Your trusted guide to sex, love, health & relationships
Ancient China turned the bedroom into a science: Han dynasty harems ran on lunar schedules, Taoist doctors preached retained-seed immortality, and imperial manuals made female pleasure the law. Here’s the wild true history.
While Europe buried desire beneath guilt and iron, medieval Islamic scholars wrote candid manuals on pleasure and celebrated homoerotic court poetry. Here’s how history got rewritten by modern-day puritans.
European missionaries were scandalised by nudity and free love in the Amazon and the Andes, but the real lesson is subtler: civilisation was built by disciplining instinct, not indulging it. Here’s why the Incas, and reason itself, understood the value of a good rule.
While the West hid behind guilt and corsets, historical Japan turned sex into art, commerce, and even samurai romance. Here’s how Edo-era Japan made European prudishness look positively medieval.
We’ve all seen it. The coffee table book with the colourful illustrations that everyone pretends to own to look “cultured,” yet no one has ever actually used. Yes, theKamasutra.
For the average Westerner, it’s the ultimate repository ofsexual gymnastics: a sort of ancient Indian IKEA manual where, if you misinterpret a diagram, you end up with a dislocated hip and a very confused partner. But here’s the rub: if you think the Kamasutra is just a compendium of acrobatic positions meant to spice up a rainy Tuesday, you’ve missed the point entirely. It wasn’t written for the bedroom; it was written for the gentleman-about-town.
The Kamasutra, written by Vatsyayana, a man who clearly had far too much time on his hands, wasn’t a smutty guide for the masses. It was a lifestyle manual for the nagara-ka, the refined city-dweller of the Gupta Empire.
It covers everything: how to decorate your room, how to choose your perfume, how to be a charming conversationalist, and, yes, how to handle your love life. It’s essentially GQ magazine, but written in Sanskrit and with a lot more emphasis on not being a complete bore. The sex was just a chapter, not the whole book.
The obsession with the physical contortions (the ones that require the flexibility of a circus performer and the core strength of an Olympic gymnast) is a modern invention. Vatsyayana was far more interested in the theatre of desire than in whether you could touch your toes with your ears.
His real focus? Theart of seduction, the social etiquette of romance, and how to keep a household running without everyone wanting to murder each other. If you’re actually trying to perform position #142, you’re not having a spiritual experience; you’re just inviting a physiotherapist to your next date.
We love to dress up our desires in pseudo-mystical clothing to make them feel “elevated.” We call it “Tantra” or “Sacred Union” because “we’re just horny and had a few glasses of wine” doesn’t look as good on a CV. The Kamasutra is perfectly honest about this: it’s about pleasure, social status, and refinement. It’s refreshingly transactional. It doesn’t promise you’ll reach Nirvana; it promises you’ll be the most popular guest at the next symposium.
Let’s look at the name: Kamasutra. Kama means “desire” or “pleasure,” and sutra means “thread” or “aphorism.” It is literally a “thread of desire.”
The irony is that we’ve taken this “thread” and tried to weave it into a straightjacket of “rules” on how to have sex. Vatsyayana’s original intent was to show how pleasure is a thread that runs through life. We, in our infinite wisdom, have turned it into a checklist. If you’re reading the Kamasutra and checking boxes like you’re doing your weekly food shop at Waitrose, you have officially missed the point.
Why write about this? Because I find it hilarious how we’ve turned a manual on social sophistication into a roadmap for contortionists.
The next time someone tries to enlighten you with a “Kamasutra tip,” buy them a drink and ask them if they’ve actually read the chapter on how to arrange the furniture in their living room. Pleasure isn’t a performance art. And for heaven’s sake, keep your hips in their sockets. Your partner will thank you.
Ever tried to recreate a ‘Kamasutra’ position and ended up calling for an ambulance? Or are you sensible enough to stick to the classics? Let me know in the comments. I promise to keep your secrets (mostly).
In the High Arctic, survival came before morality — hospitality, fluid marriage bonds and communal intimacy shaped Inuit approaches to sexuality long before Western judgment arrived.
If you’re labouring under the impression that the “sexual revolution” was a stroke of genius dreamt up in the 1960s, you’ve clearly never bothered to open an anthropology book concerning pre-colonial North America. Whilst Europe was busy wallowing in centuries of repression, dogmatic moralising, and dressing gowns buttoned up to the chin, the Native American tribes were navigating sexuality with a natural ease that would likely give a modern-day moral crusader a severe case of the vapours.
For them, sex wasn’t the centre of a labyrinthine system of guilt and redemption. It was energy. And like any form of energy, it was meant to flow.
The one thing that sent the Christian missionaries into an absolute tailspin, and which still seems to unsettle thosefixated on binary labels, was the concept of theTwo-Spirit person. In many native cultures, the world wasn’t neatly divided into just “male” or “female.” There was a third category, an individual embodying both spirits.
These people weren’t “different” in any derogatory sense; they were viewed as havinga privileged perspective, capable of seeing the world from both sides of the coin. In matters of intimacy, as in social life, this fluidity wasn’t a quirk: it was an asset. Whilst we exhaust ourselves trying to define who is what, they had worked out centuries ago that identity is just a garment you tailor to fit.
Forget the endless, tedious debates about what is “right” or “wrong.” For many tribes, sexual activity was tethered to vitality, the earth, and the cycle of the seasons. There were rituals that celebrated pleasure not as a sin to be pardoned, but as a legitimate way to connect with the divine.
If you had the urge, you satisfied it. Without the tiresome necessity of stopping by a confessional first or waking up on a Monday morning feeling “soiled.” It was purely pragmatic: if nature has seen fit to provide us with desire, why on earth should we pretend it’s a problem?
The real collision wasn’t between two cultures, but between a culture that lacked taboos and one that lived entirely off them. The European colonists, arriving in their wide-brimmed hats and nursing a pathological fear of the naked body, were hell-bent on “civilising” the natives by teaching them that desire is an enemy to be vanquished. The result? A cultural disaster. They took a people living in harmony with their own impulses and tried to force them into the straitjacket of Victorian morality ante litteram.
Let’s discuss the word “Taboo”. Ironically, it isn’t Western in origin. It stems from the Polynesian tapu, meaning “sacred” or “forbidden.” It is truly fascinating to observe how we have managed to transmute the “sacred” into “sin.” Whilst for Native Americans certain acts were “sacred”, reserved for specific contexts, not because they were vile, but because they were powerful, we took that concept and turned it into a cudgel to batter anyone who dared to enjoy themselves more than the law allowed.
Why write about this? Because I find it quite amusing how we scramble to search for “new” sexual freedoms, when in reality, we were just stumbling upon truths that native populations had mastered whilst our ancestors were too preoccupied with counting rosary beads.
The next time you hear someone bleating on about “moral decay,” offer them a nice cup of tea. The real decay isn’t in a body experiencing pleasure; it’s in the heads of those who have turned life into a tiresome list of prohibitions.
What’s your take? Have we actually made progress, or have we merely lost a wisdom that they possessed in their very DNA? Let me know in the comments, and I promise not to forward your replies to the morality committee!