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.
I'm sorry - I haven't understood that you were talking about those who have taken a vow. My comments applied to the laity.
Why?
No. And what relevance would it have?
There's always a reason for the rules in the Vinaya. I think it's becauses there are inherent difficulties and problems involved in and related to sexual activities.
Bhante Henepola Gunaratana said, "It is only when we get rid of our greed, lust and craving that we can liberate ourselves from suffering. You see, if our intention is to get rid of suffering, then we have to get rid of the cause of suffering, and lust is definitely the cause of suffering. So those who want to be a never returner have to get rid of that so that they can live a life that does not nourish the root of craving. Because as long as you are in it, your mind will be cluttered, clouded and confused and you will get involved in jealousy, fear, hatred, tension and so forth-all the worries that arise from lust. Therefore if you want to be liberated from all of that, you first have to get rid of lust. Actually, some people don't like the phrase "get rid of"; some people prefer words like "transcending" or "transforming." "Surely," they say, "we can transform 'lust' into 'nonlust'!"
Buddha outright said that it is better for a woman to swallow a red-hot iron ball than to engage in sexual activity and even that it was better for a man to stick his penis in a cobra than to engage in sexual activity. These are strong words....
You guys have me LOL with some of the arguments presented--what a great way to start a Sunday morning!
How did we get into discussing the pros and cons of sex? I thought we were discussing Kundalini and the bliss/enlightenment state it can bring on. There are more ways than one to raise the Kundalini, most of them celibate methods.
Anyway, to address Simon's comment that the concept of Kundalini came from India, I'd like to venture some conclusions I've drawn from reading a little about tantric practices. I'm far from an expert, corrections are welcome. But there's a fair amount of discussion in the Tibetan literature about generating "the inner fire", in the tummo practice, for one, and others. They don't use the term "Kundalini", but it's clear (to me, anyway) from the descriptions of the results that generating the "Inner Fire" produce, that the two are the same thing. According to my research, this Kundalini/Inner Fire phenomenon is an extremely ancient resource that has been tapped by humanity going back perhaps to the dawn of time, and originating, as far as I can tell, in Africa. Most cultures have not used sexual practice to generate this mystical energy, a few have/do. It is the basis of indigenous healing traditions in some cultures.
Sex needs to be handled responsibly, whether it's for expressing affection or for pursuing enlightenment, that's all I have to say about that.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
There's always a reason for the rules in the Vinaya. I think it's becauses there are inherent difficulties and problems involved in and related to sexual activities.
This discussion is being steered off-topic.
The original post had nothing to do with Vinaya.
Why suddenly it should be paramount in discussion is beyond me....
Bhante Henepola Gunaratana said, "It is only when we get rid of our greed, lust and craving that we can liberate ourselves from suffering. You see, if our intention is to get rid of suffering, then we have to get rid of the cause of suffering, and lust is definitely the cause of suffering. So those who want to be a never returner have to get rid of that so that they can live a life that does not nourish the root of craving. Because as long as you are in it, your mind will be cluttered, clouded and confused and you will get involved in jealousy, fear, hatred, tension and so forth-all the worries that arise from lust. Therefore if you want to be liberated from all of that, you first have to get rid of lust. Actually, some people don't like the phrase "get rid of"; some people prefer words like "transcending" or "transforming." "Surely," they say, "we can transform 'lust' into 'nonlust'!"
Cite sources, please.
Buddha outright said that it is better for a woman to swallow a red-hot iron ball than to engage in sexual activity and even that it was better for a man to stick his penis in a cobra than to engage in sexual activity. These are strong words....
Again, please quote sources.
Anything mentioned in this way requires verifiable link/source in order to view matters in context.
many thanks.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited November 2010
For those wishing to continue this discussion following the topic directive of the original post, here it is again:
For all the Americans here, do you feel as though sex is not discussed enough in America. It is such a taboo and hush-hush subject, that it is rarely mentioned either at school or at home. The only form of education on sex I received in school was a week long abstinence class. It was a laughing stock. They gave us plastic frogs to keep with us always so when temptation would arise, we could look at the frog and remember what we learned in abstinence class taught by a 70 year old lady.
When I turned 14, I expected the talk. Surprisingly to me, the only thing that was talked about was that I better not get a girl pregnant while not married. I live in a laid back moderate Christian family. I was stunned that nothing was mentioned about pre-marital sex, contraceptives or anything. Who knows, maybe I'll get some advice before I go to college.
It is sad really how one of the purest and most beautiful aspects of human biology has become a symbol of evil in too many of the religions of the world. It is also kind of sad that my primary education in sex was from my friends in 6th grade and watching Television.
It took place so long ago, mind, that the original posterprobably now looks like his avatar!!:D
The Buddha says, "haven't I taught the Dhamma in many ways for the fading of passion, the sobering of intoxication, the subduing of thirst, the destruction of attachment, the severing of the round, the ending of craving, dispassion, cessation, unbinding? Haven't I in many ways advocated abandoning sensual pleasures, comprehending sensual perceptions, subduing sensual thirst, destroying sensual thoughts, calming sensual fevers? Worthless man, it would be better that your penis be stuck into the mouth of a poisonous snake than into a woman's vagina. It would be better that your penis be stuck into the mouth of a black viper than into a woman's vagina. It would be better that your penis be stuck into a pit of burning embers, blazing and glowing, than into a woman's vagina. Why is that? For that reason you would undergo death or death-like suffering, but you would not on that account, at the break-up of the body, after death, fall into deprivation, the bad destination, the abyss, hell."
Meditate, O monk! Do not be heedless. Let not your mind whirl on sensual pleasures. Heedless, do not swallow a red-hot iron ball, lest you cry when burning, "O this is painful!"
The Buddha says, "haven't I taught the Dhamma in many ways for the fading of passion, the sobering of intoxication, the subduing of thirst, the destruction of attachment, the severing of the round, the ending of craving, dispassion, cessation, unbinding? Haven't I in many ways advocated abandoning sensual pleasures, comprehending sensual perceptions, subduing sensual thirst, destroying sensual thoughts, calming sensual fevers? Worthless man, it would be better that your penis be stuck into the mouth of a poisonous snake than into a woman's vagina. It would be better that your penis be stuck into the mouth of a black viper than into a woman's vagina. It would be better that your penis be stuck into a pit of burning embers, blazing and glowing, than into a woman's vagina. Why is that? For that reason you would undergo death or death-like suffering, but you would not on that account, at the break-up of the body, after death, fall into deprivation, the bad destination, the abyss, hell."]
How does this relate to discussing sex with young adolescents? Not everyone is cut out to live a monk's life. The Bush administration's emphasis on abstainance in school sex education has been acknowledged in numerous studies to have been a failure. Ideally, sex education would take place at home. But parents uncomfortable with discussing it relegate that responsibility to the schools. Young people who feel they're not getting the information they need can always turn to Planned Parenthood. That's what it's there for. They organize small group discussions, for males and females separately.
I think there's no doubt that this reluctance to discuss such an important aspect of life stems from the modern legacy of Puritanism and Victorianism. As far as I can tell from articles and talk shows, this problem doesn't exist in the African-American community, which has no cultural history of Puritanism. I don't know about the Native American community.
The Buddha says, "haven't I taught the Dhamma in many ways for the fading of passion, the sobering of intoxication, the subduing of thirst, the destruction of attachment, the severing of the round, the ending of craving, dispassion, cessation, unbinding? Haven't I in many ways advocated abandoning sensual pleasures, comprehending sensual perceptions, subduing sensual thirst, destroying sensual thoughts, calming sensual fevers? Worthless man, it would be better that your penis be stuck into the mouth of a poisonous snake than into a woman's vagina. It would be better that your penis be stuck into the mouth of a black viper than into a woman's vagina. It would be better that your penis be stuck into a pit of burning embers, blazing and glowing, than into a woman's vagina. Why is that? For that reason you would undergo death or death-like suffering, but you would not on that account, at the break-up of the body, after death, fall into deprivation, the bad destination, the abyss, hell."
lol, Buddha is not someone who pulls the punches when it's the right time! Rather sound advice in my opinon for someone who really wishes to escape birth and death. Of course it's not something he tells everyone to do! If we try to give up attachements too early we'll probably just end up failing and get angry.
How does this relate to discussing sex with young adolescents? Not everyone is cut out to live a monk's life. The Bush administration's emphasis on abstainance in school sex education has been acknowledged in numerous studies to have been a failure. Ideally, sex education would take place at home. But parents uncomfortable with discussing it relegate that responsibility to the schools. Young people who feel they're not getting the information they need can always turn to Planned Parenthood. That's what it's there for. They organize small group discussions, for males and females separately.
I think there's no doubt that this reluctance to discuss such an important aspect of life stems from the modern legacy of Puritanism and Victorianism.
I agree completely. When I've discussed the American take on sexuality with European friends, it's been remarked that Americans seem like children regarding sex: both obsessed and repulsed by it. It permeates our culture to a great extent and is used to sell everything under the sun, yet many people seem hostile to proper sex education that would enlighten as to the dangers (both in terms of disease/pregnancy, and mental/emotional harm to ourselves and others), in favour of abstinence-only education. Which, as has been pointed out by others, simply doesn't work.
And if I had a nickel for every time, when I worked at a video rental store, for every time that a parent came up to me with a violence-packed action or horror film, asking "does this have sex/nudity in it?"...They didn't want their children to see people making love, but killing each other in violent and gory ways, that was alright... :-/
There is still a strong Puritan notion that active sexuality = sin or taint of some kind, while chastity = moral rectitude. Which of course is ridiculous...how one treats others is, I think, of much more importance. A person can have had many lovers over their lifetime and yet be a kind and compassionate person, while on the other hand a person may be a virgin all their life and yet treat others cruelly.
Personally, I have determined that sex with others is of little interest to me; I make do with masturbation, though less and less now, and perhaps even that will cease as I rid myself of unnecessary attachments. I have been celibate for a few years now and think I may perhaps be so for the rest of my life; I don't miss the heartbreak and suffering brought on by romantic relationships and sex.
However...that's what I've determined works best for me. I shrink from the notion of imposing this on others...I know people who use sex not just for procreation but to truly become more intimate with loved ones...how could I possibly tell them they are wrong? Sexual contact/activity is a tool, and a tool may be used or misused. A hammer can be used to build a house..or to crack someone's skull open. But in the latter instance, this is not the fault of the hammer; it's been said that it's a poor craftsman that blames their tools. In the case of sex with others, I've put the tool down. But I'm not going to condemn someone else for using it, and using it properly; their situation is different from mine. Everyone's mileage varies.
Regarding the quoted suttas...I think one needs to keep culture and time period in mind; not everything from centuries ago is going to be 100% literally true and useful, particularly when one regards the breakthroughs made in science since then (and when I say science, I mean both in the physical and social sciences..evolutionary biology, psychology, sociology, etc). Fundamentalist Christians often quote Leviticus from their Bible as argument that homosexuality is wrong or sinful, never mind the fact that people back then were far less well informed about human nature and the universe in a number of respects.
I don't think the Buddha was wrong to warn of the dangers of sex in terms of attachment and suffering, but many other things could fit into this category as well (like alcohol and internet usage). Are we to condemn every self-professed Buddhst who takes so much as a sip of alcohol, as well?
It seems to me that if one takes it upon themselves to chastise Buddhists for not following the Buddha's words to the letter (and didn't he himself warn against blind dogmatism?), that's all they're going to have time to do...and it seems far less skillful and productive than emphasizing and concentrating on kindness and tolerance, which to me are the true heart of the Buddha's teachings anyway (as well as the true heart of every religion, in my opinion).
You hit the nail on the head, Artemis; the advantage of celibacy is that you miss out on all that drama. I think many people hope that the next partner will be "the one", but life doesn't work out so easily for many. And some people just plain aren't very picky,or have mental/emotional obstacles, and end up crashing and burning over and over. Life--samsara. Nobody said it was going to be easy.
RE; sip of alcohol--I think if one is going to take a vow, one should observe it. If you can't observe it consistently, don't take the vow. Nobody's holding a gun to your head. I understand the vow-taking business to be about developing a discipline, and striving to a higher, more inspired morality or way of life. This has been discussed on another thread ("how strict are you about the precepts". A Tibetan practitioner came on and clarified how vow-taking is supposed to work. You're not supposed to tailor compliance to your preferences and lifestyle.) I've read in books that one can choose what vows one wants to take (unless one's teacher gives one vows), and it's better to just take one or two, and keep them conscientiously, than take 5 or 10, and fudge from time to time. It is indeed a challenge; it's supposed to be. That's the point. One rises to the challenge. If one or another challenge is too great, leave it for someone else. Does this make sense?
Speaking of vows, and given that this thread is about sex, I have a question. Please forgive me if this is really ignorant. Is practicing tantra with a consort considered adultery? Yeshe Tsogyal had consorts while she was married to the king, with the king's approval. I don't know of examples of married male practitioners who had consorts. I'm not that type of practitioner, but I'm curious about how that plays out, vow-wise, morality-wise. Stupid question, maybe.
RE; sip of alcohol--I think if one is going to take a vow, one should observe it. If you can't observe it consistently, don't take the vow. Nobody's holding a gun to your head. I understand the vow-taking business to be about developing a discipline, and striving to a higher, more inspired morality or way of life.
You're assuming that all Buddhists have taken a vow to abstain from alcohol. I don't know of any such thing for the laity, except for the fifth precept, which cautions against intoxicating drinks that cause heedlessness. It seems to me (and I believed it's been argued in threads elsewhere on this forum) that if one partakes in moderation, this is not a problem.
Oh. My mistake; I assumed you were speaking about people who had taken a vow to abstain. So, you're saying that even though some people haven't taken a vow, they still do their best to observe the spirit of the vow, so to speak? I didn't know. I'd classify that as "Right Effort". It can't help but make the world a better place.
Being in a loving relationship can help cultivate your compassion and loving kindness
So don't be so hasty.
My intent wasn't to recommend celibacy to all, just to note one of the benefits. Loving relationships are great, but not everyone is so fortunate as to find one. There are other ways of cultivating compassion and loving-kindness. Opportunities are everywhere, I think.
Oh. My mistake; I assumed you were speaking about people who had taken a vow to abstain. So, you're saying that even though some people haven't taken a vow, they still do their best to observe the spirit of the vow, so to speak? I didn't know. I'd classify that as "Right Effort". It can't help but make the world a better place.
I would say that holding to the spirit of a given teaching is generally better than holding to the letter. Better to be a Valjean than a Javert in my opinion..
Personally, I have not yet officially taken refuge or sworn to uphold the five precepts but am already mostly living under those terms. When I drink alcohol, it is rarely and never to excess (I discovered in my early 20s that I didn't like being drunk or the loss of control, and so haven't drunk to intoxication since then). I have an amaretto sour or two with my meal sometimes when I eat out, because I like the taste of the drink, but that's it.
In keeping with the Buddha's and the Dalai Lama's teachings on moderation and the Middle Path, I try to avoid excess in any mood- or mind-altering substances, including even caffeine or Benadryl (the latter is useful for allergies, but can make one very very sleepy), and avoid altogether substances that are notorious for causing physiological addiction that would make moderate use nearly impossible (nicotine, cocaine, heroin, etc). I hope that clarifies! ^_^ (And sorry for going off-topic!)
I looked up the precepts, and you and others on other threads are right; the fifth says no "abusing" intoxicants, or not using them to the point of heedlessness. So I was mistaken. But commentary on the fifth say it "prohibits" intoxicants. Strange. Maybe that's why I always thought it did forbid intoxicants; some commentators seem to interpret it that way. Well, I've learned something today.
I looked up the precepts, and you and others on other threads are right; the fifth says no "abusing" intoxicants, or not using them to the point of heedlessness. So I was mistaken. But commentary on the fifth say it "prohibits" intoxicants. Strange. Maybe that's why I always thought it did forbid intoxicants; some commentators seem to interpret it that way. Well, I've learned something today.
Modern Buddhism seems to have evolved from the original format envisaged at the start of the Buddha's teaching journey.
The Fruit Punch Wizard kindly supplied links and, on the first, we find a useful introduction to the Vinaya which makes it clear that the system of rules, precepts and vows came about because the sangha was becoming "contaminated" by worldly values and practices.
It is one of the strengths of a teaching life spread over decades that the Buddha was able to adapt his teachings to many different situations and contexts.(*)
As Buddhism spread into different cultures and was almost wiped out in India, it has learned to adapt through the example of its Founder.
Coming to the West, Buddhism has had to find an accommodation with rapidly changing attitudes, as, indeed, do other faith families. Within my own life-time, homosexuality has been decriminalised, divorce has been liberalised and contraception has become easily available - within my own cultural context. Elsewhere, as has been pointed out, attitudes to sex and sexuality are different. Our dear young friend was enquiring (OP) about sex in America (by which I take him to mean the US rather than the whole continent).
My last visit to the USA was over 20 years ago but, even then, I was struck by the Puritan legacy of prurient disapproval of liberal sexuality linked to a lip-licking glorying in violence. This was their prevailing culture and, just as I would respect Muslim customs in Tehran, I was careful to conform to the norms in Oklahoma - this meant giving my taxi-driver a 'neutral' address when visiting a local gay club.
It is easy to imagine that, just because we communicate in English, we all have the same cultural norms and recognise the same imperatives. A little reflection shows how erroneous this is, so how is Buddhism to address these differences?
Should Buddhist commentators go down the route taken by other religious/totalitarian systems and lay down laws to be obeyed? I know what I think about this.
If not, how then should a Buddhist address their sexuality? I believe that we should acknowledge, to ourselves and to our children, that the libido is a strong and sometimes almost overwhelming urge - in both men and women; that it presents each one of us with a challenge. To meet that challenge we need information and, I would suggest, a practice of mindful awareness which we could be teaching our children from the earliest time possible.
As an aging European, I find the US attitude to sex uncongenial, whilst accepting that some, over there, may have the same reaction to mine.
____________________
(*) For those who cherish the Christian gospels, Jesus did the same: look at the encounter with the Syrio-Phoenician woman or with the soldier.
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?
It's simple Expressing your physical love to somebody can go lead into deep spiritual connection (as can other things) and ultimate trust to your other half. In a meaningful relationship with someone who isn't just "the village bike" sex can be something wonderful. I suppose just the over-advertising of it sort of puts a bad name on it to some people, not that I think sex should be a taboo topic. If you look at my previous posts, I'm sure you'd be able to tell. However, with lots of meaningless sex happening all the time, sex isn't appreciated for what it really is. But either way, sex isn't really important. Have it in your relationship or not, your choice.
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.
Wear a condom 'till your both "checked out" and keep each others' pleasure in mind, because this is a person you love. Greedy? Selfish? Unwholesome? I don't think so.
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.
And how is it other there in 1920? You clearly know nothing of human beings. I feel so much more happier thinking about two people just cuddling up and really loving each other. Or maybe I'm just odd The thought of sex scares me more from a relationship than the thought of love or commitment.
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.
Sex as an expression of love is a social norm.
Violence is a social norm.
Violence is bad.
Therefore, sex is bad? No!
Unwholesome Love = attachements, afflictions, craving and greed etc
Wholesome Love = devotion, respect and acceptance
^Those are good Guidelines when you want to follow the precept of "refrain from sexual misconduct". Can be practices by everyone differently based on their own preferences if they are not ready to let go of sexual desire yet. Mind you, it's giving someone another chance to be reborn as a human being.
Not everyone's had the same life experience or Karmic connections/retributions hence we can't really force any of our ethical views on any body else until they are ready to change.
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.
Heterosexism :rolleyes: CONDOM! CONDOM! Will you ever acknowledge the existence?
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.
Delusion is ever I saw it :hm: This will not end well...
Vinaya says none or monks got kicked out of the order. I wonder why? Have you?
They're monks. Most of us here are laypeople, some aren't even Buddhists. Buddhists are not required to follow the five precepts, however one precept states no sexual misconduct. I'm sure we all here agree with that. It does not, however, state, "no sexual activity." Without sex we'd die out. Therefore you must believe some sex is all right. Even if you don't think we should be able to have sex when we want, even if it's harmless, which you clearly believe is impossible, you have to recognise at some point in our existence it is necessary.
You have a valid point, however it is naturally imprinted into our brain to reproduce, and for our produce to reproduce also. I myself feel no urge, to my father's annoyance, but many people do.
There's always a reason for the rules in the Vinaya. I think it's becauses there are inherent difficulties and problems involved in and related to sexual activities.
Bhante Henepola Gunaratana said, "It is only when we get rid of our greed, lust and craving that we can liberate ourselves from suffering. You see, if our intention is to get rid of suffering, then we have to get rid of the cause of suffering, and lust is definitely the cause of suffering. So those who want to be a never returner have to get rid of that so that they can live a life that does not nourish the root of craving. Because as long as you are in it, your mind will be cluttered, clouded and confused and you will get involved in jealousy, fear, hatred, tension and so forth-all the worries that arise from lust. Therefore if you want to be liberated from all of that, you first have to get rid of lust. Actually, some people don't like the phrase "get rid of"; some people prefer words like "transcending" or "transforming." "Surely," they say, "we can transform 'lust' into 'nonlust'!"
Buddha outright said that it is better for a woman to swallow a red-hot iron ball than to engage in sexual activity and even that it was better for a man to stick his penis in a cobra than to engage in sexual activity. These are strong words....
The "why?" to Simon made no sense
We are talking about non lustful sex being good.
I'm certain the Buddha did not say those words, because
1. He himself had a son, so therefore had sex
2. He was an educated, enlightened man. Anybody without a serious brain defect (and yes, if you believe those words you have a serious brain defect) can see swallowing a red-hot iron ball, and even more so having sex with a cobra, could see that would cause an incredible amount more damage than sex, perhaps even more than rape.
You guys have me LOL with some of the arguments presented--what a great way to start a Sunday morning!
How did we get into discussing the pros and cons of sex? I thought we were discussing Kundalini and the bliss/enlightenment state it can bring on. There are more ways than one to raise the Kundalini, most of them celibate methods.
Anyway, to address Simon's comment that the concept of Kundalini came from India, I'd like to venture some conclusions I've drawn from reading a little about tantric practices. I'm far from an expert, corrections are welcome. But there's a fair amount of discussion in the Tibetan literature about generating "the inner fire", in the tummo practice, for one, and others. They don't use the term "Kundalini", but it's clear (to me, anyway) from the descriptions of the results that generating the "Inner Fire" produce, that the two are the same thing. According to my research, this Kundalini/Inner Fire phenomenon is an extremely ancient resource that has been tapped by humanity going back perhaps to the dawn of time, and originating, as far as I can tell, in Africa. Most cultures have not used sexual practice to generate this mystical energy, a few have/do. It is the basis of indigenous healing traditions in some cultures.
Sex needs to be handled responsibly, whether it's for expressing affection or for pursuing enlightenment, that's all I have to say about that.
An angel hath descended from Heaven Thank you, I found that a very interesting resource
I agree completely. When I've discussed the American take on sexuality with European friends, it's been remarked that Americans seem like children regarding sex: both obsessed and repulsed by it. It permeates our culture to a great extent and is used to sell everything under the sun, yet many people seem hostile to proper sex education that would enlighten as to the dangers (both in terms of disease/pregnancy, and mental/emotional harm to ourselves and others), in favour of abstinence-only education. Which, as has been pointed out by others, simply doesn't work.
And if I had a nickel for every time, when I worked at a video rental store, for every time that a parent came up to me with a violence-packed action or horror film, asking "does this have sex/nudity in it?"...They didn't want their children to see people making love, but killing each other in violent and gory ways, that was alright... :-/
There is still a strong Puritan notion that active sexuality = sin or taint of some kind, while chastity = moral rectitude. Which of course is ridiculous...how one treats others is, I think, of much more importance. A person can have had many lovers over their lifetime and yet be a kind and compassionate person, while on the other hand a person may be a virgin all their life and yet treat others cruelly.
Personally, I have determined that sex with others is of little interest to me; I make do with masturbation, though less and less now, and perhaps even that will cease as I rid myself of unnecessary attachments. I have been celibate for a few years now and think I may perhaps be so for the rest of my life; I don't miss the heartbreak and suffering brought on by romantic relationships and sex.
However...that's what I've determined works best for me. I shrink from the notion of imposing this on others...I know people who use sex not just for procreation but to truly become more intimate with loved ones...how could I possibly tell them they are wrong? Sexual contact/activity is a tool, and a tool may be used or misused. A hammer can be used to build a house..or to crack someone's skull open. But in the latter instance, this is not the fault of the hammer; it's been said that it's a poor craftsman that blames their tools. In the case of sex with others, I've put the tool down. But I'm not going to condemn someone else for using it, and using it properly; their situation is different from mine. Everyone's mileage varies.
Regarding the quoted suttas...I think one needs to keep culture and time period in mind; not everything from centuries ago is going to be 100% literally true and useful, particularly when one regards the breakthroughs made in science since then (and when I say science, I mean both in the physical and social sciences..evolutionary biology, psychology, sociology, etc). Fundamentalist Christians often quote Leviticus from their Bible as argument that homosexuality is wrong or sinful, never mind the fact that people back then were far less well informed about human nature and the universe in a number of respects.
I don't think the Buddha was wrong to warn of the dangers of sex in terms of attachment and suffering, but many other things could fit into this category as well (like alcohol and internet usage). Are we to condemn every self-professed Buddhst who takes so much as a sip of alcohol, as well?
It seems to me that if one takes it upon themselves to chastise Buddhists for not following the Buddha's words to the letter (and didn't he himself warn against blind dogmatism?), that's all they're going to have time to do...and it seems far less skillful and productive than emphasizing and concentrating on kindness and tolerance, which to me are the true heart of the Buddha's teachings anyway (as well as the true heart of every religion, in my opinion).
Modern Buddhism seems to have evolved from the original format envisaged at the start of the Buddha's teaching journey.
The Fruit Punch Wizard kindly supplied links and, on the first, we find a useful introduction to the Vinaya which makes it clear that the system of rules, precepts and vows came about because the sangha was becoming "contaminated" by worldly values and practices.
It is one of the strengths of a teaching life spread over decades that the Buddha was able to adapt his teachings to many different situations and contexts.(*)
As Buddhism spread into different cultures and was almost wiped out in India, it has learned to adapt through the example of its Founder.
Coming to the West, Buddhism has had to find an accommodation with rapidly changing attitudes, as, indeed, do other faith families. Within my own life-time, homosexuality has been decriminalised, divorce has been liberalised and contraception has become easily available - within my own cultural context. Elsewhere, as has been pointed out, attitudes to sex and sexuality are different. Our dear young friend was enquiring (OP) about sex in America (by which I take him to mean the US rather than the whole continent).
My last visit to the USA was over 20 years ago but, even then, I was struck by the Puritan legacy of prurient disapproval of liberal sexuality linked to a lip-licking glorying in violence. This was their prevailing culture and, just as I would respect Muslim customs in Tehran, I was careful to conform to the norms in Oklahoma - this meant giving my taxi-driver a 'neutral' address when visiting a local gay club.
It is easy to imagine that, just because we communicate in English, we all have the same cultural norms and recognise the same imperatives. A little reflection shows how erroneous this is, so how is Buddhism to address these differences?
Should Buddhist commentators go down the route taken by other religious/totalitarian systems and lay down laws to be obeyed? I know what I think about this.
If not, how then should a Buddhist address their sexuality? I believe that we should acknowledge, to ourselves and to our children, that the libido is a strong and sometimes almost overwhelming urge - in both men and women; that it presents each one of us with a challenge. To meet that challenge we need information and, I would suggest, a practice of mindful awareness which we could be teaching our children from the earliest time possible.
As an aging European, I find the US attitude to sex uncongenial, whilst accepting that some, over there, may have the same reaction to mine.
____________________
(*) For those who cherish the Christian gospels, Jesus did the same: look at the encounter with the Syrio-Phoenician woman or with the soldier.
Simon, I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the US. Did you try San Francisco? It's a beautiful city, and the opposite of the Midwest pretty much, in terms of mores. The Midwest is the infamous "Bible Belt". 'nuff said. Next time, head for cities on the West Coast, or maybe NY City.
I'm not sure that the attitudes Simon ran into in Oklahoma are representative of the US population at large. And I can't help wondering if the 60's and 70's didn't do away with some of that Puritanism, at least on the more liberal East and West Coast. Are 60's and 70's generation parents more likely to talk to their kids about sex, more comfortable with that?
Simon, I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the US. Did you try San Francisco? It's a beautiful city, and the opposite of the Midwest pretty much, in terms of mores. The Midwest is the infamous "Bible Belt". 'nuff said. Next time, head for cities on the West Coast, or maybe NY City.
Dear Dakini,
I actually loved Texas and Oklahoma. The people I met (with a few exceptions, as everywhere) were wonderfully friendly. I was there over your Thanksgiving rituals and, when a couple I met in the a/m gay club heard that I was on my own in the sterility of the Hilton, I was gathered up, introduced to a delightful young man and given a Thanksgiving to remember! I found the worship of a strange dance on the television between over-kitted men barging into each other and running around in the snow very confusing but my hosts were carried away by this encounter between two sets of acolytes from Dallas.
I should have loved to re-visit and to learn more, particularly as I was invited to a Cheyenne wedding. Unfortunately, my disreputable and clearly dangerous past as a peace campaigner has caused the High Priests of Security to become very reluctant to allow me into the Sanctuary of the Homeland.
Simon, I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the US. Did you try San Francisco? It's a beautiful city, and the opposite of the Midwest pretty much, in terms of mores. The Midwest is the infamous "Bible Belt". 'nuff said. Next time, head for cities on the West Coast, or maybe NY City.
NEW YORK CITY!!! :viking:
(My dad's cousin, her boyfriend and dog live there ). Another of my dad's cousins, her husband and daughter live in Seattle. Another of my dad's cousins, her husband, two daughters, son and three dogs live in Germany. The seventh state I believe? A place called Asbach
I'm not sure that the attitudes Simon ran into in Oklahoma are representative of the US population at large. And I can't help wondering if the 60's and 70's didn't do away with some of that Puritanism, at least on the more liberal East and West Coast. Are 60's and 70's generation parents more likely to talk to their kids about sex, more comfortable with that?
I have found that American shows tend to be a bit, nay a significant, amount more homophobic and heterosexist than British soaps and shows, which have even done away with heterosexism, which is still incredibly common, in every culture, it seems. But it's nice to see the world grow up
This raises questions about whether one can judge a nation by its entertainment and marketing industries. TV and movies tend to aim for the lowest common denominator; lots of people complain about a "dumbing down" of popular culture (and education as well), and about marketing what industry thinks will sell. I think if more variety were presented, people would choose more diverse and higher-quality programming. Or...maybe I'm dreaming. But it is a pretty macho culture here--cowboys, and all that. Non-macho guys don't have any role models as they're growing up. And I've never understood why there's so much violence. It seems like police detective shows dominate the TV programming. But we're getting off-topic.
Anyway, what I was trying to say was that the coasts tend to be more liberal in a lot of ways, than the center of the country. Though there are many conservative pockets in the coastal states.
I should have loved to re-visit and to learn more, particularly as I was invited to a Cheyenne wedding. Unfortunately, my disreputable and clearly dangerous past as a peace campaigner has caused the High Priests of Security to become very reluctant to allow me into the Sanctuary of the Homeland.
Sorry to hear you've been banned. I see the gov't is using terrorism concerns as an excuse to ban anyone deemed "undesirable". Funny--I thought this country was based on Freedom of Speech and the like.
That's an honor to be invited to a Native wedding. Did you know that generally speaking Native Americans are very mellow with regard to "3rd Gender" people, or "Two-Spirits"? With the exception of areas where churches have had a lot of influence, they're regarded as perfectly normal, and nothing at all remarkable. I'm so glad we have other cultures here; I'm not a huge fan of the dominant culture.
Simon; you might enjoy this book: "Two-Spirit People: Native American Gender, Identity, Sexuality and Spirituality", by Sue-Ellen Jacobs and Wesley Thomas (Navajo)
I was, indeed, very honoured by the invitation - and to be asked to sit with the Elders. Nevertheless, I cannot regret my arrests for anti-nuclear and other peace demonstrations, particularly as I never raised my hand against my arresters.
The book looks interesting (I've now read the "Look inside" excerpts). I wish I could afford it. Thank you for the recommendation: I have added it to my gift list.
This raises questions about whether one can judge a nation by its entertainment and marketing industries. TV and movies tend to aim for the lowest common denominator; lots of people complain about a "dumbing down" of popular culture (and education as well), and about marketing what industry thinks will sell. I think if more variety were presented, people would choose more diverse and higher-quality programming. Or...maybe I'm dreaming. But it is a pretty macho culture here--cowboys, and all that. Non-macho guys don't have any role models as they're growing up. And I've never understood why there's so much violence. It seems like police detective shows dominate the TV programming. But we're getting off-topic.
Anyway, what I was trying to say was that the coasts tend to be more liberal in a lot of ways, than the center of the country. Though there are many conservative pockets in the coastal states.
:hrm: You saying gays can't be macho?
And I'd be the last to judge a nation on their programmes. Well, you'd think
Simon; you might enjoy this book: "Two-Spirit People: Native American Gender, Identity, Sexuality and Spirituality", by Sue-Ellen Jacobs and Wesley Thomas (Navajo)
Native Americans where the first to accept homosexuality weren't they?
I was, indeed, very honoured by the invitation - and to be asked to sit with the Elders. Nevertheless, I cannot regret my arrests for anti-nuclear and other peace demonstrations, particularly as I never raised my hand against my arresters.
The book looks interesting (I've now read the "Look inside" excerpts). I wish I could afford it. Thank you for the recommendation: I have added it to my gift list.
That was a misunderstanding. I said "non-macho guys", meaning hetero guys who are turned off by the macho stereotype. Young hetero men who want to be more gentle, thoughtful sorts have a difficult time finding role models in the US. A couple of young men I spoke to about this said that in college, they hung out with the gay professors. All well and good, but why is there not much "in-between" in US culture?
Comments
Why?
There's always a reason for the rules in the Vinaya. I think it's becauses there are inherent difficulties and problems involved in and related to sexual activities.
Bhante Henepola Gunaratana said, "It is only when we get rid of our greed, lust and craving that we can liberate ourselves from suffering. You see, if our intention is to get rid of suffering, then we have to get rid of the cause of suffering, and lust is definitely the cause of suffering. So those who want to be a never returner have to get rid of that so that they can live a life that does not nourish the root of craving. Because as long as you are in it, your mind will be cluttered, clouded and confused and you will get involved in jealousy, fear, hatred, tension and so forth-all the worries that arise from lust. Therefore if you want to be liberated from all of that, you first have to get rid of lust. Actually, some people don't like the phrase "get rid of"; some people prefer words like "transcending" or "transforming." "Surely," they say, "we can transform 'lust' into 'nonlust'!"
Buddha outright said that it is better for a woman to swallow a red-hot iron ball than to engage in sexual activity and even that it was better for a man to stick his penis in a cobra than to engage in sexual activity. These are strong words....
How did we get into discussing the pros and cons of sex? I thought we were discussing Kundalini and the bliss/enlightenment state it can bring on. There are more ways than one to raise the Kundalini, most of them celibate methods.
Anyway, to address Simon's comment that the concept of Kundalini came from India, I'd like to venture some conclusions I've drawn from reading a little about tantric practices. I'm far from an expert, corrections are welcome. But there's a fair amount of discussion in the Tibetan literature about generating "the inner fire", in the tummo practice, for one, and others. They don't use the term "Kundalini", but it's clear (to me, anyway) from the descriptions of the results that generating the "Inner Fire" produce, that the two are the same thing. According to my research, this Kundalini/Inner Fire phenomenon is an extremely ancient resource that has been tapped by humanity going back perhaps to the dawn of time, and originating, as far as I can tell, in Africa. Most cultures have not used sexual practice to generate this mystical energy, a few have/do. It is the basis of indigenous healing traditions in some cultures.
Sex needs to be handled responsibly, whether it's for expressing affection or for pursuing enlightenment, that's all I have to say about that.
The original post had nothing to do with Vinaya.
Why suddenly it should be paramount in discussion is beyond me....
Cite sources, please.
Again, please quote sources.
Anything mentioned in this way requires verifiable link/source in order to view matters in context.
many thanks.
It took place so long ago, mind, that the original posterprobably now looks like his avatar!!:D
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1/bmc1.intro.html
For the interview with Bhante Henepola Gunaratana, take a look.
http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j13/bhante.asp?page=2
Meditate, O monk! Do not be heedless. Let not your mind whirl on sensual pleasures. Heedless, do not swallow a red-hot iron ball, lest you cry when burning, "O this is painful!"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.25.budd.html
:thumbsup:
How does this relate to discussing sex with young adolescents? Not everyone is cut out to live a monk's life. The Bush administration's emphasis on abstainance in school sex education has been acknowledged in numerous studies to have been a failure. Ideally, sex education would take place at home. But parents uncomfortable with discussing it relegate that responsibility to the schools. Young people who feel they're not getting the information they need can always turn to Planned Parenthood. That's what it's there for. They organize small group discussions, for males and females separately.
I think there's no doubt that this reluctance to discuss such an important aspect of life stems from the modern legacy of Puritanism and Victorianism. As far as I can tell from articles and talk shows, this problem doesn't exist in the African-American community, which has no cultural history of Puritanism. I don't know about the Native American community.
"She"......;)
Oh, I apologize! My mistake!
I agree completely. When I've discussed the American take on sexuality with European friends, it's been remarked that Americans seem like children regarding sex: both obsessed and repulsed by it. It permeates our culture to a great extent and is used to sell everything under the sun, yet many people seem hostile to proper sex education that would enlighten as to the dangers (both in terms of disease/pregnancy, and mental/emotional harm to ourselves and others), in favour of abstinence-only education. Which, as has been pointed out by others, simply doesn't work.
And if I had a nickel for every time, when I worked at a video rental store, for every time that a parent came up to me with a violence-packed action or horror film, asking "does this have sex/nudity in it?"...They didn't want their children to see people making love, but killing each other in violent and gory ways, that was alright... :-/
There is still a strong Puritan notion that active sexuality = sin or taint of some kind, while chastity = moral rectitude. Which of course is ridiculous...how one treats others is, I think, of much more importance. A person can have had many lovers over their lifetime and yet be a kind and compassionate person, while on the other hand a person may be a virgin all their life and yet treat others cruelly.
Personally, I have determined that sex with others is of little interest to me; I make do with masturbation, though less and less now, and perhaps even that will cease as I rid myself of unnecessary attachments. I have been celibate for a few years now and think I may perhaps be so for the rest of my life; I don't miss the heartbreak and suffering brought on by romantic relationships and sex.
However...that's what I've determined works best for me. I shrink from the notion of imposing this on others...I know people who use sex not just for procreation but to truly become more intimate with loved ones...how could I possibly tell them they are wrong? Sexual contact/activity is a tool, and a tool may be used or misused. A hammer can be used to build a house..or to crack someone's skull open. But in the latter instance, this is not the fault of the hammer; it's been said that it's a poor craftsman that blames their tools. In the case of sex with others, I've put the tool down. But I'm not going to condemn someone else for using it, and using it properly; their situation is different from mine. Everyone's mileage varies.
Regarding the quoted suttas...I think one needs to keep culture and time period in mind; not everything from centuries ago is going to be 100% literally true and useful, particularly when one regards the breakthroughs made in science since then (and when I say science, I mean both in the physical and social sciences..evolutionary biology, psychology, sociology, etc). Fundamentalist Christians often quote Leviticus from their Bible as argument that homosexuality is wrong or sinful, never mind the fact that people back then were far less well informed about human nature and the universe in a number of respects.
I don't think the Buddha was wrong to warn of the dangers of sex in terms of attachment and suffering, but many other things could fit into this category as well (like alcohol and internet usage). Are we to condemn every self-professed Buddhst who takes so much as a sip of alcohol, as well?
It seems to me that if one takes it upon themselves to chastise Buddhists for not following the Buddha's words to the letter (and didn't he himself warn against blind dogmatism?), that's all they're going to have time to do...and it seems far less skillful and productive than emphasizing and concentrating on kindness and tolerance, which to me are the true heart of the Buddha's teachings anyway (as well as the true heart of every religion, in my opinion).
RE; sip of alcohol--I think if one is going to take a vow, one should observe it. If you can't observe it consistently, don't take the vow. Nobody's holding a gun to your head. I understand the vow-taking business to be about developing a discipline, and striving to a higher, more inspired morality or way of life. This has been discussed on another thread ("how strict are you about the precepts". A Tibetan practitioner came on and clarified how vow-taking is supposed to work. You're not supposed to tailor compliance to your preferences and lifestyle.) I've read in books that one can choose what vows one wants to take (unless one's teacher gives one vows), and it's better to just take one or two, and keep them conscientiously, than take 5 or 10, and fudge from time to time. It is indeed a challenge; it's supposed to be. That's the point. One rises to the challenge. If one or another challenge is too great, leave it for someone else. Does this make sense?
Speaking of vows, and given that this thread is about sex, I have a question. Please forgive me if this is really ignorant. Is practicing tantra with a consort considered adultery? Yeshe Tsogyal had consorts while she was married to the king, with the king's approval. I don't know of examples of married male practitioners who had consorts. I'm not that type of practitioner, but I'm curious about how that plays out, vow-wise, morality-wise. Stupid question, maybe.
You're assuming that all Buddhists have taken a vow to abstain from alcohol. I don't know of any such thing for the laity, except for the fifth precept, which cautions against intoxicating drinks that cause heedlessness. It seems to me (and I believed it's been argued in threads elsewhere on this forum) that if one partakes in moderation, this is not a problem.
So don't be so hasty.
My intent wasn't to recommend celibacy to all, just to note one of the benefits. Loving relationships are great, but not everyone is so fortunate as to find one. There are other ways of cultivating compassion and loving-kindness. Opportunities are everywhere, I think.
I agree! I am involved in several loving relationships. ^_^
I would say that holding to the spirit of a given teaching is generally better than holding to the letter. Better to be a Valjean than a Javert in my opinion..
Personally, I have not yet officially taken refuge or sworn to uphold the five precepts but am already mostly living under those terms. When I drink alcohol, it is rarely and never to excess (I discovered in my early 20s that I didn't like being drunk or the loss of control, and so haven't drunk to intoxication since then). I have an amaretto sour or two with my meal sometimes when I eat out, because I like the taste of the drink, but that's it.
In keeping with the Buddha's and the Dalai Lama's teachings on moderation and the Middle Path, I try to avoid excess in any mood- or mind-altering substances, including even caffeine or Benadryl (the latter is useful for allergies, but can make one very very sleepy), and avoid altogether substances that are notorious for causing physiological addiction that would make moderate use nearly impossible (nicotine, cocaine, heroin, etc). I hope that clarifies! ^_^ (And sorry for going off-topic!)
Modern Buddhism seems to have evolved from the original format envisaged at the start of the Buddha's teaching journey.
The Fruit Punch Wizard kindly supplied links and, on the first, we find a useful introduction to the Vinaya which makes it clear that the system of rules, precepts and vows came about because the sangha was becoming "contaminated" by worldly values and practices.
It is one of the strengths of a teaching life spread over decades that the Buddha was able to adapt his teachings to many different situations and contexts.(*)
As Buddhism spread into different cultures and was almost wiped out in India, it has learned to adapt through the example of its Founder.
Coming to the West, Buddhism has had to find an accommodation with rapidly changing attitudes, as, indeed, do other faith families. Within my own life-time, homosexuality has been decriminalised, divorce has been liberalised and contraception has become easily available - within my own cultural context. Elsewhere, as has been pointed out, attitudes to sex and sexuality are different. Our dear young friend was enquiring (OP) about sex in America (by which I take him to mean the US rather than the whole continent).
My last visit to the USA was over 20 years ago but, even then, I was struck by the Puritan legacy of prurient disapproval of liberal sexuality linked to a lip-licking glorying in violence. This was their prevailing culture and, just as I would respect Muslim customs in Tehran, I was careful to conform to the norms in Oklahoma - this meant giving my taxi-driver a 'neutral' address when visiting a local gay club.
It is easy to imagine that, just because we communicate in English, we all have the same cultural norms and recognise the same imperatives. A little reflection shows how erroneous this is, so how is Buddhism to address these differences?
Should Buddhist commentators go down the route taken by other religious/totalitarian systems and lay down laws to be obeyed? I know what I think about this.
If not, how then should a Buddhist address their sexuality? I believe that we should acknowledge, to ourselves and to our children, that the libido is a strong and sometimes almost overwhelming urge - in both men and women; that it presents each one of us with a challenge. To meet that challenge we need information and, I would suggest, a practice of mindful awareness which we could be teaching our children from the earliest time possible.
As an aging European, I find the US attitude to sex uncongenial, whilst accepting that some, over there, may have the same reaction to mine.
____________________
(*) For those who cherish the Christian gospels, Jesus did the same: look at the encounter with the Syrio-Phoenician woman or with the soldier.
It's simple
I didn't really consider it an attack, but I didn't know another word, so I just put "" marks around the word "attack".
Wear a condom 'till your both "checked out" and keep each others' pleasure in mind, because this is a person you love. Greedy? Selfish? Unwholesome? I don't think so.
And how is it other there in 1920? You clearly know nothing of human beings. I feel so much more happier thinking about two people just cuddling up and really loving each other. Or maybe I'm just odd
Never thought of the scientific reasons... helps a lot to get more reasonable people to be... em... reasonable.
The kettle's calling the pot black.
Violent sex is bad. Loving sex isn't.
Wholesome Love = devotion, respect and acceptance
^Those are good Guidelines when you want to follow the precept of "refrain from sexual misconduct". Can be practices by everyone differently based on their own preferences if they are not ready to let go of sexual desire yet. Mind you, it's giving someone another chance to be reborn as a human being.
Not everyone's had the same life experience or Karmic connections/retributions hence we can't really force any of our ethical views on any body else until they are ready to change.
Heterosexism :rolleyes: CONDOM! CONDOM! Will you ever acknowledge the existence?
They're monks. Most of us here are laypeople, some aren't even Buddhists. Buddhists are not required to follow the five precepts, however one precept states no sexual misconduct. I'm sure we all here agree with that. It does not, however, state, "no sexual activity." Without sex we'd die out. Therefore you must believe some sex is all right. Even if you don't think we should be able to have sex when we want, even if it's harmless, which you clearly believe is impossible, you have to recognise at some point in our existence it is necessary.
You have a valid point
The "why?" to Simon made no sense
We are talking about non lustful sex being good.
I'm certain the Buddha did not say those words, because
1. He himself had a son, so therefore had sex
2. He was an educated, enlightened man. Anybody without a serious brain defect (and yes, if you believe those words you have a serious brain defect) can see swallowing a red-hot iron ball, and even more so having sex with a cobra, could see that would cause an incredible amount more damage than sex, perhaps even more than rape.
An angel hath descended from Heaven
Hence the middle path
:thumbsup:
Dear Dakini,
I actually loved Texas and Oklahoma. The people I met (with a few exceptions, as everywhere) were wonderfully friendly. I was there over your Thanksgiving rituals and, when a couple I met in the a/m gay club heard that I was on my own in the sterility of the Hilton, I was gathered up, introduced to a delightful young man and given a Thanksgiving to remember! I found the worship of a strange dance on the television between over-kitted men barging into each other and running around in the snow very confusing but my hosts were carried away by this encounter between two sets of acolytes from Dallas.
I should have loved to re-visit and to learn more, particularly as I was invited to a Cheyenne wedding. Unfortunately, my disreputable and clearly dangerous past as a peace campaigner has caused the High Priests of Security to become very reluctant to allow me into the Sanctuary of the Homeland.
ROTFLMAO
NEW YORK CITY!!! :viking:
(My dad's cousin, her boyfriend and dog live there
I have found that American shows tend to be a bit, nay a significant, amount more homophobic and heterosexist than British soaps and shows, which have even done away with heterosexism, which is still incredibly common, in every culture, it seems. But it's nice to see the world grow up
Anyway, what I was trying to say was that the coasts tend to be more liberal in a lot of ways, than the center of the country. Though there are many conservative pockets in the coastal states.
Sorry to hear you've been banned. I see the gov't is using terrorism concerns as an excuse to ban anyone deemed "undesirable". Funny--I thought this country was based on Freedom of Speech and the like.
That's an honor to be invited to a Native wedding. Did you know that generally speaking Native Americans are very mellow with regard to "3rd Gender" people, or "Two-Spirits"? With the exception of areas where churches have had a lot of influence, they're regarded as perfectly normal, and nothing at all remarkable. I'm so glad we have other cultures here; I'm not a huge fan of the dominant culture.
I was, indeed, very honoured by the invitation - and to be asked to sit with the Elders. Nevertheless, I cannot regret my arrests for anti-nuclear and other peace demonstrations, particularly as I never raised my hand against my arresters.
The book looks interesting (I've now read the "Look inside" excerpts). I wish I could afford it. Thank you for the recommendation: I have added it to my gift list.
:hrm: You saying gays can't be macho?
And I'd be the last to judge a nation on their programmes. Well, you'd think
Native Americans where the first to accept homosexuality weren't they?
Who are the Elders?
That was a misunderstanding. I said "non-macho guys", meaning hetero guys who are turned off by the macho stereotype. Young hetero men who want to be more gentle, thoughtful sorts have a difficult time finding role models in the US. A couple of young men I spoke to about this said that in college, they hung out with the gay professors. All well and good, but why is there not much "in-between" in US culture?