Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Dear aMatt, I was just asking Dhamma Dhatu if there is sex in a compassionate relationship. If there is, it ought to come from both side, don’t you think?
The initiation of sexual exchange? Not necessarily, in my opinion, though both people must have the ability to be open and present with each other once the process begins. Again, this sounds specifically directed. As a general rule, if you do not feel like having sex with someone, don't.
Your phrasing is a little odd there, "(is there) sex in a compassionate relationship?" You can have sexual intimacy in a compassionate relationship, but sex and compassion are different archetypes, and independent of one another. Ie, one does not need the other to be present, and motivations for both are different.
Nothing wrong when both parties are honest & consenting. But, there are many guys who would say anything to get laid. So they are breaking the precept on lying.
Dear hermitwin, Whether premarital sex is permissible or not will depend on the situation then. If the man is lying just to get laid, it should not be permissible, don’t you think?
Dear aMatt, While sex and compassion are independent of each other, it would be great if both are present together, wouldn’t it?
In my opinion, from what I have studied and my own values, I believe sex is good if you are in a committed relationship, obviously both are consensual. Marriage is a legal way of committing, but I don't think you need to be married to be committed.
Can you honestly say yes to: "If something happened, and we felt forced to spend the rest of our lives together, would we?" then consensual sex is fine.
Flings/one night stands etc. could cause negative Karma, especially as you are less-likely to truly know whether your partner is single, or in the case of alcohol, fully consensual. Besides these situations tend to occur from sensory desire rather than a sharing of intimacy.
Premarital sex is not sexual misconduct. Marriage is just a social construct, .
Agreed (well, it depends on all the other factors and circumstances etc). And in some Buddhist cultures, people do consider that after sex they are actually "married" although there may still be a formal marriage event (but traditionally not connected to legal paperwork etc).
Brad Warner recently wrote a book covering sex in buddhism. There's no complete point of view towards sex. Everyone has their own opinion. My personal opinion is sex is not considered misconduct if you understand your love for the other person. Sex may lead to severe confusion and hurt if there isn't a stable relationship between the couple. If you were to sleep with a girl who you just met, or have known for a while but don't love, you or the girl may be emotionally hurt, or put in a odd situation. Sex, Sin, and Zen. - Brad Warner. Check it out.
"Once you see your nature, sex is basically immaterial."
My point being that these discussions are kind of pointless outside of a context. Its important to make it clear that rape, murder, with a minor, etc off limits.
But cases like premarital you have to make a spot call in context.
What determines marriage? A feeling, intention, a piece of paper, declaration before God? I don't need the law, God, culture, or anything else to verify how I feel about my relationship. I understand, however, that marriage as an institution is protective by nature. It protects the children of the 2 individuals and insures commitment by the 2 individuals or, at the very least, promotes commitment.
"Gosh I hope not." I agree. I also have a two year old relationship to base it on. What I mean: I don't think anybody will be hurt or confused by the premarital sex in the relationship.
My point being that these discussions are kind of pointless outside of a context. Its important to make it clear that rape, murder, with a minor, etc off limits.
But cases like premarital you have to make a spot call in context.
You're correct. Buddhism works a lot more in understanding the "grey areas" in morality/ethics. Other religions are more black and white though.
Casual sex per se is not sexual misconduct. It all depends in the conditions around you. If both parties are agreeable to the sexual intercourse, and no one is hurt by the intercourse, how can it be misconduct?
It is when people are hurt in the process where it becomes misconduct. E.g. If you have a spouse, in a committed relationship, rape, sexual blackmail, etc.
Some of the sex between married couples is also casual sex. They just happen to be used to eachother. Or I guess I say that we should define casual sex for the purpose of discussion. I was defininig casual as not involving bonding or a peak emotional experience in any way. Just routine.
I think its good to remind ourselves how this precept came about. AFAIK, it was recommended to lay people so that they can live a moral life. We dont question the validity of the other precepts even though they are 2600 years old. Why do we have so much problems with this one?
People question the precept about alcohol all the time. They re-interpret it to suit themselves. And the 1st precept has also been discussed here endlessly, on numerous threads.
My understanding, which is based on the Pali Canon, is that sexual misconduct includes any sexual activity that leads to self-affliction, to the affliction of others or to both, or that involves any person who's already in a committed relationship (e.g., engaged, married, etc.), protected by law (e.g., under age, etc.) or under religious vows entailing celibacy (e.g., monks, nuns, etc.). Hence, in Theravada, sex between consenting persons of legal age who aren't already in committed relationships and haven't taken vows of celibacy isn't considered misconduct.
Indeed, we have many problems regarding alcohol & sex.
People question the precept about alcohol all the time. They re-interpret it to suit themselves. And the 1st precept has also been discussed here endlessly, on numerous threads.
Dear Weird_Artist, Perhaps, if sex is just a need like eating, it would not create a problem. And the mind now is also so focused on the sex part that the important commitment that you talk about is sidelined.
Dear Rich9, I wonder in which country could be found this Buddhist culture, where you are considered married once you have sex.
Dear Mountains, What is it that got the church in trouble, I wonder.
Dear Hawkins, I think it all boils to whether the people involved in the sex act have a mature mind or not. And it takes two mature minds to make sex not an issue.
Dear Sumaruff, I take it that you hope that sex is not immaterial. Immaterial as meant by Hawkins, could be that sex is not an issue. You can still enjoy sex and not live to feel guilty.
Dear Jeffrey, Discussing about our every action especially one that could disturb the well being of our minds is not pointless.
Dear Yishai If the society decides that premarital sex is a sin, then some people who engaged in it could probably be hurt. And to some, premarital sex is a grey area. It is neither black nor white.
Dear Vincenzi, Then, it means it all depends on the people involved. And oh dear, I don’t know what is ahimzi and ahimsa.
Dear dorje, This sounds sensible. We don’t want an eleventh commandment, do we?
Dear jll, There is no problem at all with this precept. The problem lies with us. We have different levels of understanding and as it is then, the precept will be discussed again and again till the end of time.
Dear Jason, I am not so sure about the one on celibacy. Can’t vow like this be broken?
I am confused where I said discussing was pointless. I made 3 posts which would imply that I did not find presenting an opinion to be pointless. If I had found it pointless I would have said nothing at all.
I did point out that the context is more important than an abstract notion. Rape, etc are clearly marked as off limits. But casual sex we need to tune into the situation. As others have mentioned ahimsa. Since we have limited consciousness we cannot know for sure if anything will cause harm. But we should be in tune to the sharp wisdom of the situation rather than accumulate a list of blunt rules.
Dear Jeffrey, It is not confusion. It is a matter of having a different opinion at a different point of time and you could be right in all cases. That’s normal. What is permanent anyway? Smile!
Comments
Would it be logical to think that since it leads to complications, it should not be allowed?
Dear hermitwin,
If you control birth, you are indirectly controlling rebirth.
Your phrasing is a little odd there, "(is there) sex in a compassionate relationship?" You can have sexual intimacy in a compassionate relationship, but sex and compassion are different archetypes, and independent of one another. Ie, one does not need the other to be present, and motivations for both are different.
But, there are many guys who would say anything to get laid.
So they are breaking the precept on lying.
Whether premarital sex is permissible or not will depend on the situation then. If the man is lying just to get laid, it should not be permissible, don’t you think?
Dear aMatt,
While sex and compassion are independent of each other, it would be great if both are present together, wouldn’t it?
Can you honestly say yes to: "If something happened, and we felt forced to spend the rest of our lives together, would we?" then consensual sex is fine.
Flings/one night stands etc. could cause negative Karma, especially as you are less-likely to truly know whether your partner is single, or in the case of alcohol, fully consensual. Besides these situations tend to occur from sensory desire rather than a sharing of intimacy.
As I say, just my personal perspective.
There's no complete point of view towards sex. Everyone has their own opinion.
My personal opinion is sex is not considered misconduct if you understand your love for the other person. Sex may lead to severe confusion and hurt if there isn't a stable relationship between the couple.
If you were to sleep with a girl who you just met, or have known for a while but don't love, you or the girl may be emotionally hurt, or put in a odd situation.
Sex, Sin, and Zen. - Brad Warner. Check it out.
"Once you see your nature, sex is basically immaterial."
Yup
But cases like premarital you have to make a spot call in context.
"Gosh I hope not." I agree. I also have a two year old relationship to base it on. What I mean: I don't think anybody will be hurt or confused by the premarital sex in the relationship.
if not, it is casual and very probably sexual misconduct. if yes, it is fine.
It is when people are hurt in the process where it becomes misconduct. E.g. If you have a spouse, in a committed relationship, rape, sexual blackmail, etc.
just routine is not misconduct, but may be boring.
AFAIK, it was recommended to lay people so that they can live a moral life.
We dont question the validity of the other precepts even though they are 2600 years old. Why do we have so much problems with this one?
Perhaps, if sex is just a need like eating, it would not create a problem. And the mind now is also so focused on the sex part that the important commitment that you talk about is sidelined.
Dear Rich9,
I wonder in which country could be found this Buddhist culture, where you are considered married once you have sex.
Dear Mountains,
What is it that got the church in trouble, I wonder.
Dear Hawkins,
I think it all boils to whether the people involved in the sex act have a mature mind or not. And it takes two mature minds to make sex not an issue.
Dear Sumaruff,
I take it that you hope that sex is not immaterial. Immaterial as meant by Hawkins, could be that sex is not an issue. You can still enjoy sex and not live to feel guilty.
Dear Jeffrey,
Discussing about our every action especially one that could disturb the well being of our minds is not pointless.
Dear Yishai
If the society decides that premarital sex is a sin, then some people who engaged in it could probably be hurt. And to some, premarital sex is a grey area. It is neither black nor white.
Dear Vincenzi,
Then, it means it all depends on the people involved.
And oh dear, I don’t know what is ahimzi and ahimsa.
Dear dorje,
This sounds sensible. We don’t want an eleventh commandment, do we?
Dear jll,
There is no problem at all with this precept. The problem lies with us. We have different levels of understanding and as it is then, the precept will be discussed again and again till the end of time.
Dear Jason,
I am not so sure about the one on celibacy. Can’t vow like this be broken?
ahimsa is non-violence.
ahimzi comes from ahimsa + Vincenzi
I am confused where I said discussing was pointless. I made 3 posts which would imply that I did not find presenting an opinion to be pointless. If I had found it pointless I would have said nothing at all.
I did point out that the context is more important than an abstract notion. Rape, etc are clearly marked as off limits. But casual sex we need to tune into the situation. As others have mentioned ahimsa. Since we have limited consciousness we cannot know for sure if anything will cause harm. But we should be in tune to the sharp wisdom of the situation rather than accumulate a list of blunt rules.
Dear Jeffrey,
It is not confusion. It is a matter of having a different opinion at a different point of time and you could be right in all cases. That’s normal. What is permanent anyway? Smile!