This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article says it like it is. Don't delete it!(Unsigned comment by 192.67.48.23 ( talk • contribs))
I wasn't sure if this was vandalism or not, but I reverted it anyway, in case anyone wanted to know. - Akamad Merry Christmas to all! 03:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
It wasnt Vandalism, friend. White adept 11:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I added an expansion request because this article is really too short and doesn't explain anything;
If someone has the time to write a bit about what sex magic is, that would be great. Iron C hris | (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I reverted because of the huge loss of material, and the section on the white lodge was not only biased but also advertisement. It was not suitable for an encyclopedia. I removed the expand tag accordingly. Iron C hris | (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why there is just a list of books for this section? This is in no way encyclopedic. His books are already listed in two places ( Works of Aleister Crowley and Libri of Aleister Crowley. Zos 05:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Come on guys, get it together. Which is it? Internal consistency and all:
Apart from the title and a single line in the intro, this article uses the word 'magick' (as well it should, probably). Could someone move this article, and change the single odd instance of 'magic'? -- Ec5618 20:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Friends,
What is described in the page are the rites of the teneberous ones- black magic in its most grotesque form. Sex, the ninth sphere is ineffably divine and if abused results in terrible karmic consequences.
I urge you to go through the book "The Perfect Matrimony" and the teachings on the page http://www.gnosis-usa.com
http://www.gnosiscentral.com/englishbooks/Perfect_Matrimony.pdf
also the books available here:
http://www.americangnosticassociation.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=67&Itemid=4
That is why I blanked some of the content. If we take such black teachings to the people, we ourselves will have to bear the karmic burden - how many souls will we have lead down the wrong path?
White adept 03:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The current Dalai Lama spoke clearly about this in a recent work on the Kalachakra Tantra.
"Although I am using this ordinary term, sexual climax, it does not imply the ordinary sexual act. The reference here is to the experience of entering into union with a consort of the opposite sex, by means of which the elements at the crown are melted, and through the power of Meditation the process is also reversed. A prerequisite of such a practice is that you should be able to protect yourself from the fault of seminal emission. According to the explanation of the Kalachakra Tantra in particular, such emission is said to be very damaging to your practice. Therefore, because you should not experience emission even in dreams, the tantras describe different techniques for overcoming this fault." - The 14th Dalai Lama
The practices promulgated on this page are mostly black, like it or not. This is something beyond plain wiki rules, in that way i can understand White adpets motives. 85.179.28.161 13:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
While this is all nice and dandy, wikipedia does not exist to propagate RELIGIOUS views. What part of that do you not understand? I suppose it's impossible to keep religious zealots off these pages, but for god's sake leave the editing to people that have actually studied these phenomena in a scholarly fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.59.107 ( talk) 10:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
A POV template was recently added to this article by the IP 202.83.33.107, but no explanation was shared on the talk page, even though the edit summary said "see talk page". However, what this user did do was to slightly modify the statement by White adept regarding the White Lodge, which s/he had written following the page blankings of a few days ago. This is not an explanation for why an article needs a POV tag; this is an advertisement. Furthermore, if this IP is in fact the very same user as White adept, it should be known that using an IP address to try to avoid detection is not a good idea; please see WP:SOCK for details. In the future, if someone thinks that putting a POV template on this page is a good idea, it would be helpful to back up your reasoning on the talk page. Thank you, rom a rin talk ] 01:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to give a heads up that I am going expand this article according to the techniques taught by Samael Aun Weor. Being that his use of the phrase refers to an act that is more or less diametrically opposite to the content of this article, the introduction may have to become more generalized and other sections (namely Practice) will have to be partitioned in order to accurately describe different types of sexual magic. I understand that non-occult and even occult anglophones almost exclusively associate sexual magic with the type described in this article (and, in fact, never even have heard of Samael Aun Weor), being that nearly every one of his 70 books describe sexual magic explicitly (dating back to 1950 with The Perfect Matrimony), and schools that teach his doctrine exist in the thousands around the entire world, I feel the article is incomplete without a proper inclusion of his teachings. Thanks. -- Paul Stone 14:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
"Like Aleister Crowley before him,[14][15][16] Weor stated that the supreme mantra of sexual magic is IAO"
What specific lines of Liber ABA, Liber Samekh, or Liber XV does it state that the supreme mantra of sexual magic is IAO? It must be a clear and specific reference (meaning not hidden as esoteric symbolism), otherwise it is WP:OR. I am not saying a it does not exist, only that I cannot find any such reference. Either way really, Crowely's use of IAO belongs in his own section. -- T. Baphomet 13:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Of all the topics to come up now, I'm going to be adding this topic, partially to the OTO section. I know for a fact that a few other users will be coming over in the near future to deny and try to change it. Thus I am giving warning first :) SynergeticMaggot 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not typical on Wikipedia to include long quotes in citations. Typically, the book and chapter or page number are given and that is thought to be sufficient. I propose taking the long quotations out, creating a list of references, and making the citations short notes as to which reference was used and where in the reference the related text can be found. This sort of thing can get out of hand quickly... - 999 ( Talk) 19:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's give T. Baphomet some time to decide which, if any, quotes he'd like to integrate into the article... - 999 ( Talk) 20:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. Maybe later I'll integrate a quote or two.. -- T. Baphomet 23:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Quotes should be limited to a paragraph or two. Certainly a whole section should not be a quote. Krumm-Heller's beliefs should be summarized in the editors own words. A brief quote could be used if needed. — Hanuman Das 13:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I am happy to collaborate with editing on Sex magic. However, 'ejaculation' really isn't an equivalent term for the phrases such as "release of sexual energy". "Sexual energy" is not simply semen, but all the hormonal-chemical energy that orgasm releases as well, and it relates to the whole vital energy ( prana, ojas, etc.) of the body. Additionally, ejaculation is a term almost always used to describe a man's orgasm, while sexual magic that refrains from the release of sexual energy includes the forbearance of both sexes of the orgasm, ejaculation, and even the the thought of desire (lust). -- T. Baphomet 12:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I realized that there are some tantric/taoist traditions that only prohibit ejaculation. However, those were not traditions I was referring to when I rewrote the intro because I don't know of any of those traditions referring to their acts as 'sex magic.' If there IS, then we need a reference and the wording needs to be expanded to show the differences. -- T. Baphomet 12:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
This section seems to me, and I believe other editors, as being unsourced, and thus potentially removable, as well as being unbalanced. There is no point in saying "they don't know what they're talking about" in an encyclopedia article until after you have indicated what "they" say, and, at present, this article does not contain such information. Unless some indication as to what the nature of the criticism of this belief/practice is is inserted, I believe the existing content of this section could very easily be deleted, particularly as long as it remains unsourced. John Carter ( talk) 17:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Edited for bias, and removed some data while balancing other areas with links. The last section does look biased in terms of putting too much data, it reads like a lesson on the subject, and I'll get into it and see if I can work it into something keepable, and if not, will pare it down to a small paragraph or so.--Later, removed most of the last section, left enough so that a reader can track down more data, and left the last paragraph which balances some of the entire article. How does this work for the page? Aleister Wilson ( talk) 22:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
First place for expansion of this article might be to add some references to the works of Paschal Beverly Randolph & Louis T. Culling. I might try to work on this over the next days if I get the chance. Oh, I just knocked it down to Class C on Thelema, it's certainly nowhere near B class IMHO. -- Rodneyorpheus ( talk) 21:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Randolph should indeed be mentioned much more clearly as the main source for sexual magic teachings. In this connection I would also mention the hermetic brotherhood of luxor, which also drew heavily from randolph and was in fact slightly earlier then the OTO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.59.107 ( talk) 09:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
If we're going to include this person called Samael Aun Weor, who has an extremely detailed article to himself which was written principally by one person and contains very few third-party references, then there are a lot more people who are historically notable in the field of sex magic who could also be included. As it is it reads as if there were only two.
In fact the article could be expanded considerably. 87.113.254.85 ( talk) 00:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Per above, I've removed the undue tag. Weor has Wikipedia articles on 9 other-language Wikipedias. Calling his works self-published because they are still being published by a company he founded - nearly 35 years after his death - is an abuse of the term "self-published", which is intended to refer to living people's personal websites, self-published pamphlets, and vanity press published material, not to the publishing arms of independent organizations which carry on after their founder's death. This sort of interpretation would prevent the use of the writings of many notable Indian gurus who left behind a school of thought and a publishing legacy. It would also exclude the use of any of Crowley's books which have only been published by the O.T.O. Not at all the intent of the self-published clause.
Looking at the article, what strikes me is that while the Weor section actually describes what Weor believed and wrote about the subject, the Crowley section is almost content-free on the details of the practical theory and techniques that Crowley taught. It focuses mainly on the existence of Crowley, the history of his promotion of sex magic, and a list of his works which contain writings on sex magic, but it barely even starts to summarize his beliefs and teachings, let alone give any details. (This complaint was first raised in 2006 in the section above titled "Sex magic and Crowley" which called the section "unencyclopedic" and, IMHO, this has never been adequately addressed).
This is the only reason a short 5 paragraph section on Weor could appear to some to be undue: lack of a similar explication of Crowley's teachings in the Thelema section. Surely ten or more paragraphs could be added detailing Crowley's teachings on the subject. The problem here is not too much about Weor, it's too little about Crowley and other teachers on the subject! Yworo ( talk) 13:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Neotantra is a North American and European term for the New Age and modern Western interpretations of traditional Indian and Buddhist tantra. Some of its proponents utilize ancient and traditional texts and principles [1] [2], and many others use neotantra as a catch-all phrase for "sacred sexuality", and may incorporate unorthodox practices. In addition, not all of the elements of Indian tantra are used in neotantric practices, in particular the reliance on a guru, guruparampara.
As tantric practice was introduced in western culture at the end of the 18th century and its popularity has escalated since the 1960s. It is often identified with its sexual methods, overlooking its essential nature as a spiritual practice. The roles of sexuality in tantra and in neotantra, while related, reflect substantial differences in their cultural contexts.
Neotantric sexual practices involve the experience of subtle energies within the adherent's sensual body, energies which they believe can enhance pleasure and challenge the ego into dissolution. Practitioners may aspire to cultivate an ecstatic cosmic consciousness and increased spiritual awareness of the erotic body. These methods are sacred rituals that may be practiced solo, in partnership, or in groups. These methods are often passed down from more experienced practitioners to students as secret oral tradition. Traditionally, these methods are part of a more comprehensive spiritual discipline—the erotic aspects of tantra cannot be authentically practiced without adequate preparation through meditation.
— Machine Elf 1735 ( talk) 00:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Why is there a link to "Embryonic Stem Cells" in the see also section. I get there is a vague link because of the sex thing, but its about as flimsy a link as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.197.152 ( talk) 15:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Article seems to place "sex magic" within a context of Western spiritualism (with a nod to Hindu and Buddhist tantric traditions as sources for the same). There seems to be no recognition of the role of sexual magical practices in other traditional cultures, despite decades of anthropological research showing a significant rôle for these in Africa, Oceania and the Americas. I think this omission presents a biased or at best incomplete view of the actuality of sex magic across cultures and throughout history. Needs the attention of experts to redress this imbalance. yoyo ( talk) 10:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
After the sex ritual, do not be surprised if your spouse or significant other have a dream and they are able to control the cosmos There that they will received their name you will never die. You have eternal life. You will always come back and be with each other and have four conscious that you were here before and that you will born again or four conscious that you were here before you and your partner will be together for eternity. Anytime there is any type of separation between you two you will both be miserable and will never be able to master anything to be stuck and several different elements, these elements comes from hiding sex and intercourse with different people so again, I warn you to be completely honest and open with each other doing the ritual 2601:447:C680:3BC0:B987:8308:EB5E:1FC5 ( talk) 22:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
To bond all the elements that was inserted into her cup also known as vagina this is why you tie her up and put her hands behind her back doing a sex ritual 2601:447:C680:3BC0:B987:8308:EB5E:1FC5 ( talk) 00:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article says it like it is. Don't delete it!(Unsigned comment by 192.67.48.23 ( talk • contribs))
I wasn't sure if this was vandalism or not, but I reverted it anyway, in case anyone wanted to know. - Akamad Merry Christmas to all! 03:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
It wasnt Vandalism, friend. White adept 11:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I added an expansion request because this article is really too short and doesn't explain anything;
If someone has the time to write a bit about what sex magic is, that would be great. Iron C hris | (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I reverted because of the huge loss of material, and the section on the white lodge was not only biased but also advertisement. It was not suitable for an encyclopedia. I removed the expand tag accordingly. Iron C hris | (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why there is just a list of books for this section? This is in no way encyclopedic. His books are already listed in two places ( Works of Aleister Crowley and Libri of Aleister Crowley. Zos 05:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Come on guys, get it together. Which is it? Internal consistency and all:
Apart from the title and a single line in the intro, this article uses the word 'magick' (as well it should, probably). Could someone move this article, and change the single odd instance of 'magic'? -- Ec5618 20:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Friends,
What is described in the page are the rites of the teneberous ones- black magic in its most grotesque form. Sex, the ninth sphere is ineffably divine and if abused results in terrible karmic consequences.
I urge you to go through the book "The Perfect Matrimony" and the teachings on the page http://www.gnosis-usa.com
http://www.gnosiscentral.com/englishbooks/Perfect_Matrimony.pdf
also the books available here:
http://www.americangnosticassociation.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=67&Itemid=4
That is why I blanked some of the content. If we take such black teachings to the people, we ourselves will have to bear the karmic burden - how many souls will we have lead down the wrong path?
White adept 03:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The current Dalai Lama spoke clearly about this in a recent work on the Kalachakra Tantra.
"Although I am using this ordinary term, sexual climax, it does not imply the ordinary sexual act. The reference here is to the experience of entering into union with a consort of the opposite sex, by means of which the elements at the crown are melted, and through the power of Meditation the process is also reversed. A prerequisite of such a practice is that you should be able to protect yourself from the fault of seminal emission. According to the explanation of the Kalachakra Tantra in particular, such emission is said to be very damaging to your practice. Therefore, because you should not experience emission even in dreams, the tantras describe different techniques for overcoming this fault." - The 14th Dalai Lama
The practices promulgated on this page are mostly black, like it or not. This is something beyond plain wiki rules, in that way i can understand White adpets motives. 85.179.28.161 13:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
While this is all nice and dandy, wikipedia does not exist to propagate RELIGIOUS views. What part of that do you not understand? I suppose it's impossible to keep religious zealots off these pages, but for god's sake leave the editing to people that have actually studied these phenomena in a scholarly fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.59.107 ( talk) 10:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
A POV template was recently added to this article by the IP 202.83.33.107, but no explanation was shared on the talk page, even though the edit summary said "see talk page". However, what this user did do was to slightly modify the statement by White adept regarding the White Lodge, which s/he had written following the page blankings of a few days ago. This is not an explanation for why an article needs a POV tag; this is an advertisement. Furthermore, if this IP is in fact the very same user as White adept, it should be known that using an IP address to try to avoid detection is not a good idea; please see WP:SOCK for details. In the future, if someone thinks that putting a POV template on this page is a good idea, it would be helpful to back up your reasoning on the talk page. Thank you, rom a rin talk ] 01:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to give a heads up that I am going expand this article according to the techniques taught by Samael Aun Weor. Being that his use of the phrase refers to an act that is more or less diametrically opposite to the content of this article, the introduction may have to become more generalized and other sections (namely Practice) will have to be partitioned in order to accurately describe different types of sexual magic. I understand that non-occult and even occult anglophones almost exclusively associate sexual magic with the type described in this article (and, in fact, never even have heard of Samael Aun Weor), being that nearly every one of his 70 books describe sexual magic explicitly (dating back to 1950 with The Perfect Matrimony), and schools that teach his doctrine exist in the thousands around the entire world, I feel the article is incomplete without a proper inclusion of his teachings. Thanks. -- Paul Stone 14:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
"Like Aleister Crowley before him,[14][15][16] Weor stated that the supreme mantra of sexual magic is IAO"
What specific lines of Liber ABA, Liber Samekh, or Liber XV does it state that the supreme mantra of sexual magic is IAO? It must be a clear and specific reference (meaning not hidden as esoteric symbolism), otherwise it is WP:OR. I am not saying a it does not exist, only that I cannot find any such reference. Either way really, Crowely's use of IAO belongs in his own section. -- T. Baphomet 13:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Of all the topics to come up now, I'm going to be adding this topic, partially to the OTO section. I know for a fact that a few other users will be coming over in the near future to deny and try to change it. Thus I am giving warning first :) SynergeticMaggot 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not typical on Wikipedia to include long quotes in citations. Typically, the book and chapter or page number are given and that is thought to be sufficient. I propose taking the long quotations out, creating a list of references, and making the citations short notes as to which reference was used and where in the reference the related text can be found. This sort of thing can get out of hand quickly... - 999 ( Talk) 19:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's give T. Baphomet some time to decide which, if any, quotes he'd like to integrate into the article... - 999 ( Talk) 20:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. Maybe later I'll integrate a quote or two.. -- T. Baphomet 23:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Quotes should be limited to a paragraph or two. Certainly a whole section should not be a quote. Krumm-Heller's beliefs should be summarized in the editors own words. A brief quote could be used if needed. — Hanuman Das 13:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I am happy to collaborate with editing on Sex magic. However, 'ejaculation' really isn't an equivalent term for the phrases such as "release of sexual energy". "Sexual energy" is not simply semen, but all the hormonal-chemical energy that orgasm releases as well, and it relates to the whole vital energy ( prana, ojas, etc.) of the body. Additionally, ejaculation is a term almost always used to describe a man's orgasm, while sexual magic that refrains from the release of sexual energy includes the forbearance of both sexes of the orgasm, ejaculation, and even the the thought of desire (lust). -- T. Baphomet 12:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I realized that there are some tantric/taoist traditions that only prohibit ejaculation. However, those were not traditions I was referring to when I rewrote the intro because I don't know of any of those traditions referring to their acts as 'sex magic.' If there IS, then we need a reference and the wording needs to be expanded to show the differences. -- T. Baphomet 12:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
This section seems to me, and I believe other editors, as being unsourced, and thus potentially removable, as well as being unbalanced. There is no point in saying "they don't know what they're talking about" in an encyclopedia article until after you have indicated what "they" say, and, at present, this article does not contain such information. Unless some indication as to what the nature of the criticism of this belief/practice is is inserted, I believe the existing content of this section could very easily be deleted, particularly as long as it remains unsourced. John Carter ( talk) 17:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Edited for bias, and removed some data while balancing other areas with links. The last section does look biased in terms of putting too much data, it reads like a lesson on the subject, and I'll get into it and see if I can work it into something keepable, and if not, will pare it down to a small paragraph or so.--Later, removed most of the last section, left enough so that a reader can track down more data, and left the last paragraph which balances some of the entire article. How does this work for the page? Aleister Wilson ( talk) 22:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
First place for expansion of this article might be to add some references to the works of Paschal Beverly Randolph & Louis T. Culling. I might try to work on this over the next days if I get the chance. Oh, I just knocked it down to Class C on Thelema, it's certainly nowhere near B class IMHO. -- Rodneyorpheus ( talk) 21:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Randolph should indeed be mentioned much more clearly as the main source for sexual magic teachings. In this connection I would also mention the hermetic brotherhood of luxor, which also drew heavily from randolph and was in fact slightly earlier then the OTO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.59.107 ( talk) 09:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
If we're going to include this person called Samael Aun Weor, who has an extremely detailed article to himself which was written principally by one person and contains very few third-party references, then there are a lot more people who are historically notable in the field of sex magic who could also be included. As it is it reads as if there were only two.
In fact the article could be expanded considerably. 87.113.254.85 ( talk) 00:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Per above, I've removed the undue tag. Weor has Wikipedia articles on 9 other-language Wikipedias. Calling his works self-published because they are still being published by a company he founded - nearly 35 years after his death - is an abuse of the term "self-published", which is intended to refer to living people's personal websites, self-published pamphlets, and vanity press published material, not to the publishing arms of independent organizations which carry on after their founder's death. This sort of interpretation would prevent the use of the writings of many notable Indian gurus who left behind a school of thought and a publishing legacy. It would also exclude the use of any of Crowley's books which have only been published by the O.T.O. Not at all the intent of the self-published clause.
Looking at the article, what strikes me is that while the Weor section actually describes what Weor believed and wrote about the subject, the Crowley section is almost content-free on the details of the practical theory and techniques that Crowley taught. It focuses mainly on the existence of Crowley, the history of his promotion of sex magic, and a list of his works which contain writings on sex magic, but it barely even starts to summarize his beliefs and teachings, let alone give any details. (This complaint was first raised in 2006 in the section above titled "Sex magic and Crowley" which called the section "unencyclopedic" and, IMHO, this has never been adequately addressed).
This is the only reason a short 5 paragraph section on Weor could appear to some to be undue: lack of a similar explication of Crowley's teachings in the Thelema section. Surely ten or more paragraphs could be added detailing Crowley's teachings on the subject. The problem here is not too much about Weor, it's too little about Crowley and other teachers on the subject! Yworo ( talk) 13:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Neotantra is a North American and European term for the New Age and modern Western interpretations of traditional Indian and Buddhist tantra. Some of its proponents utilize ancient and traditional texts and principles [1] [2], and many others use neotantra as a catch-all phrase for "sacred sexuality", and may incorporate unorthodox practices. In addition, not all of the elements of Indian tantra are used in neotantric practices, in particular the reliance on a guru, guruparampara.
As tantric practice was introduced in western culture at the end of the 18th century and its popularity has escalated since the 1960s. It is often identified with its sexual methods, overlooking its essential nature as a spiritual practice. The roles of sexuality in tantra and in neotantra, while related, reflect substantial differences in their cultural contexts.
Neotantric sexual practices involve the experience of subtle energies within the adherent's sensual body, energies which they believe can enhance pleasure and challenge the ego into dissolution. Practitioners may aspire to cultivate an ecstatic cosmic consciousness and increased spiritual awareness of the erotic body. These methods are sacred rituals that may be practiced solo, in partnership, or in groups. These methods are often passed down from more experienced practitioners to students as secret oral tradition. Traditionally, these methods are part of a more comprehensive spiritual discipline—the erotic aspects of tantra cannot be authentically practiced without adequate preparation through meditation.
— Machine Elf 1735 ( talk) 00:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Why is there a link to "Embryonic Stem Cells" in the see also section. I get there is a vague link because of the sex thing, but its about as flimsy a link as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.197.152 ( talk) 15:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Article seems to place "sex magic" within a context of Western spiritualism (with a nod to Hindu and Buddhist tantric traditions as sources for the same). There seems to be no recognition of the role of sexual magical practices in other traditional cultures, despite decades of anthropological research showing a significant rôle for these in Africa, Oceania and the Americas. I think this omission presents a biased or at best incomplete view of the actuality of sex magic across cultures and throughout history. Needs the attention of experts to redress this imbalance. yoyo ( talk) 10:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
After the sex ritual, do not be surprised if your spouse or significant other have a dream and they are able to control the cosmos There that they will received their name you will never die. You have eternal life. You will always come back and be with each other and have four conscious that you were here before and that you will born again or four conscious that you were here before you and your partner will be together for eternity. Anytime there is any type of separation between you two you will both be miserable and will never be able to master anything to be stuck and several different elements, these elements comes from hiding sex and intercourse with different people so again, I warn you to be completely honest and open with each other doing the ritual 2601:447:C680:3BC0:B987:8308:EB5E:1FC5 ( talk) 22:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
To bond all the elements that was inserted into her cup also known as vagina this is why you tie her up and put her hands behind her back doing a sex ritual 2601:447:C680:3BC0:B987:8308:EB5E:1FC5 ( talk) 00:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)