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.
Britain is in Northern Europe, look it up Anyway, I'm a European born and bred, around my village some people (including moi) who have always lived here back through the generations are descended from the Dutch.
I know where Britain is.I also know the attitude of the british or at least of the english in regards to being called european.I lived and worked there long enough to get to know how people feel.
Well of course us Brits are above belonging to any continent. This joke pretty much somes up the majority's opinion (although not mine),
Here, then, as a service to future presidents of the European Union, is the Utley Guide to the National Characteristics of the Peoples of Europe:
Belgians: mad, boring. Frenchmen: arrogant, chauvinistic, garlic-breathed. Germans: humourless, ruthless, efficient, greedy. Spaniards: lazy, hot-tempered, bloodthirsty. Irishmen: drunk, lazy, self-pitying, dishonest. Italians: volatile, sleazy, vain. Swedes: sex-obsessed, robotic, conformist. Greeks: smelly, hirsute, untrustworthy. Austrians: fat, wannabe Germans. Finns: pessimistic, sun-starved, suicidal. Dutchmen: clog-wearing, tulip-fancying dope addicts. Portuguese, Danes, Luxembourgeoise: too insignificant to bother about. The Brits: upright, honest, fair-minded (excluding the Scots, who are mean and belligerent, and the Welsh, who are blathering windbags)... before I am dragged off and lynched, I would like to make it clear that there are huge numbers of exceptions to these generalisations.
- Tom Utley, "The Daily Telegraph"
Back to Cristina's interesting comment about sex meditation:
Sexual energy and spiritual energy are two sides of the same coin. That's the Kundalini energy. Tibetans believe that women have a stronger connection to the spiritual energy that's connected with sex, I don't know. (Guys?) But my guess is that's what she's referring to. A great spiritual high can come from sex, whether done alone or with a partner.
Back to Cristina's interesting comment about sex meditation:
Sexual energy and spiritual energy are two sides of the same coin. That's the Kundalini energy. Tibetans believe that women have a stronger connection to the spiritual energy that's connected with sex, I don't know. (Guys?) But my guess is that's what she's referring to. A great spiritual high can come from sex, whether done alone or with a partner.
The Kundalini manifests differently for different people, depending on how many blockages they have in their system, and other factors I can't begin to describe or understand. And it can be raised different ways, most not involving sex. For some people it's purely spiritual energy, for others it's both spiritual and sexual. Maybe we should start a thread on Kundalini.
.................... Maybe we should start a thread on Kundalini.
Whilst it might be of interest, I would question whether it would really fit. Kundalini is more of a Hindu/Vedantist concept, as I understand it, introduced into Buddhism quite recently, mainly by Lama Yeshe, because so many of the mid-20th century seekers had encountered the idea as they slouched along the hippie trail from Goa to Varanasi.
We're talking about sex and all the people here are talking about sexual repression and singing the praises of sex.
Who here has thought critically about this problem of sex? I'm not talking about making information about it free, I'm talking about the population of 6.some billion people we have in this planet and the dearth of resources which makes our population growth unsustainable.
Sex, aside from selfish pleasure-seeking, makes more humans and spreads disease. Since this is true why don't I see more people thinking critically about over sexualization of our society?
Why do we see sex as a positive force for liberation when it's actually might be literally the driving into a wall toward the end of our species as a whole?
We can't sustain our population, and yet we promote sex, and then to add to that we stupidly promote irresponsible sex?
None of this "we must follow our urges" or "sex doesn't harm" nonsense. Sex is no longer a neutral nonharming act. It's a selfish self-gratification that harms other human beings. Even if you want a child, there's millions of children in adoption waiting lists. Seriously people take some responsibility here.
What a sad post, Fruit Punch Wizard. Is that all you understand about sex? Do you only see it as penetration and ejaculation? How limited your vision - and how unsafe and uneducated. I sincerely hope that you have had yourself sterilised and take medication to reduce your libido.
Sexual contact between loving partners is far more than insemination and contagion.
What a sad post, Fruit Punch Wizard. Is that all you understand about sex? Do you only see it as penetration and ejaculation? How limited your vision - and how unsafe and uneducated. I sincerely hope that you have had yourself sterilised and take medication to reduce your libido.
Sexual contact between loving partners is far more than insemination and contagion.
What a sad post, Simonthepilgrim. What else do you think sexual contact is other than sex?
How unsafe and uneducated. I sincerely hope that you get sterilised and take medication to reduce your libido.
Sexual contact between loving partners is no more than insemination and contagion and whatever else your own mind projects upon it. What other biases do you have about sex that doesn't completely disregard the harm it causes?
Never mind the sexually transmitted diseases, the rampant unsustainable population, the environmental consequences, the rapid extinction of animals due to habitat loss, but let's focus on the emotional gratification of a selfish mind. Never mind the sexual exploitation, of whole populations, the forcing of people into prostitution to satisfy greedy people's hypersexuality due to the media. Let's disregard the starvation, the loss of drinkable water resources and sanitation. How UNEDUCATED are you? Think about the consequences of hypersexuality and acceptance of more and more open relationships and less and less restrictions on sex. What the heck do you think will happen? Wait this happened before. We call it the Baby Boom, and the echo boom. Sex, does cause harm to a world that is overpopulated. Grow up and think beyond your self.
Hehehe I wasn't attacking him as much as I repeated what he said right back at him to try to get him to realize what he was saying made no sense, and had nothing to do with the truth of what I said. It was a feeble ad hominem and one made to distract from the real problem. I say sex is an action and whatever else our mind projects onto that action is a product of a deluded mind colored by selfishness. When given the context of the consequences of sex, and then universally considering the worldwide problem of overpopulation it's easy to see that sex is a harmful action. Prove me wrong.
Sex doesn't necessarily equal to children though.
Just basic logic:
A can lead to B or not B.
B can lead to C or not C.
C contributes to D.
Does A therefore lead to D? Well no, that would be silly. In the same way, sex doesn't necessarily lead to the problems that arise from overpopulation.
Whether or not children are an undesirable consequence, is a discussion for another topic.
Sex doesn't necessarily equal to children though.
Just basic logic:
Let's look at basic logic for a moment:
Sex can lead to children or no children.
Children lead to an increased population.
Increased population leads to over-population.
Now let's look at another one.
No sex does not lead to any children.
Not having children absolutely by definition does not lead to an increase in population.
Whether or not children are an undesirable consequence, is a discussion for another topic.
I wasn't talking about only children, but the inherent selfishness that is sex. You forgot to mention disease. Sex is selfish, because it is an action driven by sensuous greed. Outside of having children what is good about sex that isn't related to clinging via drawing an arbitrary mental projection used to rationalize an action?
OK, but using a personal example. There's sex, there's no clinging, no disease and nobody gets hurt. In fact, it would be quite unskilfull for me to tell my girlfriend of 4 years "Oh, by the way, I am celibate now!". We can both take it or leave it, but it's a good way to become a little closer.
First of all, may I apologise for having made personal comments towards another member. I allowed my surprise at what I read to overwhelm the courtesy that is the right of even the most blinkered poster.
Sexual contact does, occasionally, transmit disease. Many another action does too. The practice of safe sex is one which, I suggest, needs to be an integral part of our sex education programmes: too many of my friends and clients have died from HIV/AIDS-related disease.
Nevertheless, we do need to look at facts rather than a Cloud Cuckoo Land of asexuality to stabilise and then reduce world population. There are a number of conditions which appear to reduce family size:
* improved economic conditions, which obviate the pressure for chiuld labour;
* improved education;
* liberation and education of women, giving them greater control over their fertility.
To demonise the act of sex is, I suggest, to misunderstand. The one-chiild policy in the PRC or the forced sterilisation programme of the Indira Gandhi administration were both as catastrophic as Prohibition of alcohol in the USA. Neither grasping nor aversion can solve the problem: only better education and higher living standards can do that.
it would be quite unskilfull for me to tell my girlfriend of 4 years "Oh, by the way, I am celibate now!". We can both take it or leave it, but it's a good way to become a little closer.
So your closeness of your relationship is determined by sexual contact? That's sad. You can't just unconditionally love each other? If you're using each other to fill a need for sex it's conditional love. That means she'll only love you if you have sex with her and vice versa. There's no closeness to that. There's only conditions. It's a wall between each other.
First of all, may I apologise for having made personal comments towards another member. I allowed my surprise at what I read to overwhelm the courtesy that is the right of even the most blinkered poster.
Now you're calling me blinkered. That's not a real apology, so you can renounce it, or admit that you are looking down on me for my view.
Sexual contact does, occasionally, transmit disease.
Yes, and it does also occasionally cause children, and also occasionally cause physical harm. We're not talking about occasionally we're talking about context of scenario. Why are you having sex?
Many another action does too. The practice of safe sex is one which, I suggest, needs to be an integral part of our sex education programmes: too many of my friends and clients have died from HIV/AIDS-related disease.
Then you should know that there's a risk involved. It's like drugs, there's a chance you won't have any disease at all, but you do it because you enjoy it.
Nevertheless, we do need to look at facts rather than a Cloud Cuckoo Land of asexuality to stabilise and then reduce world population.
Once again you're proving that what you said was a personal attack rather than analyzing the facts. This further shows to me that this is an emotional issue for you rather than a logical one.
There are a number of conditions which appear to reduce family size:
* improved economic conditions, which obviate the pressure for chiuld labour;
* improved education;
* liberation and education of women, giving them greater control over their fertility.
Which I promote wholeheartedly.
To demonise the act of sex is, I suggest, to misunderstand.
Misunderstand what? That sometimes you're horny and you just have to have sex or the world will end? Your relationships will end? Who are you kidding here? You aren't fooling me.
The one-chiild policy in the PRC or the forced sterilisation programme of the Indira Gandhi administration were both as catastrophic as Prohibition of alcohol in the USA. Neither grasping nor aversion can solve the problem: only better education and higher living standards can do that.
I'm not grasping nor feeling aversion either. I'm saying there's no need to grasp. Sometimes grasping is bad. Without seeing that it is sometimes bad you'll overglorify and add mental projections onto an action that aren't there. You're not seeing it for what it is, and making stuff up to rationalize your clinging.
Don't confuse "a little closer" with "is all that our closeness is based on". We have been apart for months at a time and obviously there was no loss of love or closeness there. Don't jump to conclusions.
Don't confuse "a little closer" with "is all that our closeness is based on". We have been apart for months at a time and obviously there was no loss of love or closeness there. Don't jump to conclusions.
So why should it matter at all if you are celibate unless there is a condition that in order to be in a close relationship you have to have sex?
The question then becomes why are you having sex?
Answer honestly.
Don't apply concepts that aren't there. That's being dishonest to yourself and is a sign that you actually are clinging.
We're talking about sex and all the people here are talking about sexual repression and singing the praises of sex.
Who here has thought critically about this problem of sex? I'm not talking about making information about it free, I'm talking about the population of 6.some billion people we have in this planet and the dearth of resources which makes our population growth unsustainable.
Sex, aside from selfish pleasure-seeking, makes more humans and spreads disease. Since this is true why don't I see more people thinking critically about over sexualization of our society?
Why do we see sex as a positive force for liberation when it's actually might be literally the driving into a wall toward the end of our species as a whole?
We can't sustain our population, and yet we promote sex, and then to add to that we stupidly promote irresponsible sex?
None of this "we must follow our urges" or "sex doesn't harm" nonsense. Sex is no longer a neutral nonharming act. It's a selfish self-gratification that harms other human beings. Even if you want a child, there's millions of children in adoption waiting lists. Seriously people take some responsibility here.
That's why we have this newfangled thing called a condom I do partly agree with you though. I insist I want to adopt children because there are many children in care and the population is grossly over-populated. Not many people care though, and one girl even says it's nasty, for some reason :???:
Lets get a couple of things straight:
*If something helps with a process, it doesn't constitute 100% of the process.
*If you can do without something, that doesn't mean you should, especially if it helps.
Why? I've answered, it helps people be closer. It also has some of the same benefits as meditation (stress reduction, improved immunity and better sleep). Does that mean that without it, there wouldn't be closeness? No, 'course it doesn't.
So your closeness of your relationship is determined by sexual contact? That's sad. You can't just unconditionally love each other? If you're using each other to fill a need for sex it's conditional love. That means she'll only love you if you have sex with her and vice versa. There's no closeness to that. There's only conditions. It's a wall between each other.
Now you're calling me blinkered. That's not a real apology, so you can renounce it, or admit that you are looking down on me for my view.
Yes, and it does also occasionally cause children, and also occasionally cause physical harm. We're not talking about occasionally we're talking about context of scenario. Why are you having sex?
Then you should know that there's a risk involved. It's like drugs, there's a chance you won't have any disease at all, but you do it because you enjoy it.
Once again you're proving that what you said was a personal attack rather than analyzing the facts. This further shows to me that this is an emotional issue for you rather than a logical one.
Which I promote wholeheartedly.
Misunderstand what? That sometimes you're horny and you just have to have sex or the world will end? Your relationships will end? Who are you kidding here? You aren't fooling me.
I'm not grasping nor feeling aversion either. I'm saying there's no need to grasp. Sometimes grasping is bad. Without seeing that it is sometimes bad you'll overglorify and add mental projections onto an action that aren't there. You're not seeing it for what it is, and making stuff up to rationalize your clinging.
Now I just think your "attack" of Simon is very paranoid
Researchers said the top ten reasons are:
Pure attraction to the other person in general
Experiencing physical pleasure
Expressing love
Having sex because of feeling desired by the other
Having sex to escalate the depth of the relationship
Curiosity or seeking new experiences
Marking a special occasion for celebration
Mere opportunity
Sex just happening due to seemingly uncontrollable circumstances
Now you admit sex is one way of expression of love, but I challenge you again. How? How does it do that?
Sex between a man and a woman is not the only form of sex, nor is penetration.
No this applies to homosexual relationships too. Disease can affect them too, and you keep ignoring the point I'm bringing up. Clinging. That's ultimately the point here. I'm making a big point that sex is not an expression of love, because it is essentially sensuously greedy, selfish, and unwholesome.
Think about it. Men and women are socialized to think that love is expressed through sex to the point that a man thinks a woman doesn't love him if she doesn't have sex with him. Notice however he doesn't put this expectation on his family members. This has nothing to do with the depth of expression because I'm sure you understand to a degree the depth of the love of family members. So why are these socialized into people that proof of love and commitment must be sex?
When anger or another problem enters the picture, the socialization and differences between men and women and physical intimacy become even more evident.
He feels that making love will make-up.
She feels they must make-up before making love.
When the relationship is in disrepair, a woman will feel it has to be repaired before sex, not repaired by sex. And a man will feel exactly opposite.
Men have sexual thoughts often during the day.
Women can go for hours, even days, without a sexual thought.
For women touching without sex is soothing and comforting. It imparts a warm feeling of security.
For many men, touching without sex can easily be misunderstood and even threatening.
Watch men together. When men touch it is in a rough manner--punching each other or slapping each other on the back. This is because tender touching has sexual undertones for a man. It makes many men feel vulnerable and dependent, feelings men have been socialized to feel are unmasculine.
Young women dream about love and romance; young men dream about sexual fulfillment.
Men are not comfortable with so much closeness and intimacy that they feel vulnerable. Women are not comfortable without it.
Women view sex as coming from a close, intimate relationship. Women want to be in love before having sex. Men think sex is an expression of love.
For women the relationship eventually includes sex. For men the relationship doesn't really start until it includes sex.
For most women sexual involvement implies that a relationship is possible. For men, such an implication is certainly not automatic.
Women rarely comprehend a man's ability to separate sex and love. If "her" man has sex with another woman, he can not still love her. Within the context of Homosexual relationships the gender barrier is not the problem, but the rest of the issues are the same. They try and equate physical intimacy with emotional intimacy which is false.
If you didn't have a form do you think you would cease loving your partners, husbands and wives? Do you think when they die, you can't love them anymore as well? Physical intimacy has nothing to do with emotional connection and can actually complicate them.
Think about it. Men and women are socialized to think that love is expressed through sex to the point that a man thinks a woman doesn't love him if she doesn't have sex with him. Notice however he doesn't put this expectation on his family members. This has nothing to do with the depth of expression because I'm sure you understand to a degree the depth of the love of family members. So why are these socialized into people that proof of love and commitment must be sex?
When anger or another problem enters the picture, the socialization and differences between men and women and physical intimacy become even more evident.
He feels that making love will make-up.
She feels they must make-up before making love.
When the relationship is in disrepair, a woman will feel it has to be repaired before sex, not repaired by sex. And a man will feel exactly opposite.
Men have sexual thoughts often during the day.
Women can go for hours, even days, without a sexual thought.
For women touching without sex is soothing and comforting. It imparts a warm feeling of security.
For many men, touching without sex can easily be misunderstood and even threatening.
Watch men together. When men touch it is in a rough manner--punching each other or slapping each other on the back. This is because tender touching has sexual undertones for a man. It makes many men feel vulnerable and dependent, feelings men have been socialized to feel are unmasculine.
Young women dream about love and romance; young men dream about sexual fulfillment.
Men are not comfortable with so much closeness and intimacy that they feel vulnerable. Women are not comfortable without it.
Women view sex as coming from a close, intimate relationship. Women want to be in love before having sex. Men think sex is an expression of love.
For women the relationship eventually includes sex. For men the relationship doesn't really start until it includes sex.
For most women sexual involvement implies that a relationship is possible. For men, such an implication is certainly not automatic.
Women rarely comprehend a man's ability to separate sex and love. If "her" man has sex with another woman, he can not still love her. Within the context of Homosexual relationships the gender barrier is not the problem, but the rest of the issues are the same. They try and equate physical intimacy with emotional intimacy which is false.
If you didn't have a form do you think you would cease loving your partners, husbands and wives? Do you think when they die, you can't love them anymore as well? Physical intimacy has nothing to do with emotional connection and can actually complicate them.
Again. you keep making links which aren't there.
*If something helps with a process, it doesn't constitute 100% of the process.
*If you can do without something, that doesn't mean you should, especially if it helps.
Again, it doesn't mean that without sex, there's no love, it means sex HELPS reinforce it.
You're also painting men and women with very broad brushes.
I must, because you're enforcing a stereotype that sex is an expression of love, I'm breaking a stereotype by showing the illogic of the stereotypes using the stereotypes. Notice?
I am not stereotyping, I am talking about my relationship. Your stereotypes don't apply to us.
I wasn't talking about aggression, I don't know why you'd bring them up. Aggression will almost always harm someone and is a bad habit. My private life is yet to harm anyone. There's a big difference between the two, you can't use one similarity to unify them.
Yes, it can be overcome... but there's no reason to, since it doesn't lead to any suffering on either side.
PLEASE examine your arguments in terms of basic logic before you post them.
Oh and social norms are never wrong?
Sex as an expression of love is a social norm.
Violence is a social norm.
Violence is bad.
Therefore, sex is bad? No!
I am not stereotyping, I am talking about my relationship. Your stereotypes don't apply to us.
So then why would it be unskillfull if you wanted to be celibate, but continue your relationship (if that were true)?
I wasn't talking about aggression, I don't know why you'd bring them up. Aggression will almost always harm someone and is a bad habit.
You were talking about human urges. We have as much biological urges for sex as we have urges for death. (which is to say, not much)
My private life is yet to harm anyone. There's a big difference between the two, you can't use one similarity to unify them.
Well that's all fine and dandy, but you acknowledge that to have sex you're taking a risk, and that it is based on delusory concepts.
So then it becomes simple, is it clinging?
Yes, it can be overcome... but there's no reason to, since it doesn't lead to any suffering on either side.
Funny that you still take this as a personal affront to your personal sexual relationship and are still thinking of only yourself. You. Think universally, is sex harmful to humanity? Harmful to the planet? Harmful to animals? Is sex harming others?
PLEASE examine your arguments in terms of basic logic before you post them.
I ask that you do the same, but I can't expect that because you are just too emotionally invested. Follow me this time.
Sex as an expression of love is a social norm.
Social norms are delusory because they rely on upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing, upon tradition, upon rumor, upon what is in a scripture, upon surmise, upon an axiom, upon specious reasoning, upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over, upon another's seeming ability, upon the consideration, that "someone reputable told you so".
Delusions are bad.
Therefore delusions should be let go.
So the next part becomes:
What is the purpose of sex without the delusional concepts attached to them?
The answer becomes "pleasure" or "procreation".
Is procreation harmful?
We're overpopulated, so I think, yes it it harmful.
Is pleasure-seeking harmful?
Pleasure seeking that disregards consequences or harm is selfish gratification, therefore it is harmful.
Nope. No sour grapes. Honest analysis. Seeing things for what they are, and not making them into something they're not, because that's called lying. I don't lie to myself.
So then why would it be unskillfull if you wanted to be celibate, but continue your relationship (if that were true)?
It's an unnecessary change. It would go against our mutual agreement that it's an expression of love.
We have as much biological urges for sex as we have urges for death. (which is to say, not much)
Source?
Well that's all fine and dandy, but you acknowledge that to have sex you're taking a risk, and that it is based on delusory concepts.
It's no greater risk than riding my motorcycle (I might hit and kill someone). You don't take any risks in life? The risk is so small, it's negligible.
So then it becomes simple, is it clinging?
It can be in some cases, but isn't in this one.
Funny that you still take this as a personal affront to your personal sexual relationship and are still thinking of only yourself. You. Think universally, is sex harmful to humanity? Harmful to the planet? Harmful to animals? Is sex harming others?
No, my sex life does not harm animals or anything else you've listed.
Sex as an expression of love is a social norm.
*ONE OF the reasons sex is an expression of love is that it's a social norm.
Social norms are delusory because they rely on upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing, upon tradition, upon rumor, upon what is in a scripture, upon surmise, upon an axiom, upon specious reasoning, upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over, upon another's seeming ability, upon the consideration, that "someone reputable told you so".
Sure
Delusions are bad.
*SOME delusions are bad in SOME cases, SOME of the time.
Words are delusional, this whole argument is delusional. Everything transmitted through words and theories is delusional, but we can't grasp concepts otherwise. Some delusions are good and/or necessary.
Are you saying ALL social norms are inherently bad?
Pleasure seeking that disregards consequences or harm is selfish gratification, therefore it is harmful.
Comments
Well us brit's are both.
I'm a European Englishman!
Here, then, as a service to future presidents of the European Union, is the Utley Guide to the National Characteristics of the Peoples of Europe:
Belgians: mad, boring. Frenchmen: arrogant, chauvinistic, garlic-breathed. Germans: humourless, ruthless, efficient, greedy. Spaniards: lazy, hot-tempered, bloodthirsty. Irishmen: drunk, lazy, self-pitying, dishonest. Italians: volatile, sleazy, vain. Swedes: sex-obsessed, robotic, conformist. Greeks: smelly, hirsute, untrustworthy. Austrians: fat, wannabe Germans. Finns: pessimistic, sun-starved, suicidal. Dutchmen: clog-wearing, tulip-fancying dope addicts. Portuguese, Danes, Luxembourgeoise: too insignificant to bother about. The Brits: upright, honest, fair-minded (excluding the Scots, who are mean and belligerent, and the Welsh, who are blathering windbags)... before I am dragged off and lynched, I would like to make it clear that there are huge numbers of exceptions to these generalisations.
- Tom Utley, "The Daily Telegraph"
Sexual energy and spiritual energy are two sides of the same coin. That's the Kundalini energy. Tibetans believe that women have a stronger connection to the spiritual energy that's connected with sex, I don't know. (Guys?) But my guess is that's what she's referring to. A great spiritual high can come from sex, whether done alone or with a partner.
The Kundalini manifests differently for different people, depending on how many blockages they have in their system, and other factors I can't begin to describe or understand. And it can be raised different ways, most not involving sex. For some people it's purely spiritual energy, for others it's both spiritual and sexual. Maybe we should start a thread on Kundalini.
Whilst it might be of interest, I would question whether it would really fit. Kundalini is more of a Hindu/Vedantist concept, as I understand it, introduced into Buddhism quite recently, mainly by Lama Yeshe, because so many of the mid-20th century seekers had encountered the idea as they slouched along the hippie trail from Goa to Varanasi.
Guys c'mon! Focus here.
We're talking about sex and all the people here are talking about sexual repression and singing the praises of sex.
Who here has thought critically about this problem of sex? I'm not talking about making information about it free, I'm talking about the population of 6.some billion people we have in this planet and the dearth of resources which makes our population growth unsustainable.
Sex, aside from selfish pleasure-seeking, makes more humans and spreads disease. Since this is true why don't I see more people thinking critically about over sexualization of our society?
Why do we see sex as a positive force for liberation when it's actually might be literally the driving into a wall toward the end of our species as a whole?
We can't sustain our population, and yet we promote sex, and then to add to that we stupidly promote irresponsible sex?
None of this "we must follow our urges" or "sex doesn't harm" nonsense. Sex is no longer a neutral nonharming act. It's a selfish self-gratification that harms other human beings. Even if you want a child, there's millions of children in adoption waiting lists. Seriously people take some responsibility here.
Sexual contact between loving partners is far more than insemination and contagion.
What a sad post, Simonthepilgrim. What else do you think sexual contact is other than sex?
How unsafe and uneducated. I sincerely hope that you get sterilised and take medication to reduce your libido.
Sexual contact between loving partners is no more than insemination and contagion and whatever else your own mind projects upon it. What other biases do you have about sex that doesn't completely disregard the harm it causes?
Never mind the sexually transmitted diseases, the rampant unsustainable population, the environmental consequences, the rapid extinction of animals due to habitat loss, but let's focus on the emotional gratification of a selfish mind. Never mind the sexual exploitation, of whole populations, the forcing of people into prostitution to satisfy greedy people's hypersexuality due to the media. Let's disregard the starvation, the loss of drinkable water resources and sanitation. How UNEDUCATED are you? Think about the consequences of hypersexuality and acceptance of more and more open relationships and less and less restrictions on sex. What the heck do you think will happen? Wait this happened before. We call it the Baby Boom, and the echo boom. Sex, does cause harm to a world that is overpopulated. Grow up and think beyond your self.
Just basic logic:
A can lead to B or not B.
B can lead to C or not C.
C contributes to D.
Does A therefore lead to D? Well no, that would be silly. In the same way, sex doesn't necessarily lead to the problems that arise from overpopulation.
Whether or not children are an undesirable consequence, is a discussion for another topic.
Let's look at basic logic for a moment:
Sex can lead to children or no children.
Children lead to an increased population.
Increased population leads to over-population.
Now let's look at another one.
No sex does not lead to any children.
Not having children absolutely by definition does not lead to an increase in population.
I wasn't talking about only children, but the inherent selfishness that is sex. You forgot to mention disease. Sex is selfish, because it is an action driven by sensuous greed. Outside of having children what is good about sex that isn't related to clinging via drawing an arbitrary mental projection used to rationalize an action?
Sexual contact does, occasionally, transmit disease. Many another action does too. The practice of safe sex is one which, I suggest, needs to be an integral part of our sex education programmes: too many of my friends and clients have died from HIV/AIDS-related disease.
Nevertheless, we do need to look at facts rather than a Cloud Cuckoo Land of asexuality to stabilise and then reduce world population. There are a number of conditions which appear to reduce family size:
* improved economic conditions, which obviate the pressure for chiuld labour;
* improved education;
* liberation and education of women, giving them greater control over their fertility.
To demonise the act of sex is, I suggest, to misunderstand. The one-chiild policy in the PRC or the forced sterilisation programme of the Indira Gandhi administration were both as catastrophic as Prohibition of alcohol in the USA. Neither grasping nor aversion can solve the problem: only better education and higher living standards can do that.
So your closeness of your relationship is determined by sexual contact? That's sad. You can't just unconditionally love each other? If you're using each other to fill a need for sex it's conditional love. That means she'll only love you if you have sex with her and vice versa. There's no closeness to that. There's only conditions. It's a wall between each other.
Now you're calling me blinkered. That's not a real apology, so you can renounce it, or admit that you are looking down on me for my view.
Yes, and it does also occasionally cause children, and also occasionally cause physical harm. We're not talking about occasionally we're talking about context of scenario. Why are you having sex?
Then you should know that there's a risk involved. It's like drugs, there's a chance you won't have any disease at all, but you do it because you enjoy it.
Once again you're proving that what you said was a personal attack rather than analyzing the facts. This further shows to me that this is an emotional issue for you rather than a logical one.
Which I promote wholeheartedly.
Misunderstand what? That sometimes you're horny and you just have to have sex or the world will end? Your relationships will end? Who are you kidding here? You aren't fooling me.
I'm not grasping nor feeling aversion either. I'm saying there's no need to grasp. Sometimes grasping is bad. Without seeing that it is sometimes bad you'll overglorify and add mental projections onto an action that aren't there. You're not seeing it for what it is, and making stuff up to rationalize your clinging.
So why should it matter at all if you are celibate unless there is a condition that in order to be in a close relationship you have to have sex?
The question then becomes why are you having sex?
Answer honestly.
Don't apply concepts that aren't there. That's being dishonest to yourself and is a sign that you actually are clinging.
That's why we have this newfangled thing called a condom
*If something helps with a process, it doesn't constitute 100% of the process.
*If you can do without something, that doesn't mean you should, especially if it helps.
Why? I've answered, it helps people be closer. It also has some of the same benefits as meditation (stress reduction, improved immunity and better sleep). Does that mean that without it, there wouldn't be closeness? No, 'course it doesn't.
I am quite certain that is not what he meant.
Now I just think your "attack" of Simon is very paranoid
Sex is just one of many ways of expressing your love
I love the simplicity of that answer. Thank you.
Pure attraction to the other person in general
Experiencing physical pleasure
Expressing love
Having sex because of feeling desired by the other
Having sex to escalate the depth of the relationship
Curiosity or seeking new experiences
Marking a special occasion for celebration
Mere opportunity
Sex just happening due to seemingly uncontrollable circumstances
Now you admit sex is one way of expression of love, but I challenge you again. How? How does it do that?
It's not simple, it's complex.
How does it express love?
I didn't attack him. I took his own words and bounced them back at him. Word choice is important, and he was referring to me.
Sex between a man and a woman is not the only form of sex, nor is penetration.
No this applies to homosexual relationships too. Disease can affect them too, and you keep ignoring the point I'm bringing up. Clinging. That's ultimately the point here. I'm making a big point that sex is not an expression of love, because it is essentially sensuously greedy, selfish, and unwholesome.
When anger or another problem enters the picture, the socialization and differences between men and women and physical intimacy become even more evident.
He feels that making love will make-up.
She feels they must make-up before making love.
When the relationship is in disrepair, a woman will feel it has to be repaired before sex, not repaired by sex. And a man will feel exactly opposite.
Men have sexual thoughts often during the day.
Women can go for hours, even days, without a sexual thought.
For women touching without sex is soothing and comforting. It imparts a warm feeling of security.
For many men, touching without sex can easily be misunderstood and even threatening.
Watch men together. When men touch it is in a rough manner--punching each other or slapping each other on the back. This is because tender touching has sexual undertones for a man. It makes many men feel vulnerable and dependent, feelings men have been socialized to feel are unmasculine.
Young women dream about love and romance; young men dream about sexual fulfillment.
Men are not comfortable with so much closeness and intimacy that they feel vulnerable. Women are not comfortable without it.
Women view sex as coming from a close, intimate relationship. Women want to be in love before having sex. Men think sex is an expression of love.
For women the relationship eventually includes sex. For men the relationship doesn't really start until it includes sex.
For most women sexual involvement implies that a relationship is possible. For men, such an implication is certainly not automatic.
Women rarely comprehend a man's ability to separate sex and love. If "her" man has sex with another woman, he can not still love her. Within the context of Homosexual relationships the gender barrier is not the problem, but the rest of the issues are the same. They try and equate physical intimacy with emotional intimacy which is false.
If you didn't have a form do you think you would cease loving your partners, husbands and wives? Do you think when they die, you can't love them anymore as well? Physical intimacy has nothing to do with emotional connection and can actually complicate them.
1)It's a social norm.
We have a general agreement that that's how it is. Both parties agree on the terms, so we have an understanding.
2)Biological reasons - evolution at work.
Release of oxytocin reinforces bonding.
Probably heaps of others I can't think of on the spot right now.
Again. you keep making links which aren't there.
Again, it doesn't mean that without sex, there's no love, it means sex HELPS reinforce it.
And our inborn hormones that make us prone to aggression must also be indulged?
We should pardon violence because it's part of human urges?
Both of these seem like rationalizations.
I must, because you're enforcing a stereotype that sex is an expression of love, I'm breaking a stereotype by showing the illogic of the stereotypes using the stereotypes. Notice?
I wasn't talking about aggression, I don't know why you'd bring them up. Aggression will almost always harm someone and is a bad habit. My private life is yet to harm anyone. There's a big difference between the two, you can't use one similarity to unify them.
Yes, it can be overcome... but there's no reason to, since it doesn't lead to any suffering on either side.
PLEASE examine your arguments in terms of basic logic before you post them.
Sex as an expression of love is a social norm.
Violence is a social norm.
Violence is bad.
Therefore, sex is bad? No!
So then why would it be unskillfull if you wanted to be celibate, but continue your relationship (if that were true)?
You were talking about human urges. We have as much biological urges for sex as we have urges for death. (which is to say, not much)
Well that's all fine and dandy, but you acknowledge that to have sex you're taking a risk, and that it is based on delusory concepts.
So then it becomes simple, is it clinging?
Funny that you still take this as a personal affront to your personal sexual relationship and are still thinking of only yourself. You. Think universally, is sex harmful to humanity? Harmful to the planet? Harmful to animals? Is sex harming others?
I ask that you do the same, but I can't expect that because you are just too emotionally invested. Follow me this time.
Sex as an expression of love is a social norm.
Social norms are delusory because they rely on upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing, upon tradition, upon rumor, upon what is in a scripture, upon surmise, upon an axiom, upon specious reasoning, upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over, upon another's seeming ability, upon the consideration, that "someone reputable told you so".
Delusions are bad.
Therefore delusions should be let go.
So the next part becomes:
What is the purpose of sex without the delusional concepts attached to them?
The answer becomes "pleasure" or "procreation".
Is procreation harmful?
We're overpopulated, so I think, yes it it harmful.
Is pleasure-seeking harmful?
Pleasure seeking that disregards consequences or harm is selfish gratification, therefore it is harmful.
Nope. No sour grapes. Honest analysis. Seeing things for what they are, and not making them into something they're not, because that's called lying. I don't lie to myself.
Why?
Do you think they'll reproduce clones?
Vinaya says none or monks got kicked out of the order. I wonder why? Have you?
It's an unnecessary change. It would go against our mutual agreement that it's an expression of love.
Source?
It's no greater risk than riding my motorcycle (I might hit and kill someone). You don't take any risks in life? The risk is so small, it's negligible.
It can be in some cases, but isn't in this one.
No, my sex life does not harm animals or anything else you've listed.
*ONE OF the reasons sex is an expression of love is that it's a social norm. Sure
*SOME delusions are bad in SOME cases, SOME of the time.
Words are delusional, this whole argument is delusional. Everything transmitted through words and theories is delusional, but we can't grasp concepts otherwise. Some delusions are good and/or necessary.
Are you saying ALL social norms are inherently bad?
Important caveat there.
I'm sorry - I haven't understood that you were talking about those who have taken a vow. My comments applied to the laity.
No. And what relevance would it have?