and no-sex-outside-of-marriage movements have attempted to stifle not only sexual intercourse, but by association, all sexual activity and awareness. In this climate, it is hard to get people to think of sex as the erotic life force that permeates every cell of life and hold us all in an interconnected erotic web.
However, I have a lot of hope. I meet many people—mostly between the ages of 15 and 30—who are just not buying the party line. They know that sex and spirit and life are far more vast and wondrous than they have been told. They know there is more of everything—joy, prosperity, erotic bliss—out there and they want to find it—now! I wrote Urban Tantra for these sexual expansionists and for everyone who would like to become a sexual expansionist. I wanted to give people hope, encouragement and a road map to start them off on a personal journey that I hope will lead to a pleasure revolution.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Barbara Carrellas: Sacred Sex for the Twenty-First Century.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/5232
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
First off, I want to express HUGE thanks for some attention paid to the topic of sacred sex. It's such a shame that, at least in the U.S., people's views of sex tend to be simply whether or not to have it, when, and with whom, which completely leaves one's internal experience of the sex itself completely in the dark. I think pretty much everyone's lives could be improved if they went about reframing their views of sex towards their actual interaction with the act instead of focusing so much on the mere "mechanics" of it.
On the other hand, I always cringe a little when people discuss sacred sex, and Tantra in particular, as if it's "not religious." Tantra is certainly not Judeo-Christian, but it has some serious attatchments to the Dharmic religions that really shouldn't be denied, and traditionally is practiced within that context. Further, I'd warn against portraying Tantra in the "You can have SO many amazing orgasms!" way -- I'm sure Ms. Carrellas wasn't intending to quite do that, but it's really easy to interpret things that way, especially in our current "Yoga for Weight Loss and Sexy Abs!" culture (blech). It's not about what you can *get* out of it, it's not about it *working,* and if you go about practicing it as if it's simply a matter of technique, you're completely missing the point. The decent wikipedia entry on Tantra contains the following quote:
Tantra is that Asian body of beliefs and practices which, working from the principle that the universe we experience is nothing other than the concrete manifestation of the divine energy of the Godhead that creates and maintains that universe, seeks to ritually appropriate and channel that energy, within the human microcosm, in creative and emancipatory ways.
This is pretty much what Ms. Carrellas is saying as well, but it's important to be unequivocal about the *sacredness* of Tantra. A practice of Tantra should, first and foremost, be an interaction with the *divine*. It's not recreation (although it is fulfilling and even fun), and in itself I don't think it's necessarily political or radical, at least not primarily so. Certainly one can construe the practice of Tantric sex in the context of the current sexual paradigms as a radical act, and champion it as such, and I think they'd be right to do so. I'm just a bit dubious of people saying that they practice Tantra when what they mean is simply "I have a radical and politically subversive approach to sex" which may happen to include some "tantric" techniques, without a real understanding, experience, and reverence of its sacredness.
I agree, becca. If you want to dissociate your practice so cleanly from religion, then don't call it "tantra." It just reminds me too much of the classic colonialist and exoticizing move-- project onto Asia what is perceived to be lacking in one's own western, late-capitalist existence, and then act as if the imported concept totally transcends its historical origins (thus treating it like capital itself).
I don't disagree with the motivations and basic perspectives that are being promoted about sex-- we need to see how the whole body is erotic, instead of buying the Puritan idea of "naughty bits"-- but why use "tantra" for that?
I'm all for improving both the personal sexual experience and moving the social concepts of sex away from shame. However, as an atheist, it bothers me that this squishy notion of "sacred" gets tossed in. I'll leave the proper use of Tantric to others. My question is, what exactly does one mean with they say something about "sacred sex"? Does sacred imply some metaphysical "energy", the existence of which is as doubtful as Moses's parting of the Red Sea. If by "sacred" instead, nonreligious people mean something that's deeply personal, emotionnally felt, and brings people greater awareness and intamacy, why don't we just drop this sacred mumbo jumbo once and for all. As you can probably read into this, I don't at all buy into this "not religious, but spiritual" line. As I see it, "spiritual" is just a way of identifying oneself as believing in the same metaphysical stuff, but at the same time wanting to clarify that you're not a jerk. Often, when I've expressed this kind of opinion, I get feedback that assumes I'm a curmudgeon pessimist. That's not the case. My atheism in no way prevents me from being hopeful, optimistic, and deeply commited to charity, morality, etc.
well I'm not religious but spiritual. For me it's all about not believing in god as an autonomous entity, and not adhering to any established religion
oh but I do feel things spiritually, in the sense that I think some things deserve to be revered regardless of cold, hard logic.
like nature, and life. And I believe all living things are connected, sort of in a deep ecology sense -except that I do eat meat.
so if people think sex is sacred -they may think it should be revered, and treated with dignity (i.e. not abused), and that it possesses special healing powers and special ability to bond people to each other, among other things. And basically I just don't really understand your whole rant against the word "sacred".
Well, I understand not liking the word "sacred"; just like I understand not caring for the word "moral" as opposed to "ethical". "Spiritual" may not mean "religious" to everyone, but it smacks of it to me. It means some sort of value beyond what is seen and measurable. I'm an atheist, and I have not had any experience in my life that has made me believe there is some power beyond physical explanation. I've never felt anything is sacred or supernatural. Now, should I ever see a ghost, or hear voices, I may be convinced... right after my psychotherapist declares me sane. If others feel comforted by spirituality, that's great, more power to them; I don't. So, IGC, *I* understand your rant. But I suppose it's like how it's hard to see society's bias towards children and parenting if you have kids, but quite clear when you don't have or plan on having kids. Just my opinion.
basically I just don't really understand your whole rant against the word "sacred".
I certainly agree with Ms. Carrellas that we should "only intercourse in the missionary position with the person you are and will always be married to." But I definitely agree with several of the posters that the idea of "sacred sex" is loaded.
I don't like the hierarchy it sets up, implying that sacred sex is somehow better than non-sacred sex. And I also think that "sacred" paired with "sex" is awfully close to the thinking of abstinence-only folks. Kristin Luker's book on sex ed (When Sex Goes to School) defines the sexual conservatives' view on sex as the "sacred" view, as opposed to the liberal "natural" view. You can quibble with her definitions (and I do, in some ways) . . . but I think she is articulating a strong sense in the religious abstinence community that sex is a spiritual discipline. While I don't think about sex as a purely physical experience, I certainly don't accept the religious right's idea that it's correct spiritual discipline that sets invests it with meaning.
"I certainly agree with Ms. Carrellas that we should "only intercourse in the missionary position with the person you are and will always be married to." "
I think that's a typo.
"And I also think that "sacred" paired with "sex" is awfully close to the thinking of abstinence-only folks."
Dude. Then you need to do some learning about non Judeo-Christian religions, don't assume they're all so anti-sex and so puritan.
I like Wicca's take on it, for instance. They say that making love to a man is a form of worshipping the god, and making love to a woman is a form of worshipping the goddess. That connotes great love and respect for your partner (or at least there is that potential). Think of how sacreligious that would make sexual violence?
"I don't like the hierarchy it sets up, implying that sacred sex is somehow better than non-sacred sex"
I think all sex could be sacred, depending on your frame of mind. Doesn't matter how long you've known your partner, or what particular sex acts you're performing. "Sacred" I think is about a person's frame of mind and a personal meaning to them, as much as anything.
Hmm. This sounded extremely interesting to me, until I got to the commments. I'm an atheist (do not believe in a god, highly doubtful that there's an afterlife), but still think that some kinds of "spiritual" experiences (out of body experiences, an extreme connectedness with people around you) are possible. I was all ready to start learning more about tantric sex, but Becca's comments (and others) have kind of put me off.
eh... religion is different for everyone. I don't like spirituality-bashing, but I also don't have a problem with people adapting elements of religions into their non-religious lives (i.e. Tantric Sex). I'll support your learning Tantric Sex, Cara.
I think that's a typo
Oops! A piece of text got deleted (damn cut and paste). It should read: we should expand our understanding of sex beyond "only intercourse in the missionary position with the person you are and will always be married to."
Sorry!
you need to do some learning about non Judeo-Christian religions, don't assume they're all so anti-sex and so puritan.
I don't mean to imply that ALL ways of thinking about sex vis a vis religion are negative. Only that we should be aware that "sacred sex" means a very specific thing to a lot of people in this country. I grew up in a very conservative part of the Midwest, around a lot of conservative Christians. The abstinence-only movement relies heavily on a mystical/spiritual understanding of human sexuality, which they set up against the bogey of "secular humanism" and sex as physical pleasure. I'm not saying this makes mystical/spiritual understandings of sex bad per se. I, personally, appreciate holistic ways of understanding human sexuality and sexual relationships. But we need to be aware as we're talking in this language that many people are using that same language in a very different way than Ms. Carrellas is!
"Sacred" I think is about a person's frame of mind and a personal meaning to them, as much as anything.
I can basically agree with this. The only problem is that there are a lot of people out there trying to define what is "sacred" FOR us. And I--and I think some of the others who dislike this language-- don't like the way it has been used set up a hierarchy of sexual experience that excludes people . . . or simply doesn't describe our own experiences (but implies we could experience it that way, if only we tried). It can feel somewhat condescending.
"I grew up in a very conservative part of the Midwest, around a lot of conservative Christians. "
So did I.
To me, the Wiccan version of sex is a lot more spiritual than the Southern Baptist version of sex. The former is about celebration, the latter is about following rigid rules and ascetism.
Cara -- Ack! I'm sorry, I really didn't mean to put you or anyone else off any interest in Tantra. My comments were really not meant to discourage the interested atheist, but rather to express a certain amount of contempt for appropriating an "exotic" technique to serve one's particular goals, but still referring to it as if it's the same thing. I mean, it's ridiculous and a bit insulting for people who do "yoga" (or, more properly, physically mimic yoga) for the toned abs to start calling themselves "yogis," right?
I'd also really encourage anyone who thinks of themselves as a spiritual atheist in the way you described not to get too jumpy about phrases like "manifestation of the Godhead," either. This ain't your old-dude-in-the-sky Abrahamic stuff. If it seems interesting to you, follow up on it, see if any of it rings true. And my word on all this is certainly not authoritative at all, I'm just some western girl with some pet theories, and only as legitimate as anyone else.
As a materialist atheist, I do not believe there is sacred sex, especially if the adjective is indexed to some religious or metaphysical consciousness. Sex is sex. Isn't that enough? Why burden it with incarcerating qualifiers?
Also, I'd like to respond directly to some of the other comments here, I hope y'all don't mind if I do it in a kind of piecemeal fashion:
If by "sacred" instead, nonreligious people mean something that's deeply personal, emotionnally felt, and brings people greater awareness and intamacy, why don't we just drop this sacred mumbo jumbo once and for all.
I somewhat agree with this (except for the part about sacredness being mumbo jumbo, of course. To each their own, though). I don't think people should apply such powerful terms as "sacred" or "holy" or what have you to their actions unless they really mean it to imply some kind of actual interaction with whatever their conception of the divine is. This doesn't necessarily mean that one must be a theist, though -- would anyone deny that sitting zazen, for example, is in some sense sacred, but not theist, at least not in the "usual" sense? (As a side note, If you meet the Buddha, kill him). Anyway, my point is that if you're ultimately a (for example) secular humanist, it seems a bit contrived and perhaps disrespectful to be calling something "sacred." If, on the other hand, you consider yourself "secular" but you are having experiences (such as what you feel during sex) that you find yourself genuinely wanting to describe as "sacred," perhaps it is time to re-evaluate how you've previously understood your conception of and interaction with the divine.
As you can probably read into this, I don't at all buy into this "not religious, but spiritual" line. As I see it, "spiritual" is just a way of identifying oneself as believing in the same metaphysical stuff, but at the same time wanting to clarify that you're not a jerk.
I see many people use it that way too, but I do think there's something that "spiritual, not religious" people are trying to get at with those words. Generally speaking, with the word "spiritual" I think most people are referring to their own personal experience of the divine, whereas we (sadly) construe "religious" to mean merely the outward declarations of that experience within the context of a particular doctrinal system. Sometimes I find myself sort of "explaining myself" as "spiritual, not religious" to people (even though I inwardly cringe whenever I do) because it's a euphemism for something along the lines of "I have a certain belief system, but it's not in line with any particular church." So it's not just wanting to clarify that you're not a jerk, but it points out a genuine problem with the current dominant modes of understanding these things -- as if one's spiritual life is primarily defined by the particular church they go to, like a club they belong to, not their actual relationship with the divine.
Hey Ninapendamaishi, I don't think we really disagree much here. I think there are very wonderful spiritual ways of understanding sexuality--even within some Christian traditions!--that I have found worthwhile contemplating.
My original point was that I understand why some people are put off by the language of "sacred," since (depending on what religious traditions you've been exposed to, and also your own feelings and beliefs) it can carry unpleasant baggage.
Thanks for the conversation!
I don't like the hierarchy it sets up, implying that sacred sex is somehow better than non-sacred sex. And I also think that "sacred" paired with "sex" is awfully close to the thinking of abstinence-only folks... While I don't think about sex as a purely physical experience, I certainly don't accept the religious right's idea that it's correct spiritual discipline that sets invests it with meaning.
I totally agree with you here, except that I would be really sad if people were getting too scared off from anything "sacred" just because the religious right has completely ruined its reputation. I completely understand your skepticism though. In fact one should probably be skeptical of pretty much anything professing to be "sacred" by default until it becomes apparent to you that it's something genuine and not just using the banner of spiritual significance to manipulate you into buying/joining/assenting/etc.
Also, I agree perhaps even more with your complaint about the implied heirarchical setting of "sacred sex" above regular ol' sex, and I sincerely apologize if I've at any point contributed to that notion unknowingly. "Sacred sex" is one of *many* things symptomatic of people re-evaluating their relationships to sex, and beginning to think of it in terms outside of the standard WAY over-emphasized issue of merely WHEN (and, maybe, with how much "skill," whatever that really means). This, I think, is a very good thing. However, "sacred sex" is something you CAN do. It is not something you HAVE to do in order to somehow legitimize your sexuality as significant, and anyone who tells you otherwise is full of it.
Alright, becca, that clarifies things a bit. Thanks :)
I'm putting the book in my wish list and I'm going to see if I can get my husband interested. This interview really opened my mind to what tantric sex is. Like Carrellas mentioned, I had an impression of it as "no fucking" and a very far out there new age hippie kind of thing. After reading this interview, I get the idea that tantric sex is more about learning how to receive and give pleasure in different ways and becoming more in tune with your body. I like that part. I also like that fucking is still involved, too :)
Also, one more quick note: I've often thought from time to time that people here might be interested in Sera Beak's amazing book, The Red Book: A Deliciously Unorthodox Approach to Igniting Your Divine Spark, and now seems like as good of a time as any to mention it. The whole book is very happily youthful and feministy, and the writing is perfectly frank, often hilarious, and somehow irreverently reverent all while still relaying a huge amount of accurate and insightful information in an extremely approachable way. Highly, highly recommended for anyone who's interested in this stuff at all.