What is illicit sex?

snGus

I am studying the Five Precepts, which are supposed to be followed by the lay Buddhist. One of these Five Precepts is the abstention from illicit sex:

"Furthermore, abandoning illicit sex, the disciple of the noble ones abstains from illicit sex. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the third gift..." (AN 8.39, seen at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/pancasila.html )

So I was wondering what exactly is illicit sex?

Are there other passages of the Pali Canon that give more details of what is illicit sex?

federica

Illicit sex is basically anything that erodes a person's dignity through making them do something they don't want to do.
it doesn't matter what gender, persuasion or variety... if someone's not willing - it's wrong.
there are some traditions which maintain that certain orifices are taboo, or that homosexuality is a no-no, but this is Doctrine, not Buddha.....

WallyB

buddha taught illicit sex is that which harms existing relationships or can harm the reputation of social institutions, defined as:

...intercourse with those under the protection of father, mother, brother, sister, relatives or clan; or of their religious community; or with those promised to a husband, protected by law and even with those betrothed with a garland

http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh238.pdf

in buddha's society, it was generally important to families who their children married. for example, buddha taught it is one of the duties of parents towards their children to help arrange a suitable marriage

today, parents may not be so concerned who their children marry but if a sexual relationship with someone living with their family will cause a disruption in that family then it is sexual misconduct in buddhism

metta

In five ways, the parents thus ministered to by their children, show their compassion:

(i) they restrain them from evil,
(ii) they encourage them to do good,
(iii) they train them for a profession,
(iv) they arrange a suitable marriage,
(v) at the proper time they hand over their inheritance to them.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html

snGus

Illicit sex is basically anything that erodes a person's dignity through making them do something they don't want to do.
it doesn't matter what gender, persuasion or variety... if someone's not willing - it's wrong.
there are some traditions which maintain that certain orifices are taboo, or that homosexuality is a no-no, but this is Doctrine, not Buddha.....

So you're saying that it does not matter what kind of sexual activity one is practicing but one's will of practicing it? If one's willing to practice a certain sexual act then it is not illicit sex; but if one is not willing to practice a certain sexual act and still he/she practices it then it's illicit sex? Is this what you meant?

So in this line of thinking only rape could be considered illicit sex?

federica

So you're saying that it does not matter what kind of sexual activity one is practicing but one's will of practicing it? If one's willing to practice a certain sexual act then it is not illicit sex; but if one is not willing to practice a certain sexual act and still he/she practices it then it's illicit sex? Is this what you meant?

So in this line of thinking only rape could be considered illicit sex?

and sex with minors, and adultery (the spouse isn't happy to let another person have sex with their legally wed, are they?) and anything you have a feeling simply isn't quite right - and only the person would know what that is....

Providing you have two consenting adults, free to have sex, and who both want it, then it matters little whether leather, whips or manacles are involved.
if it's perfectly ok between both of you - it's ok.

you know what they say - feathers is kinky.
perversion is the whole chicken.


If it feels good, do it.
When in doubt - don't.

Sabre

The precepts aren't rules stating 'this is good, this is wrong'. And so, the line on what is a proper sexual relationship and what isn't, isn't clearly defined. For example, for someone who is married, improper sex may be something different than for a single person. Of course, rape is never skilful or cultivating happiness, but it goes further than that.

The precepts are guidelines, not rules. So we try not to just avoid the extremes, but also to cultivate the opposite. With this particular precept it means we develop compassionate and loving relationships instead of relationships driven by desire.

Thich Nhat Hahn explains this precept as follows:

Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct, I am committed to cultivate responsibility and learn ways to protect the safety and integrity of individuals, couples, families, and society. I am determined not to engage in sexual relations without love and a long-term commitment. To preserve the happiness of myself and others, I am determined to respect my commitments and the commitments of others. I will do everything in my power to protect children from sexual abuse and to prevent couples and families from being broken by sexual misconduct.

snGus

Now I got it. Thank you all for explaining it to me. I realized I took part in illicit sex in the past by having sex with girls I did not love and by joining internet communities devoted to the appreciation and discussion of perverted sexual practices.

But since I met my girlfriend 4 years ago I lost interest in these stuff that now I recognize as illicit sex according to the Tipitaka vocabulary. She is the first girl I truly love and illicit sex related things that used to turn me on before became boring nowadays.

And after I started to read and research the Buddha teachings I became even more uninterested in illicit sex.

vinlyn

Illicit sex is basically anything that erodes a person's dignity through making them do something they don't want to do.
it doesn't matter what gender, persuasion or variety... if someone's not willing - it's wrong.
there are some traditions which maintain that certain orifices are taboo, or that homosexuality is a no-no, but this is Doctrine, not Buddha.....

Perfect answer (in my view)!

WallyB

Perfect answer (in my view)!

i don't intend to sound rude but it is not a valid answer at all. "making them do something they don't want to do" is not even covered in the definition of sexual misconduct because it is covered by secular law. metta

federica

not necessarily... to take a recent example which came to my attention on another forum: girlfriend with BF who wants a threesome. She didn't.

that isn't covered by any law that I know of....

WallyB

ok. but the scope of sexual misconduct is much greater than forcing others to have sex or do things they do not want. metta

zenff

What is illicit sex?

Getting your kick at someone else’s expense.
Plus getting it and harming your own wellbeing and health on the long run.
That’s all stupid in the sense that it will not really make you happy.

It’s the same thing for every kind of kick; not just sex.

Jason

Illicit means something "forbidden by law, rules, or custom" (Oxford Dictionaries). In this context, it specifically includes sex with "those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma [i.e., monastics who have taken vows of celibacy]; those with husbands [or wives], those who entail punishments [i.e., those protected by law, such as if they're underage], or even those crowned with flowers by another man [i.e., engaged]" (MN 41). It also includes sexual intercourse that's non-consensual and/or that harms the other person, physically as well as mentally.

vinlyn

Perfect answer (in my view)!

i don't intend to sound rude but it is not a valid answer at all. "making them do something they don't want to do" is not even covered in the definition of sexual misconduct because it is covered by secular law. metta

I didn't see your comment as rude. I just have a different view of sexual misconduct, based on Buddhist principles, modified by law, modified by personal beliefs.

federica

ok. but the scope of sexual misconduct is much greater than forcing others to have sex or do things they do not want. metta

@WallyB, Yeah, but I think that pretty much covers it - could you tell me how my brief and succinct summary doesn't?

WallyB

Yeah, but I think that pretty much covers it - could you tell me how my brief and succinct summary doesn't?

a husband cheating on his wife with a willing partner does not meet your definition. or a school teacher engaging in sex with a willing young nubile school student does not meet your definition. a monk engaging in sex with a willing impressionable devotee does not meet your definition. these are just a few examples that meet the Buddhist definition of sexual misconduct and none of them are forced or unwanted sex

federica

...and sex with minors, and adultery (the spouse isn't happy to let another person have sex with their legally wed, are they?) and anything you have a feeling simply isn't quite right - and only the person would know what that is....

Providing you have two consenting adults, free to have sex, and who both want it, then it matters little whether leather, whips or manacles are involved.
if it's perfectly ok between both of you - it's ok.

...If it feels good, do it.
When in doubt - don't.

a husband cheating on his wife with a willing partner does not meet your definition. or a school teacher engaging in sex with a willing young nubile school student does not meet your definition. a monk engaging in sex with a willing impressionable devotee does not meet your definition. these are just a few examples that meet the Buddhist definition of sexual misconduct and none of them are forced or unwanted sex

if you read my post, you'll find I did include that.

i mentioned adultery, I mentioned sex with minors, and i didn't really think i needed to mention a monk having sex, as that doesn't fall into the category of what illicit sex is to a secular layperson.

An adulterer harms his wife, and an irresponsible teacher abusing his or her position by having sex with a minor, however willing they are, is also illicit sex.

i covered the bases.
I'm also giving the OP an reasonable amount of credit for being able to work out for themselves when a particular sexual act is crossing the line.

andyrobyn

Illicit sex is basically anything that erodes a person's dignity through making them do something they don't want to do.
it doesn't matter what gender, persuasion or variety... if someone's not willing - it's wrong.
there are some traditions which maintain that certain orifices are taboo, or that homosexuality is a no-no, but this is Doctrine, not Buddha.....

Perhaps it is this starting point which has led to some confusion about what illict sex is. It seems to me from the interactions here and my experience that a useful explanation needs to include more than if a party to it is willing or not - I can see that it can be interpreted from the first statement that a wife who is unaware of a husband's infidelity is unwilling and harmed, though.

federica

Well, this is why it's a discussion forum... I wasn't expecting to be the only one who gave input.
i think the bases have been admirably covered, don't you?
Everyone has their own opinions and interpretations, because many of the Buddha's instructions are also covered by the law, so i really didn't think they needed elaboration.