This is a practical activity to explore the polarities of giving and receiving, leading and following, from a place of equality.

Leading is Yang and giving is Yang. Following is Yin and receiving is Yin. When we combine these types of Yin and Yang we get four types of sexual expression: command, seduction, nurture/service and yielding.

Command is double yang as it is both leading and giving.
Yielding is double yin as it is both following and receiving.
Seduction is yin-yang as it is leading and receiving.
Nurture/Service is yin-yang as it is following and giving.

These four expressions have two polarities:

• The Seduction-Service polarity
• The Command-Yielding polarity

Exploring the Seduction-Service Polarity

Stand facing each other. The Seducer feels into the sense of being the leader and the receiver. They need to ‘draw’ the partner in energetically. When the Server feels the draw, they move towards the Seducer.

The Seducer will lead the Server to a location and then instruct the Server as what s/he would like done to themselves. A simple version of this is to ‘instruct the touch’ whereby the Seducer sits or lies down and quietly gives an on-going commentary requesting what they would like. Alternatively, you can ask for more complex pleasures (run me a bath, rub me with oil, undress me slowly, you undress slowly.)

Remember that the Seducer does this for mutual pleasure. The Server will want to do as the Seducer requests for their own pleasure as much as their partner’s. The Server does of course have the right to say no at any time.


Exploring the Command-Yielding Polarity

Stand facing each other. The Commander feels into the sense of being the leader and the giver. They need to ‘draw’ the partner in energetically. When the Yielder feels the draw, they move towards the Commander.

The Commander leads the Yielder to a place and proceeds to touch the Yielder for the Commander’s own pleasure. The Yielder simply offers their body for their partner’s pleasure. The simplest version is simply to touch with your hands, more complex versions are to add other implements, food, other sensory experiences.

Remember that the Commander does this for mutual pleasure. The Commander is creating an experience for the Yielder. The Yielder does of course have the right to give feedback or say stop at any time.

Feminine and masculine; dominant and submissive; active and receptive; spiritual and physical; hard and soft; intense and subtle; light and dark; slow and fast; quick and prolonged; peaks and valleys….

These are all elements of Yin and Yang, the coming together of equal, complementary opposites to make a united whole. They are also all elements of sexual potential.

The ancient Taoists of China understood this, the sexual understandings and practices that have come from that period of time are about balance and equality which lead to ecstatic sexual experiences that are health-and life-enhancing.

The Tantrics of India had similar practices, which also seek to create balance and harmony.

The West though, for the past few thousand years, has been dominated by masculine yang elements, which has led to a dysfunctionally dominant masculine and a dysfunctionally submissive feminine. This applied to the whole of society as much as to sex.

As I’ve explained before, with the social changes of the 1970’s, we got more apparent equality between the sexes, but we haven’t really strengthened the yin, the ‘feminine’ aspect, in society, and therefore in our sexuality. The whole approach to sex was, and is becoming, more and more yang - harder, faster, louder. Just look at porn these days to see how yang it is. (When was the last time you saw a couple locked in extended ecstatic embrace on a porn site...?)

Yang is good, but not without the balance of yin. A sexuality that is based solely on the yang elements will get boring over time, requiring more and more intensity for satisfaction. Balance it with yin elements, and you can have wonderful sex forever.

The key is equality between the Yin and the Yang: there is no need for judgement about what is right or wrong when there is equality. Male equal to female; receptive equal to active; following equal to leading. So, when two people come together in sexual intimacy, they come together as complementary equals, able to play with the polarities of yin and yang.

To meet your partner as complementary equals requires that you are balanced within, that you each have a balance of yin and yang qualities within you: hard and soft, tender and firm, vulnerable and protective. It’s not that men are yang and women are yin, that is completely out of balance!

The more balanced you are as individuals, the more freely you can play with polarities between you, experiencing peaks and valleys, intense and subtle, active and receptive, leading and following. And from that you can be endlessly creative....

There’s a wise old saying about spiritual and personal growth:

First there is the mountain

Then there is no mountain

Then there is the mountain again.

What this means is that you have normality, then that disappears while you grow and experience its opposite, and then a new normality comes back again as you integrate the experiences of personal growth.

This ’new’ reality is never the same reality as the one you had before - it might look the same to a casual observer but your experience of it is quite different.

If we’re talking about sex and intimacy, and human sexual potential, then the process is the same as for spiritual growth.

At first, we do standard sex, which generally means focusing on the physical, and ironically, it also means doing sex in our heads. You’ll have heard me describe this in various ways: the performance model of sex, the Three Course Meal approach to sex, the Male Adolescent Masturbatory approach to sex.

This is Level One Sex, where you focus on the ‘peaks’ of sex, the ‘bigger-harder-faster’ approach. Level one sex is about technique, sexual excitation, and explosive orgasms. This is the mountain you start with.

Then you realise that this type of sex is not entirely satisfying, there has to be more. So, you start to explore a deeper approach to sex. You might find that you are attracted to Tantra, with its mindful approach to lovemaking. You find yourselves slowing down, taking time to connect and to build eroticism.

This is Level Two Sex, where you become aware of the ‘valleys’ of sex, where the sensual and subtle create feelings of ecstasy. This is where the mountain disappears, sex is not what it was.

Then the mountain reappears as you combine both the peaks and valleys of sex as well as the physicality of sex and its energetic and spiritual aspects. But the peaks are not the same peaks that you knew before you discovered the valleys. These are peaks of sexual intensity that come with great presence and connection. You swing between the peaks of sexual intensity and the valleys of sexual bliss, in a flow of lovemaking that has no plan or expectation.

This is Level Three Sex - and it is truly awesome.

We are equal. But does equal mean we are ‘the same’?

I’ve written elsewhere about how men and women are essentially the same - see one of my all-time favourite blog articles ‘Men Are From Earth, Women Are From Earth’. But we’re not identical.

Vive la difference!

Sure, we should have social, political and economic equality between the sexes. But that doesn’t mean we are or should be the same. Quite the opposite, it’s in part the dynamic tension between the male and female energies that keeps sex strong and powerful in a relationship.

Ideally in a sexual encounter the man opens up his strong yang exterior and invites the woman into his tender yin interior where she can completely let go, safe inside the space he’s created. There she can let her strength manifest, resulting in extraordinary sexual responses.

Interestingly, what is happening energetically is the opposite of what’s happening physically: physically the man enters the woman, energetically the woman enters the man (and how scary and vulnerable can that make the man!)

Similarly, in a relationship, the man holds the space in which the woman can blossom and reach her potential. He’s like the pot and she’s the plant. It’s essential that he is a pot big enough to hold her or her growth will get stunted in the same way that the growth of a bonsai is stunted when you plant a tree in a pot that’s too small. If the man is too restrictive for her, she’ll be held back and not reach her full potential. Either that or the pot will crack from the pressure. Fortunately, the analogy has its limitations, and unlike pots, men can grow and develop to become big enough for their partner!

If a woman tries to be like a man, and puts up a false yang on the outside, she denies her yin softness and hides her true yang inner strength. She can’t enter into him and feel his support. She’ll feel she’s doing it all on her own, which is tiring and makes her brittle. Ultimately, if he’s too busy maintaining his yang on the outside and won’t let down his defenses enough to let her feel his interior softness, she will feel the lack of connection with him and they will bounce off each other. On the other hand, if he’s turned too soft and put up a ‘false yin’ on the outside she’ll feel nothing from him either, it’s like a marshmallow and makes for comfort but not necessarily connection.

Now, everyone does have masculine and feminine qualities and a well-developed person will have a pretty good balance within themselves. But the essence of each is different, and if we reject one, thinking the other is somehow better, then we reject a major aspect of ourselves.

So, let’s look at what is the ‘feminine’ and the ‘masculine’.

Valuing the Feminine

We grossly undervalue the feminine in this society. Yes, we had women’s liberation in the 70s, and that was a great thing, which has led to a definite improvement in the status of women. But in order to achieve that status, women had to prove that they could be like men, which they did. That’s fine, but all that did was show that women could be masculine. It didn’t raise the value of the feminine.

Which is why several decades on women find they have to be masculine to succeed in society.

True strength in a woman comes energetically from being soft on the outside and strong on the inside. In fact, it’s only by being soft on the outside that her inner strength can emanate. Otherwise, she’s creating a false yang on the outside, which is hard to sustain, is brittle and prevents her true strength from blossoming.

I want to stress that I am NOT talking about women being soft and weak and pathetic. That people think that’s what I’m talking about is just proof that our society devalues the feminine. It is strong to be soft. We need more of the feminine in this society. We need women to embrace their essential selves.

A woman can then express her femininity in many different ways (I’ve discovered seven different feminine Sex Goddesses or Sexual Archetypes, ranging from ‘tough’ to ‘gentle’ and everything in-between). There is no limitation in how she expresses herself as a woman. The important thing is that she is real and embraces the power and glory of being a woman.


Valuing the Masculine

Just as we undervalue the feminine in our society, we also get the masculine wrong.

Since we’ve had a few thousand years of not valuing the feminine, in place we’ve had an unnatural, overly arrogant masculine. A masculine defined more by the ability to dominate and control than one defined by true strength and openness.

So there has been a complete imbalance in society with a weak feminine and dominant masculine. With the social changes over the past decades, many people are changing. However, just as too many women reject the ‘weak’ feminine and adopt a harsh and controlling energy; too many men reject the ‘dominant’ masculine, and adopt an overly soft and, let’s face it, fairly insipid energy.

So many of my female clients complain that their man is not a man, and so many of my male clients confess that they don’t really know what it is to be a man.

The essence of a man is to be yang on the outside and yin on the inside. A nice analogy is the knight of old who would go off and fight dragons and save damsels in distress, but equally would come home and honour his woman, write her poetry, bring her gifts, and love and adore her. In this way she knows she can depend on him, yet he also opens himself to her, lets her inside. In doing this, he allows her to let go and show her real self too.


Finding the Balance

So many people are confused by how they “should” be, but what they’re really asking is, “How can I truly express myself in the fullness of my masculinity or femininity” and I believe this is because we have polarised the masculine and feminine so strongly. No woman wants to be a pathetic doormat, but is the only alternative to be an arrogant domineering male clone? No self-aware man wants to be a macho shit, but is the only alternative to be an overly sensitive new age wimp?

Not at all. However, it’s only when we understand the masculine and feminine energies as equal complements, yin and yang, that we can embrace both of them within ourselves, and through that within our society.

We are not “opposite” sexes. We are “complementary” sexes.

Both are strong, both are soft, both protect, both nurture. But the essence of each is different. That is what every man and every woman has to find within themselves in order to become whole.

If he is too much the wimp, she’ll have to do the holding herself, and won’t be able to let go. If he’s too much the macho shit, she won’t be able to get inside him and they’ll stay separated. If she’s too much the hard case, he won’t be able to open up to her. If she’s too much the helpless maiden, he won’t be able to meet with her power.

These are variations of dynamics I see all the time. But once people get it then magic starts happening.

Note: this has been written for a heterosexual audience. A balance of the ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ (I prefer the terms yin and yang) also needs to apply in same sex relationships.

I have a client who recently took a ‘marriage sabbatical’. At least, that’s what she and her husband called it.

A work sabbatical is traditionally when you take a break from your job to study something else for a while. The idea is that regular work is too full to focus on the study, so you have some time away, and come back to the job both with new and useful knowledge and a fresh spirit.

That’s what this client is doing with her marriage: she’s taking a month off to be away from her husband and all the expectations and pressures she feels (rightly or wrongly) from being in the marriage, in order to have the space to learn more about herself and what she wants and needs in her life and in her marriage.

So, yes, it’s a marriage sabbatical.

I love this term. It’s so much better than ‘trial separation’ or other more onerous terms. It’s calling it for what it is: time out.

These clients, like so many others who seem to have reached a plateau, have been married for over twenty years and are now empty nesters. They’ve had some struggles in recent years, but otherwise life is good - they’re well off, healthy and their careers are thriving. But she’s lost the zing and feeling a bit lost.

I see it mostly in female clients. They can’t see the forest for the trees, meaning they can’t identify their needs from within the marriage. They need a break to see things more clearly.

Not surprisingly, their husbands can find this concept of needing a break as threatening. He’s worried that if she has this level of freedom, she won’t come back to him. This is of course one possible outcome. But as the saying goes: “Set the caged bird free, if she comes back, she’s yours, if she doesn’t, she’s not.” You have to set her free to find out.

Of course, the husbands will argue that she’s not caged. If she’s not, then there should be no problem in her expressing her freedom. Or he might argue that being in a marriage or committed relationship comes with certain obligations to be there for him. Undoubtedly that’s true, but if she’s feeling she’s so stifled, for whatever reason, why not give her space to discover herself anew? Then if she does come back to you, you know she’s with you out of true desire and not obligation.

And of course, this is equally true if it’s a man who wants the sabbatical.

Scary stuff - for both, however it plays out!

Negotiating the ‘rules’ of the sabbatical are important: how much if any contact to have with each other, and of course the biggie - can you see other people while apart? That discussion in itself is challenging yet empowering and personal-growth-inducing. It’s hard though, which is why I get called in to help out.

I do admire the couples who can allow this to happen. It does take a considerable amount of personal growth to be able to accept this choice. This level of awareness and consciousness does mean though, that if the one on leave decides that they don’t want to be in the relationship any longer, they are mature enough to separate with love and consideration, rather than the more typical bitterness and hostility.

So back to our couple who opened this article, when he said his wife was having a ‘marriage sabbatical’ I knew that he understood, and so did she. He gave her the space with love, got on with his own life in the meantime (so wasn’t just ‘waiting’ passively), she accepted that offer graciously - and they both gave their relationship the best chance for growth that they could.

The result? She chose to stay with him, and they’re continuing to grow and develop their relationship anew.


Note: I have to stress that a marriage sabbatical of this type is not for everyone, and is certainly not a guarantee of ‘falling back in love’. So, if you are thinking of taking one, it has to be carefully negotiated - I’d recommend some professional guidance if you are.

(This is copy of a blog I wrote five years ago, hencesome of the historical references.)

Here I am sitting in the depths of the jungle in northern Thailand, spending some time at a permaculture farm. Last weekend I was studying spiritual healing. Over Easter I attended the Xplore festival on alternate sexuality. Three quite different experiences, but all united: the sexuality, the spirituality, and the connection to the environment.

What unites them? You, one, the individual. The individual is the basic unit, and it is only through you that change happens, or doesn’t. It’s up to the individual to find their spiritual connection, their connection to the environment, and their connection to their sexuality.

The basic sexual unit is one.

You’d hardly think so, given our society’s obsession with couples. Not that I have anything against couples, pair-bonding is a normal human activity, and it is the social norm. The problem is two-fold:

The first is that people feel that they need to be in a couple to feel complete. This places enormous pressure on the other to live up to this expectation. Even the archbishop who married Will and Kate last week in his sermon said that one of the problems with modern couples is that they expect the other to be everything to them. This is simply not possible, totally unfair and one of the reasons why so many relationships are dysfunctional.

The expectation of your partner to complete you, also removes the responsibility of the individual to develop their own personal self-awareness and growth. It’s so much easier to expect the other person to fill your deficiencies rather than work on them yourself; and then you’ve got someone to blame for what you lack in yourself.

The other problem is that people think being in a couple is somehow normal and natural and therefore doesn’t need discussing. It absolutely needs discussing. Everyone’s idea of what constitutes being in a couple is different. We all have different boundaries and expectations, some culturally defined, others personal. And these change over time.

You need to come back to yourself first. What do you want, what do you need, what are your expectations/hopes/fears regarding your partner? Once you’re clear about this, you then need to be able to share those openly and honestly, without fear of rejection, without judgement of their input. Only then can the two of you create your own individual relationship, one that is unique to you. And one that continually changes and evolves over time.

Think of yourself as a circle, and your partner as a circle – how big is the over-lap and what does it cover? What only happens within the overlap, and what is yours alone?

There will be many other overlapping circles too – work, children, friends, activities – some of which overlap with just your circle and some which overlap both of your circles.

Try drawing this for yourself, then compare with your partner. Use this as an exercise to understand yourselves and each other more.

If you’re single, do it anyway to get clearer about what you want and need in a relationship. In doing this you’ll understand yourself more and you’ll attract someone appropriate, with whom you can share openly.

Two whole people who come together in realness and with individuality - it’s a beautiful thing.

Think about electrical sockets. You have a masculine socket and a feminine socket. Bringing them together enables the energy to flow.

One socket is not more dominant than the other, one is not more important than the other, one does not have greater needs than the other. They are equally important; they have different but equal roles to play. The masculine socket enters the feminine socket; the feminine socket receives and holds the masculine socket. Then the energy can flow.

It’s the same with intercourse. It’s not about the penis penetrating a passive vagina. That is such an aggressive concept. It’s about the penis entering the vagina and the vagina accepting and holding the penis. The vagina needs and wants the penis as much as the penis needs and wants the vagina. Then, and only then, can the energy flow.

Different but equal. Different but complementary. Each needs the other, each matches the other, the combination makes the energy flow.

There’s a myth perpetuating in our society that men are “naturally” more promiscuous than women. One of the reasons given for this is that men have evolved to “sow their seed widely” so as to have more children and therefore ensure the continuity of their genes.

I'm never sure whether to pull my hair out in frustration or laugh at the ludicrousness of such as suggestion, which I hear so often, even from intelligent thoughtful people.

The fact is that the “sow seed widely” form of reproduction is generally only practiced by the lower orders of animals, such as amphibians and fish and coral. In these species the female lays huge quantities of eggs, which hatch into offspring, most of which don’t survive until reproductive age. The males conversely, have to spread huge amounts of sperm around, to catch the widely scattered eggs.

As you go further up the complexity of the animal kingdom you find that there is less and less spreading of seed by the males as the females give birth to increasingly dependent young. By the time you get to humans at the top of the complexity scale and at the extreme end of the infant nurturing scale, you get offspring that are so useless they take years of intense looking after before they are capable of fending for themselves and hopefully living to reproductive age.

The reason that human infants are so helpless in the beginning is that they have such huge brains that they have really big heads, and the baby has to be born before its head gets so big that it can’t get out of the womb through the birth canal. So babies are born when their large brains are still relatively undeveloped. They require years of care until their brains have developed to a point where they can fend for themselves (around seven years of age).

Now, given that there were no single mother benefits in prehistoric days, it would have been virtually impossible for a woman to raise children on her own. The human race would not have become as successful as it has if the men were wandering around impregnating women randomly and leaving them to fend for themselves.

No, rather, both parents were required to work together to provide for themselves and their family. In fact, the whole group would have helped in child rearing. When you look at hunter-gatherer societies it’s very much the whole tribe looking after the children, because the tribe needed the children to survive in order for the tribe to survive. Humans are a very cooperative bunch. We've had to be. It’s our ability to cooperate that has enabled us to become so successful as a species - especially given our pathetically useless young!

The result is that humans have evolved (or been designed) to have frequent and highly pleasurable sex so that the parents can feel good about staying together as they need to stay together for the sake of the children. If sex was just about reproduction then women would only be attractive to men when they were ovulating, and there would be no need for either sex to have enjoyable sex (as is the case with almost all other species).

All of which doesn’t deny that there are still highly promiscuous men. The point is though, that they can’t use the “sowing the seed” theory as their excuse!

Just because all the media hype promotes thin people as being “sexier” doesn’t mean it’s true. Even if they were sexier, it doesn’t mean they have better sex than people with a bit more flesh on them.

I mean, do you prefer your lover built for comfort or for speed?

I remember a party I was at in my 20’s, talking to another woman who was a little on the plump side - rather voluptuous. She was bemoaning how unattractive she was and wishing she were thin like me: “Because men like thin women”. “Rubbish!” I replied – and went on to prove it by asking every young man in the room whose figure they preferred, hers or mine.

All but one (including my boyfriend) admitted they preferred her figure. She was astounded. She’d really believed the hype about thinness. It completely changed her attitude to herself in general and to her sexuality in particular. It gave her greater self-esteem. And that made her sexier.

Because when you think about what makes for sexiness and good sex – self-confidence is a major factor. If you think there’s something about you that’s not appealing, you’ll feel less sexy, and that means you will actually be less sexy.

Sexy is head stuff. Sexy is an idea that comes from your mind. How you feel is how you are.

It doesn’t matter what size you are. Full-figured, voluptuous people can be far more luscious than skinny twigs. All that flesh and softness and roundness – just like a juicy peach.

And in one of those weird paradoxes that life, and sexuality, is full of – if you feel you’re unattractive you’re less likely to have sex so you’ll feel less attractive which means you’ll have less sex, and so it goes. In contrast, if you feel reasonably confident and have sex, you’ll improve your self-esteem, which will make you feel more attractive and means you’ll have more sex and feel even better about yourself!

It’s your choice whether you buy into the media hype about sexy slimness and follow the negative feedback loop, or whether you tune into the luscious sexiness within you, regardless of your shape, and follow the positive feedback loop.

There might be a few positions that are trickier for a fuller figure – but you don’t need bells and whistles for great sex. Although having said that, fuller figured people can use any number of props and toys to add comfort and titillation to their sexual activities.

One problem I have heard from larger people is that they get tired more quickly. Well, that’s only a problem if you make it one – it can also be a great reason for interspersing more intense sexual activity with some long, slow, sensual activities. In fact, that’s what great sex is!

You’re only limited by your beliefs, and are as free as your imagination takes you. Whoever you are.

And for an added bonus, an active sex life helps keep you in shape. It mightn’t make you skinny – but it will help keep you fit, supple and toned, whatever your size.

So, what’s holding bigger people back from fabulous sex – being out of shape and low physical self-esteem? Well then – have some sex!

Big Sex is Beautiful Sex!!

(And if you're on the skinnier side – Skinny Sex Is Great Too! It’s All Great!)

Let’s take a look at the widely held myth that women are not naturally promiscuous. 

First, a few biological facts:

• Women are able to have sex at any time
• Women are more sexually responsive than men (more orgasms both in quantity, variety and quality)
• Women can generally last sexually longer than men
• Women tend to get bored and lose interest in sex more easily than men
• Women generally need evidence of positive male interest and attention to want to have sex
• Women tend to have a less physical “urge” for sex, rather a more contextual interest in sex
• Women’s interest in sex sparks up with a new sex/love interest

These do nothing to imply that women are less sexual than men. In fact they imply that women could well be more sexual than men. These facts do not imply that women are naturally monogamous. In fact, they could be interpreted as showing that women need more than one man to be sexually satisfied.

Now, let’s look at some historical facts:

• For the past couple of thousand years or so girls in the west have been raised to think that they’re not sexual and shouldn’t be sexual.
• Girls and women who were overtly sexual have been discriminated against, burnt at the stake, cast out from society, forced to wear shaming badges, excommunicated, locked up in mental institutions – need I go on?
• Until the last few decades, women have been dependent on men for their economic security, without a man it has been very difficult for a woman to survive.
• Women were considered the possessions of men, first owned by their fathers, and that ownership passed to their husbands at marriage. Women were therefore required to obey and serve first their fathers and then their husbands; otherwise they’d have no one to support them.

Would any of these historical facts have allowed women to freely express their true sexual selves? Clearly, no.

So don’t confuse biological fact, with historically based social constructions. Women have not been allowed to be sexually expressive, particularly not sexually promiscuous. That doesn’t mean it’s not innate. The biological facts would imply otherwise.

I’m not saying women should be promiscuous, or even that it’s natural for women to be promiscuous. I’m simply saying that there is no evidence to show that women are naturally monogamous.

Monogamy has been an economic and social imperative for women, not a biological drive.

So it’ll be interesting to see what happens as women become less constrained and more free to truly express themselves sexually...

[Next week I’ll look at the myth that men are ‘naturally’ promiscuous.]

To discover more and celebrate your female sexuality, enrol in my online women's course!

If you live in Australia, come along to my gorgeous women's weekend workshops!