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.
Sexuality
Xrayman
Veteran
thought that heading would get you to read this.
Recently, the subject of sexuality came up at my house.
During my teenage years at school I was harassed and bullied terribly for the first three-or so years of high school. For two reasons, I didn't speak like "the croc hunter" (a terrrible australian drawl) and I was seen as a "brain-geek-nerd' whatever is the worst of the three in your particular demographic. as a result of this (although it seems almost non-sensical now) my sexuality was questioned. many times I was attacked for no other reason than I appeared not "blokey" enough.
latinaMermaid mentioned in a post that she is coming to terms with her sexuality at 45. well i think I may be doing the same. while I maintain and am convinced that I am hetro, I still feel an intense affinity for women-not to be one, but to be around them. my mrs sees aspects of this and I think she feels and has said that there is a kind of bisexual aspect to my sexuality. This does not bother her except for the fact of perhaps losing me (to a man)-Something which I know would definitely NOT EVER happen (no I'm not in denial either).
The true clinical meaning of bisexuality is possessing elements of both sexes (rather than having or wanting sex with two sexes). Would this put me in the box of Bisexual? -what do others think? do you or have you experienced anything like this?
Am I complete nutbag?
bi bi (stupid joke)
Recently, the subject of sexuality came up at my house.
During my teenage years at school I was harassed and bullied terribly for the first three-or so years of high school. For two reasons, I didn't speak like "the croc hunter" (a terrrible australian drawl) and I was seen as a "brain-geek-nerd' whatever is the worst of the three in your particular demographic. as a result of this (although it seems almost non-sensical now) my sexuality was questioned. many times I was attacked for no other reason than I appeared not "blokey" enough.
latinaMermaid mentioned in a post that she is coming to terms with her sexuality at 45. well i think I may be doing the same. while I maintain and am convinced that I am hetro, I still feel an intense affinity for women-not to be one, but to be around them. my mrs sees aspects of this and I think she feels and has said that there is a kind of bisexual aspect to my sexuality. This does not bother her except for the fact of perhaps losing me (to a man)-Something which I know would definitely NOT EVER happen (no I'm not in denial either).
The true clinical meaning of bisexuality is possessing elements of both sexes (rather than having or wanting sex with two sexes). Would this put me in the box of Bisexual? -what do others think? do you or have you experienced anything like this?
Am I complete nutbag?
bi bi (stupid joke)
0
Comments
somewhere there is a rule called the index of sexuality (help me here) I think.
it looks similar to this.
let's say -7 is totally "female" both physically and mentally
and +7 "male" physically and mentally.
7...6...5....4...3...2...1..0...1...2...3...4...5..7
zero is pefectly bi-sexual pysically (hermaphrodite) and mentally.
I think I fit due to body type-(ectomorph) at about a +2or3, mentally I think I sit about a -3does this=screwed-up???
i wouldn't want to change sex physically, but (like STP said) I think i'm in a nebulous area "the outer section of the bell curve" ???
what do you all think of this theory???
I think it's dangerous nonsense.
I think that a less rigid and more flexible sense of identity, whether that's sexual or what have you, is a very good thing. The very first thing I learned about Buddhism was that is was also called the Middle Way and that's what I use as my litmus test for all things. I believe spiritual, emotional and physical health are at their strongest in the middle.
So please don't worry, Xray. From what I know about you I'd be inclined to say that you're a pretty well integrated personality when it comes to male and female traits. You're a good balance, mate.
Palzang
When it comes to things like sexuality, I firmly believe that nobody has any authority whatsoever to judge anyone else based upon such things. The only authority that they truly have is ignorance. I do not think that being yourself is wrong, and I think that it is unspeakable to make someone feel ashamed of who they are based upon things like gender, race, sexuality, et cetera. If a person is attracted to the opposite sex, the same sex, both, or neither, then for whatever reason, that is simply the way that they are.
If G_d is real, then G_d makes a person the way that they are, so I do not see how the church can judge them one way or the other. If G_d is not real, and it is due to a combination of social and psychological causes that makes a person the way that they are, then society is partially responsible, so I do not see how society can judge them. Even if neither is true, and it is purely a biological reason that a person is the way that they are, then who can argue with nature? That is they way that they are meant to be.
Best wishes,
Jason
Palzang
The problem is that, as always, of limiting conditions. In the case of sexuality, society at large makes decisions about this by establishing, for example, on the age at which a person is deemed capable of consenting to sexual activity. Anyone who has looked at this particular question quickly arrives at the conclusion that it is one that has no single answer. Different countries, and indeed different areas within nations, have reached different conclusions. In the same way, society has made decisions about the degrees of consanguinity within which people may not engage in sexual activity.
In the UK, for example, we have witnessed long and painful debates on the age of consent for homosexual activity. It has take decades for it to be deemed the same as for heterosexuals.
The idea that "this is how I am so it's OK" falls down in the face of unlawful sexual activity: underage or with animals for example. Would you see such laws abolished?
The problem is where we draw the line not whether a line should be drawn at all. And that line is generally determine by a social context. That, I believe, is why both Christianity and Buddhism generally describe the perfect state, basileia or nibbana, as be a-sexual.
On the question of whether "God" is responsible for a person's sexual orientation, I consider that it is a non-question, particularly for those of us who prefer the via negativa approach which declares that we can only say what the Divine is not. Any attempt to apply a true/not-true dualistic logic will, inevitably fail, which is why the Hindu tetralemma and Nagarjuna are so much more useful that Aristotle.
The whole matter of personal sexual preference is a can of exploding worms, imo.
My thoughts exactly. I believe that a person's actions count for more than their gender, race, sexual orientations, et cetera.
Jason
My point is that nobody has the right to tell somebody that they are wrong for being the way that they are, or that they are less of a person for being the way that they are, or that they are an abomination for being the way that they are. If a person is attracted to a certain gender or sex, and they have no control over who or what they find attractive, it is absurd to make that person ashamed of who they are because of that. That kind of discrimination is not justified by any logical or rational means whatsoever.
I do not care what the laws are concerning a person's sexuality. If there was a law stating in some form that homosexuality was wrong (such as the case when most States had laws penalizing people for having anal sex), I would refuse to judge a person negatively simply because such a law was in existence. The government has no right to tell me how to think about another individual.
When it comes to laws about the age of consent, however, that is an entirely different argument altogether. That argument has to do with the age that a society considers a person to be mentally capable of making their own decisions free from the coercion of another, as well as, the age that a society feels a person is physically and mentally ready to participate in sexual reproduction.
The laws regulating the former (banning anal sex, same-sex marriages, etc.) are usually just moral judgments made by society against those that they feel are outside of what is acceptable in the eyes of G_d, social norms, etc., while the laws regulating the latter are usually enacted as a protective measure for the benefit of those who society feels needs some additional protection.
That does not mean that I think people should feel free rape other people, have sex with infants, have their way with horses, etc. As I said before, I believe that a person's actions count for more than their gender, race, sexual orientations, etc. What it does mean is that I have no authority whatsoever to judge a person by who they find attractive as much as for the color of their skin. If a person is sexually abusing other people or animals, that is not acceptable; but that is also not what I am talking about here.
Jason
b) I kind of liked the line drawing, but I think I might make it an xy axis, with sexual pyschology on one axis, and physical/behavior traits on the other. (ie you could be a very hetro "effeminate" man, or a very gay cowboy. Or anywhere in between.
Anyway, this is a bit off the wall, but last night as I was getting ready for bed I was watching the History Channel's History of Sex, which is a fascinating series if you haven't seen it. Anyway, when they go to commercial break they often throw in a little interesting factoid before the commercials start (and 15 minutes later you get back to the show). One of their little factoids last night was particularly interesting, I thought, and kind of in line with this thread. It was about the first person to be hanged in the colony of Massachusetts back in Pilgrim days (or whoever it was who settled Massachusetts). Turns out it was a teenager, obviously a very randy one, who was hanged for having sex with a variety of animals, barnyard and otherwise, including, believe it or not, a turkey! A tragedy for the kid, obviously, but those were very different times.
I don't know how that relates, but it was interesting!
Palzang
I used to work with Turkeys on a turkey farm in North Carolina. Yeah, if he had sex with a turkey, he deserved to be hung. Now goats.....that is a different story....
You're almost as bad as buddhafoot.
Jason
You know, I resisted the urge to make that joke.
Actually goats were among the other animals he was alleged to have done the deed with, also sheep, cows, horses, I don't know what all. Turkeys were the most outrageous though. I guess he was feeling repressed...
Palzang
Palzang
I don't imagine that you truly believe this, Jason. Would you apply it to, for example, the psychopath, the necrophile or the paedophile? It is too easy to say "This is the way that I am so I have to right to do what I do". This is the argument that I heard very often when working with court referrals, whether for sex-related convictions or, even, for violence.
As you rightly say, anal sex has been deemed a criminal activity by many societies - and given 'religious' condemnation by calling it "sodomy" - despite having been a 'natural' form of contraception across the ages.
My point about the "age of consent" is that it is an artificial decision made by society. Have you ever looked at the range of ages that various countries have adopted? Or the "degrees of consanguinity"? In some societies, even today, it is still unlawful for a person to marry their cousin, in others it is normal. Unproven 'genetic' arguments are adduced to justify such laws, just as possibly spurious arguments about capacity to decide on sexual activity are used to determine at what age a person may have sex.
Where I am trying to go with this is that an individual's personal preference is not an adequate argument to confront prejudice. We continue to limit such preference by law.
Take the example of necrophilia rather than homophilia. Whilst the object of the person's sexual desire is not harmed, being already dead, is it acceptable?
The truth is that, from age to age, society decides what it considers acceptable sexual activity and then deems it to be 'normal', arguing after the event. This is a false argument, usually called e post facto or post hoc ergo hoc.
Personally, I believe that we are so hung up on sex that we cannot see clearly. As a bisexual male, I have loved and been loved by both males and females. In many of those relationships there have been elements of seduction (which is abusive) or of reluctant compliance (just as abusive). As La Rochefoucauld said: "Between two people in love, there is always one who loves and the other who allows themselves to be loved." The monastic ideal of chaste celibacy is a way in which the Sangha points this out to us and our attachment to the gratification of our desires. In the same way, the ideal of poverty through renunciation opens up our clinging to possessions or the ideal of obedience demonstrates our grasping after self-will.
Once again: we always set limits on the individual's greed whether that is expressed in terms of sex, possessions or having their own way.
In law, even consensual sex between two adults can be considered against the law, if it exceeds the boundaries of what is legally acceptable... in his legal studies, he had to study a couple of cases where two consenting adults got up to some decidedly weird stuff, quite voluntarily, but one or both was prosecuted for it....
Palzang
Perhaps I should clarify my position as opposed to how you paraphrased my argument. I never said, "This is the way that I am so I have to right to do what I do." What I said was, "I have no right to judge a person for who they find attractive."
The context of what I said was in relation to gender and sex, not specific sexual acts. My position does not justify all sexual behavior, my position merely justifies a person's right to be who they are without me forcing my own beliefs onto them.
Jason
I regret that I must continue to disagree with you, Jason. I believe that we have not just the right but the duty to protect the innocent and the vulnerable. We, as a society, have decided that consensual sexual activity between adults (for a given definition of 'adult') is acceptable, within certain limits. This does not, however, cover the whole spectrum of sexual activity.
Your statement is too bald. It can be used to excuse the actions of the paedophile who has carefully groomed the object of their desire or, as I said above, the necrophile. Are you saying that society has no right to limit the actions of such pathologies because they have an inborn quality? I cannot believe so.
All I am saying is that we need to moderate the statement and acknowledge its limits.
I base my view on my experience of both perpetrators and survivors of paedophile activity. The former have been sent to me by the courts and I have found them among the most resistant clients, rarely admitting that their behaviour is unacceptable and remaining self-justifying along the lines of your comment. Survivors spend years in agony, suffering crippling shame in many cases and crippled in their ability to form and maintain healthy relationships.
Once again, I stress that what I am describing are the limits that culture and society puts on grasping, be it sexual, acquisitive or self-will. Such limits are vital for the health and well-being of any community.
I feel that you have consistently taken my statements out of context, and that you are making them apply to specific circumstances that are beyond what they were originally intended to address. You claim that my statements are too bald and that they can be used to excuse the actions of paedophiles, and I think that is absurd. My initial post was in response to NirvanaNoob who said, "While i thought of myself very lowly and even hated myself for my sexuality, especially due to the fact of christianity saying that anything not heterosexual is wrong, but one day i just got tired of hating myself. im bi and its who i am."
My personal belief, which is not based upon any legal statutes or religious doctrines, is that a person should not be discriminated against for their ethnicity, gender, height, nationality, race, sexuality, weight, et ctera. I would never judge NirvanaNoob for being bi-sexual, and I can find absolutely no justifiable excuse to do so. Using anything that I say in relation to that is taking my words out of context and using them to apply to subjects that are outside the original topic of discussion introduced by X-rayman. If you would like to have a discussion specifically about paedophilia, perhaps you should start a seperate thread.
Jason
Sexuality is a gradient in many different dimensions and trying to explain this to the general public is like trying to illustrate multi dimensional calculus to a chap that just learned simple averages.
We all know at least one woman with a beard .. an adult male with a high voice or woman with a deep voice and there are even men that feel they are a woman trapped inside a males body or bonafide woman in all ways with a penis.
Nature makes folly of our simplistic views and none of our ideas can hold up for long to the complexity of the real world. The far ends of the bell curve represent those phenomena we a simply not able or ready or willing to explain. Still every hundred years or so along comes someone with an idea that explains the extremes and often it's a person that fits into the extreme end of the so called bell curve. The genius.
Any religon that hopes to survive much further into the future will have to accept this diversity of human sexuality since sexuality is life and life is sexuality. Tamper with sexuality and you kill life itself.
Buddhism is a contender it may be to late for christianity.
Good Day ...:cool:
I never considered all the flesh in the United States a problem but a great oppurtunity to really practice non attachment .. I have been happily married for 12 years and still like to look at the flesh :winkc: ... they are just interesting illusions.
It is true .. our commercial world and religous institutions have watered down human sexuality to a point where nothing is left but rubbing a stick and a donut together and then everyone wonders why we have such problems. It's not over sex it's over morality. Good intentions gone bad.
After the sexual revolution no one new what to do with themselves .. the encyclopedia only talked about the sperm and the egg. I think a lot was left out.
Good Day ...
I keep pretty busy. :eek:
Jason,
I am sorry if you think that I am taking your comments out of context. I have tried each time, to quote your exact words, as above. I am sorry that I have been unable to show you why I think that the statement is "too bald" and opens the way to the acceptance of practices which are socially unacceptable.
Whilst I agree that the strictures which limited licit sexual activity to that between male and female within marriage are no longer appropriate, I cannot agree that all non-mainstream sexual activity is OK just because the individuals, at the time, agree to it. I think that this is also your position. What I am trying to point out is that your statement does not make his clear.
The Buddha Shakyamuni abandoned all sexual practice, whether with his wife or the concubines of his father's court. His brother, we are told, found this far more difficult to achieve.
We must always bear in mind that the origins of practice are rooted in the creation of the sangha which was, and remains, a way of renunciation, 'monastic' as it is often called in the West. It took time for a modified form of practice to extend to laity.
The five senses traditional in the West are all engaged in sexuality. The sixth, which, in Buddhism, is mind, is the instrument that we can use to recognise that desire, arising from the senses, is as defiling as acts. Sexuality is thus no different from any other 'defilement': greed, avarice, fear, pride, anger, etc.
It is true, I think, as has been said above that there is a modern obsession with sex and sexuality. I gives them a place in our lives and attention that far outweighs its real importance. By focusing attention on it, we manage to ignore other important defilements that arise from 'modern' life such as the desperate grasping after social advantage or possessions or 'getting our own way'.
I can understsand Jason`s frustration with your reading of him. Although you quote him, you go on to say such things as your not being able to agree that , which implies that Jason has said something similar, and I believe Jason hasn`t come close to saying that.
Perhaps I am mistaken but I think he isn`t talking about actions, he is talking about having inclinations, that`s all. However, that such statements may be misconstrued and perhaps in need of some clarification seems to be proven by your misreading of him.
respectfully,
VWP
My approach comes, I am sure, from my own experience of working with abusers and abused. I have heard, too often, the excuse that "this is the way I was made" that I am extremely wary of it.
Add to this my view that we are subjected by advertisers and society at large to pressures to sink deeper into the delusions of samsara and, thus, to increase our own and others' suffering. Sexual gratification is no more (nor less) defiling than any other surrender to appetites. It is by recognising and stepping away from such attachments that we begin the return to our primal goodness.
Please accept my apologies for having misunderstood your views.
I would say that you has summed up my position very well, even better than I have attempted to, and I thank you for it.
Jason
No hard feelings, eh?
Jason
cheers all!
Of course there are no hard feelings.
What I misunderstood, I now realise, is your use of the word "discriminate". In my stupidity, I took it to mean the same as "excuse", which it is, of course, not.
As you say, there is no reason to discriminate against another human. Each is on a path that must, inevitably, include both suffering that we experience and suffering that we cause. The Noble Eightfold Path gives us the ideal and skillful way to escape both suffering and the causes of suffering.
Once again, I apologise for having misunderstood and, as a result, misrepresented your approach.