Hug the Monkey

What Is Orgasmic Meditation?

As I wrote last week, I'm training to be an Orgasmic Meditation instructor at OneTaste. This practice is deep and mysterious, and I have not gotten to the bottom of its relation to oxytocin and connection. But I have not found the practice to be at odds with sex's power to connect.

I spoke with Alisa Price, who is on the core faculty at OneTaste, about the practice and what it's meant to her. Go to the One Taste website for more info about their programs.

First of all, what is OneTaste?
OneTaste is an organization that offers classes and coaching for people who are interested in expanding their ability to be intimate and conscious, in weaving their sexuality more consciously and wholly into their lives, and in incorporating mindfulness practices into the arena of sexuality specifically.

Our points of focus reach from gender dynamics to working more consciously with our desires, to our sexuality directly to how we communicate and show up in every part of our lives.

The OneTaste practice of mindful sexuality is orgasmic mediation. We seek to bring practice and mindfulness into the sexual arena directly, to create a discipline that people can use and connect with and be held in that will allow them to increase their conscious connection to sexuality in a slow, sustainable way.

What exactly does that mean, to bring mindfulness into sexuality?

It means experiencing my desire for sex, my desire for connection, my desire for intimacy, not only with another human being, but within the bigger, broader sense of living an intimate life, living a life that feels connected, that feels impassioned, that feels alive and electric.

When I speak about orgasmic meditation, I typically start by saying people hear the word “orgasm,” and they don’t hear the second word that comes after that, which is meditation. Because people are like, “Wow, orgasm!” And they either light up about it, or they’re like, “Ooh, I might want some of that.” Or there’s a fear, or a “What?!"

And so, the meditation part is not always caught in the first communication. And it truly is a meditation. It is meant to be an intentional, mindful meditation where I, as a human being, can drop into a more connected, conscious state while in connection to my orgasm

Can you describe the practice for us?

It is a physical practice. Two people get together. The woman lies down and butterflies her legs open, and the man strokes her genitals in a very intentional and conscious way. It’s done in a very particular manner, from how it’s timed, how the position goes, the intention and the technique around the stroking of the genitals and also the focus, because it is a meditation.

So, for both people, whether they’re the person being stroked or the person doing the stroking, there is a very conscious, intentional focus that you’re focusing on the orgasm and on your body at the level of sensation. So this is a bridge that many people can understand if they’ve had any experience with any kind of sitting meditation, where you sit and you notice thoughts that arise. You notice feelings that arise. You notice emotions and associations. You notice them, and you simply let them go. And you come back over and over again to focusing on the sensations of the body and the awareness of the body, either in a particular spot or the body as a whole.

The mindfulness practice, the orgasmic meditation practice specifically, experiencing orgasm together, that is a true meditation. In other styles of meditation, there is an intentional focus on experiencing the body at the level of sensation. We are applying that to the orgasm specifically. Investigating, what are the sensations in my body right now? Noticing and acknowledging emotions that arise, noticing the tendency to cling to them or force them out. Letting it go and coming back to the sensations.

My blog is about oxytocin, the chemical that causes us to feel connected to each other, producing those feelings of trust and love. And a ton of oxytocin is released during orgasm. Is this something you think about and work with?

We do. We've looked into the scientific, biochemical side of orgasm, absolutely. On that same page, one of the things we're saying is that orgasm, pleasure and sexual connection are part of the full spectrum of healthy human experience. The science behind this, in my opinion, the release of oxytocin is a signifier that points to the fact that our sex is important, and that we do well to be properly nourished in that area of our lives, as well.

On an essential level, people do want physical and sensual connection. They want to be in resonance with other human beings. When you start incorporating aspects of practice and mindfulness into relationships, sex and gender, you start to have a better structure to explore those things sustainably.

Can I find emotional connection at OneTaste?

Yes. It's part of the philosophy of people who come to OneTaste to connect. It's very full-spectrum, full-bodied that way. As a faculty member, I have a rich emotional connection with many people.

Any other thoughts about how orgasmic meditation relates to connection?

I can see from my personal experience, having done the practice for five years, I've experienced an expansion in my ability to feel other human beings. The orgasmic meditation practice is interesting specifically because it is a partner practice. You cannot do it in isolation. Every time I lay down to have my genitals stroked in an orgasmic mediation session, I am asked to be open  Enough to not only feel my own body but be able to feel the body of another human being on some level and to allow my orgasm to arise. From being in physical contact with someone else all the way out to my ability to connect in life, I've experienced a tremendous amount of expansion. I'm more available and more open. I just feel more.

Humans: Bonobos or Prairie Voles?

My new Facebook friend, Tinamarie Bernard Eshel, writes about sex, spirituality, and earth stewardship.

On the blog Green Prophet, she recently wrote Monkey Love: When females rule fornication, Mother Earth delights. It's a terrific and thought-provoking post, and you should read it.

Her thesis:

The bonobos have found the solution to world peace. It’s called love. Whenever there is a dispute, they resolve it with a good bout of nooky. A bit of masturbation here, a little tickle where it feels really good there, and soon enough the tension is relieved. Have a problem? Not after you’ve had sex, bonobo style.

And if you have any doubt about female satisfaction, rest assured that these apes know how to swing. Wink wink, nod nod, grunt grunt, sigh. In fact, in their natural habitats, Bonobos have rarely demonstrated hostile or violent behaviors towards another.

I began to comment on her blog, and decided instead to post it here.

I completely agree with Tinamarie that you can't have too much sex. Sex is the emotional glue that holds couples together, and it satisfies our physical and emotional cravings for connection while tuning up our bodies for maximum health.

That said, even though we share 97 percent of our dna with the bonobo, this does not mean that we are like them socially. Biologists estimate that approximately 3 percent of mammals are monogamous, and they seem to share a quirk of brain structure that places receptors for both dopamine, the neurochemical of reward-seeking and reward, close to receptors for oxytocin, the neurochemical of attachment, trust, generosity and love, in the parts of the brain that handle social interactions.

This difference makes the prairie vole monogamous, even though it is genetically very close to its polyamorous cousin, the mountain vole. Humans do seem to share this monogamous brain structure.

This does NOT mean that humans or any other monogamous mammal is wired to copulate ONLY with one mate. In fact, they've found that as many as 45 percent of "monogamous" male prairie voles never mate, while in monogamous bird species, some 25 percent of offspring are the result of extra-pair copulation.

We seem to be wired to live in a stable family with a long-term, and possibly life-long, mate, with the possibility of other sexual partners for both sexes. Unfortunately, in our highly civilized culture, we have robust social conventions for romance, friendship and property rights that make it quite difficult to be as free as the bonobos.

I think where the ideals of polyamory may lead us astray is when we focus on the amory part and forget about creating a stable mate relationship. I firmly believe that this mate/family structure may take many forms outside of the traditional nuclear family -- in fact, I think it should.

However, without a home and family to come home to, the polyamorist risks falling into a tangle of unsatisfying relationships that may provide lots of dopamine highs without the next of trust and connection that comes from oxytocin.

I think women can be especially at risk in a polyamorous playground, because our higher estrogen causes us to respond more strongly to oxytocin, making sex feel more bonding to us. 

All that said, sex -- no matter who or how many we enjoy it with -- does make us calmer, less anxious and more open and trusting. That's got to be good for the planet.

Is He a Cheater?

Paul Zak, the guy who showed that oxytocin affects all sorts of positive human emotions, as well inventing the field of neuroeconomics, posted five tests you can use to discover whether a man is likely to stay faithful.

The tests illuminate the relationship between oxytocin, vasopressin and testosterone. If that recipe isn't just right, a man's more likely to be a seed-scatterer than a bacon-bringing-homer.

They're smart, science-based, and most of them you can do yourself without the need for lab tests. I covered his post in the blog I write at LifeGoesStrong.com, and I'm afraid that, in what is certainly recursive but necessary in this link-crazy world, I am cycling you through that in order to read his post. Is that too, too awful?

Monogamy the Intelligent Choice?

Thanks to Solitaire Miles for sending me this item from the Telegraph. According to Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics and Political Science, intelligent men are more likely than the general population to remain faithful to their mates.

Kanazawa told Telegraph writer Matthew Moore that he thinks this is because in primitive times, it was adaptive for a man to father children with multiple women; now that this is no longer adaptive, only more intelligent men have the ability to " shed the psychological baggage of their species and adopt new modes of behaviour."

I disagree -- not about his finding about the correlation between intelligence and monogamy. My understanding of the research by Thomas Insel, Larry Young and others is that the human brain is structured like those of the other 3 percent of monogamous mammals. We have more oxytocin receptors in our brain's reward center, causing us to tie the reward of sex to an individual. 

This is social monogamy, not true sexual monogamy. That strong bond with a mate doesn't preclude that monogamous 3 percent from sexual activity with other individuals. In prehistoric times, this let human males have the best of both worlds: investing substantial resources in the survival of his mate's children while spreading a bit of his seed around at random.

In today's structured and complex Western societies, most of us expect sexual monogamy within marriage. Perhaps it takes a bit more brain power for men to resist the lure of extramarital sex.

By the way, Kanazawa found no such correlation between intelligence and sexual monogamy in women. What does that mean?

Is Your Brain Pink or Blue?

A new book by Lise Eliot, a neuroscientist at Rosalind Franklin Institute of Medicine, examines the role that very subtle differences in parents' expectations may create differences in brain development of boy and girl babies.

According to an article about Pink Brains, Blue Brains in Newsweek, many studies show that parents' expectations for gender-based behavior or competencies can lead to reinforcing those tendencies in kids.

For example, in a study where people were told that male newborns were female and vice versa, they rated the "male" babies as more irritable.

I haven't read the book, but the Newsweek article points up a bit of a contradiction. Eliot may be saying that all the differences in adult brains can be tied to differences in nurturing, but the article itself contradicts that:

For instance, baby boys are more irritable than girls. That makes parents likely to interact less with their "nonsocial" sons, which could cause the sexes' developmental pathways to diverge. By 4 months of age, boys and girls differ in how much eye contact they make, and differences in sociability, emotional expressivity, and verbal ability—all of which depend on interactions with parents—grow throughout childhood. The message that sons are wired to be nonverbal and emotionally distant thus becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This makes sense, except ... we're starting with, "baby boys are more irritable than girls." If this is the case, then it implies that there is an innate difference, perhaps because of the greater testosterone in the male baby's brain and body. 

I can certainly buy a theory that nurture can enhance these innate differences. But I have to agree with Michael Gurian (and a lot of science) that the differences in the amounts of testosterone and estrogen in a baby's brain guide neurodevelopment, especially in the first three years of life, when the neurons are forming connections that will last throughout our lives.

Gurian, authof of a series of excellent parenting books, including The Wonder of Boys, put out a press release saying,

It seems that most of the world already senses that boys and girls are inherently different (albeit on a vast spectrum, not stereotypes), but some people still fear this human experience, or aren't sure what to make of it.   Unfortunately, these books/articles select evidence and don’t take into account brain scans and other hard science; and they extrapolate the effect of socialization on formation of gender in the brain. For instance, PBBB provides a study of children who are encouraged to climb a hill a certain way and extrapolates that because there were differences in how parents talked to boys/girls, this could somehow account for the profound differences that show on PET and SPECT scans between girls and boys' brains.

He also posts some research on his site showing gender-based differences in the brain.

This is an argument that won't be resolved any time soon. It's important for parents to think about this and do what they can not to reinforce crippling gender roles on kids of either sex. For our grown-up relationships, I still think that looking at our emotions and interactions through the lens of neurochemistry can provide insight and comfort.

Did Nature Design Women to Be Social Leaders?

Oxytocin seems to be the key to flocking behavior in birds, as well as schooling behavior in fish. And these behaviors seem to be led by female populations. Could it be that human females are biologically wired to provide the foundation for social behavior?

James Goodson of Indiana University found that blocking mesotocin, an avian neurochemical similar to oxytocin, in zebra finches changed their social behavior. According to the press release,

They spend significantly less time with familiar individuals and more time with unfamiliar individuals. The birds also become less social, preferring to spend less time with a large group of same-sex birds and more time with a smaller group. Conversely, if birds are administered mesotocin instead of the blocker, the finches become more social and prefer familiar partners.

But Goodson found that blocking mesotocin only affected the females; the males' behavior was unchanged. He also found that whether a species likes to congregate seems to depend on the location of the mesotocin receptors.

In the news article, Goodson doesn't speculate on why oxytocin and mesotocin are so much more potent in females. He says he hopes more work on songbirds will shed light on the question. But it's my understanding that, in humans, estrogen enhances the bonding effects of oxytocin, while testosterone mutes them. So it makes perfect sense that women -- in general -- are more interested in social connection.

Putting this together with Goodson's work on flocking, it could be that the predilection for bonding goes beyond individual connections. Perhaps women, like female zebra finches, influence society as a whole, helping us to cooperate, collaborate, trade and keep peace.

The paper, published last Friday in Science, is Mesotocin and Nonapeptide Receptors Promote Estrildid Flocking Behavior.

Chip August's Sex, Love & Intimacy Podcast

Charles August, or Chip for short, has done 90 podcasts covering all aspects of sex and love for Personal Life Media (a company founded by internet wundergrrrl Susan Bratton). Chip co-facilitates, with his life-partner, a relationship workshop for couples called Passionate Relationships. Chip is also a certified Instructor of PET (Parent Effectiveness Training) leading adult education workshops to teach listening, conflict resolution and communication skills to parents.

I was honored to be Chip's 90th guest recently.

We talked about how the way we're mothered influences the way we love as adults, and how that plays out in our relationships throughout life.

You can listen to the podcast via iTunes or here on Personal Life Media. If you're an old-fashioned readerly type like me, you can also read the transcript when you click on that link.

Thanks, Chip!

Love Styles and Oxytocin

I use the phrase "love styles" to refer to the concept of attachment styles put forth by John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Ainsworth developed a test, the Strange Situation, to see what kind of relationship babies had with their mothers. They came up with three: Secure, anxious or avoidant attachment. Some psychologists have create subcategories or changed these a bit. But the basic theory is, you can be securely attached to your mother, you maybe anxious that she's not going to be there for you, or you can be so scared or hurt that you withdraw into yourself and try not to need anyone else.

I believe that you can also look at these as oxytocin styles. Because the way our brains release and react to oxytocin is shaped by our earliest experiences,  these love styles are likely the result of the way that the  oxytocin response developed.

I'm fascinated by this kind of thing, because understanding it helps me understand myself and my relationships.

This is a long-way-round introduction to my interview with Deb Harper  of Psychjourney. Deb creates podcasts with authors, psychologists and thinkers on psychological topics. We talked about attachment styles and oxytocin in the wide-ranging interview. The conversation was very interesting for me, and I hope you'll think so, too.

CORRECTED: You can download the Chemistry of Connection podcast here.

Oxytocin Better than Beer for Hooking Up?

Okay, I am being facetious. But a new study found that inhaling oxytocin made study subjects feel more positively about strangers.

ABC News reported on the study by Angeliki Theodoridou, a psychologist at the University of Bristol, UK. This makes sense, because oxytocin has previously been shown to reduce activity in the amygdala, the part of the brain that makes pre-conscious, friend-or-foe decisions. Oxytocin seems to act as a trust signal, letting us gradually approach other people.

Theodoridou was on the team led by Eric Hollander that found oxytocin reduced symptoms of autism and increased adult autistics' ability to detect emotional meaning in speech.

Oxytocin Cools Marital Spats

Inhaling oxytocin helps couples fight fair, a new study shows.

When couples sniffed oxytocin and then engaged in a mock argument, those who'd inhaled the good stuff showed more positive communication and engaged in less negative behaviors. They also had lower levels of cortisol, indicating they didn't get as stressed out by the fight. The study was led by Beate Ditzen under the aegis of Markus Heinrichs, the University of Zurich scientist who did the original human oxytocin studies.

I reported on an earlier study by Bitzen that showed the same results: Oxytocin Keeps the Lid on Spats. Also, Adam Guastella in Australia, is studying the use of oxytocin inhalants as an aid to couples therapy.

The article is "Intranasal Oxytocin Increases Positive Communication and Reduces Cortisol Levels During Couple Conflict" by Beate Ditzen, Marcel Schaer, Barbara Gabriel, Guy Bodenmann, Ulrike Ehlert, and Markus Heinrichs. Authors Ditzen and Ehlert are affiliated with the Department of Psychology, Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. Ditzen is also with the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. Schaer, Gabriel, and Bodenmann are from the Department of Psychology, Institute for Family Research and Counseling, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland. Heinrichs is affiliated with the Department of Psychology, Clinical Psychology and Psychobiology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. The article appears in Biological Psychiatry, Volume 65, Issue 9 (May 1, 2009), published by Elsevier.

Luckily, Elsevier's PR person gave this a better title: Love Potion #1?