Disgusted by Sex

[scameter]

As a warning, please excuse any adult or obscene content in this post. If it bothers you, please feel free to ignore it. I am curious why it is that a very few people, of all ages and I presume both genders (though I only have heard of it from the male side) would some aspects of sex, such as sperm, the odors and fluids produced during sex such as sweat and semen, the swapping of spit and germs and the tastes of the things one has eaten through kissing, and other aspects of sex, make one feel nauseous or disgusted? That doesn't seem very good for evolution/survival to me, if one is disgusted by reproductive aspects. Anyone have any ideas?

[Akamu]

As a warning, please excuse any adult or obscene content in this post. If it bothers you, please feel free to ignore it. I am curious why it is that people, of all ages and I presume both genders (though I only have heard of it from the male side) would some aspects of sex, such as sperm, the odors and fluids produced during sex such as sweat and semen, the swapping of spit and germs and the tastes of the things one has eaten through kissing, and other aspects of sex, make one feel nauseous or disgusted? That doesn't seem very good for evolution/survival to me, if one is disgusted by reproductive aspects. Anyone have any ideas?

Hmm, maybe I didn't understand you clearly, but it sounds like you are saying most people are disgusted by the aforementioned aspects of sex? I know of very few people who are disgusted by sex. Before I provide an answer, I just want to make sure I am getting a clear picture of what you are saying.

[scameter]

I'm sorry, I should have said some people, for I have only encountered a few people who do, I'll edit the post.

[Akamu]

I'm sorry, I should have said some people, for I have only encountered a few people who do, I'll edit the post.

Thanks...that's better. I wasn't trying to be nit picky, I just wasn't sure how to respond. In that case, here I go.

I believe there are several possible reasons why one may regard sex to be disgusting. But it really depends what angle you are coming from. I think there are explanations scientifically, philosophically, and religiously; but since you seem to be inquiring from an evolutionary standpoint, I will try and address it scientifically.

The community of people you are referring to ( I say "community" because many of these people have recognized that aspect of themselves and have undertaken a title that unites them: Asexual. Google it and you will find there are entire websites and forums where they accumulate and discuss the nature of their preferences) Identify themselves with their own "orientation," just as the homosexuals, bisexuals, and heterosexuals do. The question you are asking would also inquire to the existence of gays and lesbians as well since by "not being good for survival/evolution" you seem to mean that their existence is in contradiction to the perpetuation of the species. I don't know if this speculation remains in the parameters of science, but look at what happens and has happened throughout history when the population reaches a breaking point? Natural disasters, outbreaks of disease, wars, famine, etc. The preference not to mate (or not to mate in a way that would yield offspring) may very well be an evolutionary means of population control. I'm not saying that gays, lesbians, asexuals are a recent development; as there have been these groups of people throughout human history. I do know that scientists have noted homosexuality and asexuality in other species of animals as well and that some of their claims have also been natural population control.

The aforementioned speculation may or may not be sound, but it is the only explanation I can come up with from a scientific standpoint without coming out and saying that these differentiations in the species are simply a natural mistake (I, for one, don't really believe this to be so).

[scameter]

I don't either. Generally, nature doesn't make mistakes. But, I think you make a good point regarding natural population control. Though, I wouldn't really call what I'm talking about asexuality, necessarily, because those people who feel as I described, one of which being myself occasionally, enjoy sexuality as much as any other sexual person, but simply will on occasion become nauseous when encountered with the things I described in my original post. For instance, while I enjoy looking at women, thinking about them, masturbating, etc., the sperm resulting from ejaculation will sometimes make me nauseous, as can the perspiration and other bodily things that result from the sexual act, which of course occurs in masturbation and intercourse. Another speculation about the reason for my nausea could be that, when sperm is seen outside the body, it may make one nauseous because it is meant to be inside a body, whether the man's body or, post-ejaculation, inside the woman's vagina. Perhaps it is nature's way of conserving sperm, so to speak. :P Again, excuse the blatant or obscene subject matter, I just want to be honest and open about this.

[Akamu]

I don't either. Generally, nature doesn't make mistakes. But, I think you make a good point regarding natural population control. Though, I wouldn't really call what I'm talking about asexuality, necessarily, because those people who feel as I described, one of which being myself occasionally, enjoy sexuality as much as any other sexual person, but simply will on occasion become nauseous when encountered with the things I described in my original post. For instance, while I enjoy looking at women, thinking about them, masturbating, etc., the sperm resulting from ejaculation will sometimes make me nauseous, as can the perspiration and other bodily things that result from the sexual act, which of course occurs in masturbation and intercourse. Another speculation about the reason for my nausea could be that, when sperm is seen outside the body, it may make one nauseous because it is meant to be inside a body, whether the man's body or, post-ejaculation, inside the woman's vagina. Perhaps it is nature's way of conserving sperm, so to speak. :P Again, excuse the blatant or obscene subject matter, I just want to be honest and open about this.

I'm sure you'll find no one will be offended by sexual vocabulary here :-P

You make an interesting point about bodily fluids such as semen being seen "out of its place." This could very well be likened unto blood. Blood is our life-giving liquid, however it disgusts people when it is seen outside the body because that is not where it belongs as it would be indicative of pain, suffering, and death.

As for sex specifically, I will come right out and say I am self-described asexual. All aspects of sex disgust me. I wonder though, which human is more "unnatural"; the one who glorifies sex and sees it as a magical act, or the one who sees it as the continuous friction of genitals and the expulsion of sticky, smelly, bodily fluid? I am not trying to place myself above those who enjoy sex at all. All I am saying is that it seems like the glorification of sex is just nature's trick to make sure we have a lot of babies. We are simply dogs who get a bone (no pun intended) every time we participate in intercourse. (by bone, I mean a chemical reward...ie endorphins) It seems to me like those who dislike sex see it for what it is instead of allowing nature to trick them into partaking in the event.

[scameter]

Akamu:I'm sure you'll find no one will be offended by sexual vocabulary here :-P

:P Probably not, I just wanted to make sure.

Akamu:You make an interesting point about bodily fluids such as semen being seen "out of its place." This could very well be likened unto blood.

Yes, very good reference. And, interestingly, things such as urine and feces do not make one nauseous in the same way exposed blood and/or semen might, and I think that is because whereas the former two make one disgusted because they are bad for the body and need to be outside of it, the latter two need to be inside of a body, whether one's own or someone else's.

Akamu:I wonder though, which human is more "unnatural"; the one who glorifies sex and sees it as a magical act, or the one who sees it as the continuous friction of genitals and the expulsion of sticky, smelly, bodily fluid?

Honestly, I don't think either one is unnatural, nor is anything else that comes from physical existence/nature. I think that both are simply caused by different things. As my speculation, unbiased hopefully, is: whereas the sexual person glorifies sex because of the body's desire to reproduce, the pleasure of the sexual act used by the body as a motivator for the person to have sex, the latter asexual person is disgusted by every aspect of sex because of any number of causes, such as bad past experiences with sexuality, the possibility of an internal chemical imbalance or distortion of a natural reaction such as disgust resulting from seeing semen outside the body for some people, from one's own personal self-conditioning to dislike sex for any number of individual reasons, or perhaps because of one's external conditioning from other people that the body, especially sex, is wrong or unsanitary. Those are just my speculations though.

Akamu:It seems to me like those who dislike sex see it for what it is instead of allowing nature to trick them into partaking in the event.

That is one interpretation. Or, perhaps, those who dislike sex do not, in fact, dislike sex itself, but dislike any feeling of domination that they do not choose, whether caused by their environment or their own body/brain, including the body using chemical/emotional trickery to entice one into having sex, and thus attempt to avoid that domination. It actually seems like a possible origin for Platonist sexuality, which led to much of the later Christian/Catholic anti-sex beliefs, despite the fact that the Bible does not actually espouse that view, among others the church misunderstood it to have.

[Akamu]

Scameter: Honestly, I don't think either one is unnatural, nor is anything else that comes from physical existence/nature. I think that both are simply caused by different things.

Perhaps "unnatural" was the wrong word. The point I mean to convey is that sexual desire is chemically induced and does not allow the human being an "unbiased" observation of the situation. You always hear the argument of reason vs. passion; "What the mind weaves, by passion is undone." etc. It is of my opinion that sexual passion is far more empty than some make it out to be. Of course, I am biased, having admitted my position. You were speaking of our experience of the world and capacity to contemplate it being a by-product of the soul. I can agree in a fashion and will tie it to this thread by claiming reason is a product of a higher form of ourselves than the sex drive. Reason being of the soul or whatever the essence is that makes us human, and sexual passion/desire being of the body. However, I may be straying off-topic a bit since we were supposed to be speaking in scientific terms.

You are right about there being a multitude of possible explanations for one shunning sex. I will be the first to admit that I am not completely aware of the source of my aversion. The human psyche is infinitely complex and it would take an equal amount of holistic knowledge to unlock its mysteries. But I stand by that if one steps away from their chemically induced "high," that they will be able to see sex for what it is. I wonder how different the world would be if everyone only partook in sex based on aspirations of reason. Right now, we have those irresponsible people who are slaves to their hormones perpetually pumping out babies who in turn grow up to be as misguided as their parents (not all, of course) thus, contributing to the perpetual cycle. I ask you if you think it would be beneficial to us as human beings if sex were a 100% conscious choice made by reason and not influenced by the "reward: center of our brains?

[Trevor]

As a warning, please excuse any adult or obscene content in this post. If it bothers you, please feel free to ignore it. I am curious why it is that a very few people, of all ages and I presume both genders (though I only have heard of it from the male side) would some aspects of sex, such as sperm, the odors and fluids produced during sex such as sweat and semen, the swapping of spit and germs and the tastes of the things one has eaten through kissing, and other aspects of sex, make one feel nauseous or disgusted? That doesn't seem very good for evolution/survival to me, if one is disgusted by reproductive aspects. Anyone have any ideas?

Ha, ha, ha. I think it is more of some people like chocolate ice cream and some people like vanilla.:lol:
Or maybe even just the idea makes some people physically and emotionally disturbed without themselves understanding the why behind it. Variety is normal I think.

[Akamu]

Ha, ha, ha. I think it is more of some people like chocolate ice cream and some people like vanilla.:lol:
Or maybe even just the idea makes some people physically and emotionally disturbed without themselves understanding the why behind it. Variety is normal I think.

Hmm, but wouldn't that suggest that you are claiming that sexual orientation is a preference or a choice? While it is possible someone could will themselves to be appalled by sex, I don't think this is the case for a majority. I, for one, did not elect to be how that I am in my attitude regarding sex. But after observing and analyzing my feelings about it, I find certain advantages in my case (for me, not necessarily advantages over those who are sexual in general). In revealing these advantages, I am simultaneously drilling my attitude deeper into my being via positive reinforcement. Such is also the case with those who partake in and enjoy sexual intercourse.

I agree that variety is normal, you can't dispute that given the vast spectrum of human diversity. However, what sets humans apart from other sentient beings is our ability to be rational...perhaps we are called to pick up where natural selection left off and use our reason to further our evolution. Succumbing to every passion and impulse is a step backwards IMO. I am of course not saying every human besides those who have an aversion to sex act in such an animalistic way; just that there are enough of them out there to impede our evolution.

[Trevor]

Hmm, but wouldn't that suggest that you are claiming that sexual orientation is a preference or a choice?

Wait a minute. I thought that scameter was only talking about certain aspects of sex. Who said anything about orientation? I think that people can have similar experiences no matter what sexual appetites they may have.

I am curious why it is that a very few people, of all ages and I presume both genders (though I only have heard of it from the male side) would some aspects of sex, such as sperm, the odors and fluids produced during sex such as sweat and semen, the swapping of spit and germs and the tastes of the things one has eaten through kissing, and other aspects of sex, make one feel nauseous or disgusted?

But to answer your question Akumu, yes I think that sexual preferences can be both an inherent biological quality, a choice, or even a mixture of the two. But I'm no expert, so...anyone else?

[Akamu]

Trevor: Wait a minute. I thought that scameter was only talking about certain aspects of sex. Who said anything about orientation? I think that people can have similar experiences no matter what sexual appetites they may have.

Sorry my mind was already wrapped around the whole of the discussion so far so that I wasn't seeing that you were only addressing the specifics of Scam's post. I apologize.

[scameter]

Akamu:I wonder how different the world would be if everyone only partook in sex based on aspirations of reason.

Honestly, I don't think that's very logical itself. Reason is merely one part of our brain, neurological and chemical, just like sexual desires, impulses and functions, as well as family and marrital love, enjoyment of life, sadness, pain, and every other kind of experience. If the desire to have sex is wrong, then every other aspect of the brain is wrong, including both reason and objectivity; and, to say that it is right to replace one wrong thing with another wrong thing is, well, wrong. :P

Trevor:Ha, ha, ha. I think it is more of some people like chocolate ice cream and some people like vanilla.

Not really. I didn't say anything about not enjoying women, or men, or myself, or sexual orientation at all. I was merely talking about nausea in regards to the specific physical material in the specific situations I spoke of. I still like women and masturbation, even though seeing sperm outside a body makes me nauseous.

[Trevor]

I feel so misunderstood. But that's ok. "To thine own self be true."
scameter, I know that you meant this:

"I didn't say anything about not enjoying women, or men, or myself, or sexual orientation at all. I was merely talking about nausea in regards to the specific physical material in the specific situations I spoke of. I still like women and masturbation, even though seeing sperm outside a body makes me nauseous."

It was Akumu who thought that I meant sexual orientation, when I wrote this:

Originally Posted by Trevor:
"Ha, ha, ha. I think it is more of some people like chocolate ice cream and some people like vanilla.
Or maybe even just the idea makes some people physically and emotionally disturbed without themselves understanding the why behind it. Variety is normal I think."

See:

Akumu- "Sorry my mind was already wrapped around the whole of the discussion so far so that I wasn't seeing that you were only addressing the specifics of Scam's post. I apologize."

Please read the last few posts, and then you might understand.

[Akamu]

Scameter: Honestly, I don't think that's very logical itself. Reason is merely one part of our brain, neurological and chemical, just like sexual desires, impulses and functions, as well as family and marrital love, enjoyment of life, sadness, pain, and every other kind of experience. If the desire to have sex is wrong, then every other aspect of the brain is wrong, including both reason and objectivity; and, to say that it is right to replace one wrong thing with another wrong thing is, well, wrong.

Did you not yourself state that our ability to reason and contemplate and experience the world around us is a product of the soul? This is the premise I was going on, therefore even though reason may cause chemical anomalies in our brains, it is rooted in something higher than chemistry. The whole point was that sexual impulses do not equate to those of reason and contemplation....so it is not really replacing one with the other.

Also, I never said it was "wrong" to have sex...completely untrue. None of us would be here if people didn't have sex. I am saying it is undesirable for us as a species to go out and irresponsibly impregnate every female we come across for the sake of satisfying the desires of our sexual impulses. Instead, if people could develop their reason to permeate their impulses and create a proper balance between the two, we would be a much more evolved species and, in my opinion, further fulfill our purpose as human beings, For if reason and the ability to contemplate and experience the world around us is what makes us human, then augmenting this ability would make us more so. Not to mention the many benefits it would have on us as a race to control our desires.

[scameter]

Trevor:It was Akumu who thought that I meant sexual orientation, when I wrote this

But, you quoted me, and so I assumed you were responding to me. Excuse my error.

Akamu:Did you not yourself state that our ability to reason and contemplate and experience the world around us is a product of the soul?

No, not at all. Actually, I specifically said that our thought, emotion, intuiton, and our experience of the world is entirely physical. The soul is merely our identity, our individuality as experiencers of life, and the realization of that identity through recognizing the fact that we experience, and through reason coming to see it as true, points to the soul, but no, it is not a product of it.

Akamu:The whole point was that sexual impulses do not equate to those of reason and contemplation....so it is not really replacing one with the other.

And that's what that it's important you understand that I don't think thought, reason, etc., are somehow above other physical functions like sexuality and emotion, because I don't. They are all physical.

Akamu:For if reason and the ability to contemplate and experience the world around us is what makes us human, then augmenting this ability would make us more so. Not to mention the many benefits it would have on us as a race to control our desires.

And we do indeed do that. But, that is not because reason is better, or experience is better, than the impulse to have sex; and, in fact, that is all any sexual act is born from, the impulse and desire to do it, whether for the pleasure it invokes, to relieve the body's compellation to do it, to reproduce, etc. Even if reason tempers those desires, which as both of us said is preferrable, sex cannot be done out of reason. It can only be done out of desire.

[Akamu]

Scameter: No, not at all. Actually, I specifically said that our thought, emotion, intuiton, and our experience of the world is entirely physical. The soul is merely our identity, our individuality as experiencers of life, and the realization of that identity through recognizing the fact that we experience, and through reason coming to see it as true, points to the soul, but no, it is not a product of it.

Doesn't making the soul the source of our identity and self-awareness equate it to giving rise to contemplation and reason? I can't imagine not being self aware and still retaining the ability to reason and contemplate my surroundings without first having a grasp on what it is that makes me myself. Then again, I can't say that it is impossible either :-P

Scameter: And that's what that it's important you understand that I don't think thought, reason, etc., are somehow above other physical functions like sexuality and emotion, because I don't. They are all physical.

I don't know if reason and concepts like self-awareness can be proven to be solely a physical process. Sure machines can measure brain activity when one is actively partaking in reason and contemplation, but does this point to a source? The human thought seems to me almost like an act of creation. Where does a thought come from? Is it made of atoms? Does it have physical structure? You may call the electric impulse that translates the thought to my brain physical, but then this really isn't the thought, it is the footprint of the thought in my mind.

On the other hand, sexual desire and any desire for that matter is a form of reaction. The human sees a stimulus and the brain reacts accordingly. In the case of sex, our brain draws upon the primal desire to perpetuate the species. In turn, chemicals are pumped into the bloodstream to ensure that we act on this impulse. If we succeed, we get a lovely treat at the end. Good for us.

Scameter: And we do indeed do that. But, that is not because reason is better, or experience is better, than the impulse to have sex; and, in fact, that is all any sexual act is born from, the impulse and desire to do it, whether for the pleasure it invokes, to relieve the body's compellation to do it, to reproduce, etc. Even if reason tempers those desires, which as both of us said is preferrable, sex cannot be done out of reason. It can only be done out of desire.

Why is acting on reason not better than acting on impulse? And why cannot sex be done out of reason? I can sure imagine myself (who does not find sex appealing) to do so if there were a logical reason for me to engage in sex.

[scameter]

Akamu:Doesn't making the soul the source of our identity and self-awareness equate it to giving rise to contemplation and reason?

Well, it's not the source of our self-awareness, so no. The intelligence of the physical brain is what makes self-awareness possible. If you notice, only in the most intelligent animals, such as humans and chimps, can individuals realize that what they see in a mirror is actually them, not another animal.

Akamu:The human thought seems to me almost like an act of creation.

Humans cannot create anything from nothing. We can reshape the matter and energy around us, but we cannot create something from nothing. Thoughts are energy, they are not matter. This is part of what makes them seem so supernatural and unique to people, since they are not actually matter. Thoughts are communications between neurons, which occurs through electrochemical synapses in the brain. Of course, there are things that influence thought and that thought uses, as with the other functions in the brain, such as emotions, memory, the subconscious, etc. But that doesn't make though non-physical, as energy is physical as well.

Akamu:You may call the electric impulse that translates the thought to my brain physical, but then this really isn't the thought, it is the footprint of the thought in my mind.

Not really. As I said above, those impulses are the communications between synapses, and that is thought: communication of information within one's own mind.

Akamu:On the other hand, sexual desire and any desire for that matter is a form of reaction.

I don't understand where that makes sexual desires any less than things that are not reactional. I mean, the survival instincts that allow us to act without thinking in a situation where thought would slow us down, such as if a car is coming towards us and we try to jump out of the way, are reactional, but that certainly doesn't make them any less quality or importance than the other functions of our brain/body.

Akamu:Why is acting on reason not better than acting on impulse? And why cannot sex be done out of reason?

Well, for one, because as I explained, sexual desires are impulsive and emotional, not rational. Reason is not the basis of sexual desires; emotion is. It could be different, but it is entirely against one's will what one's sexual emotions do when encountered with a sexually-stimulating situation. When people like monks try to resist those impulses, they're not entirely blocking them or not having them at all; they're merely denying them, as you attempt to do.

Akamu:I can sure imagine myself (who does not find sex appealing) to do so if there were a logical reason for me to engage in sex.

You would never have sex out of reason. Your motivations may be tempered or guided by reason, such as using a condom during sex or, if you were one of only two people in the world, having sex for survival. But, the thing that makes a person *want* to have sex is the pleasure of it. This is why nature specifically put it in us, just like nature specifically gave us reason to temper our actions, but not to dominate them. Without emotion, life would be dry, boring and irrelevant.

[Akamu]

Sorry this reply is late, I got distracted from this topic. As to matters that have arisen concerned with the nature of thought and the soul, I will leave out from now on as we can just agree to disagree because the matter is based on opinion.

Scameter: I don't understand where that makes sexual desires any less than things that are not reactional. I mean, the survival instincts that allow us to act without thinking in a situation where thought would slow us down, such as if a car is coming towards us and we try to jump out of the way, are reactional, but that certainly doesn't make them any less quality or importance than the other functions of our brain/body.

Jumping out of the way of a moving vehicle may be reactional in a human who has not conditioned themselves to sue their mind properly; but one who has learned to sue thought and purification of mind will always perform better than that human who relies on instincts. For example, martial arts masters who have attained reaction speeds unfathomable by the normal human; they are not born with supernatural reaction prowess, they are able to keep such a clear mind that superfluous impulse and reaction do not interfere with their perception of impending danger. They have taken their mind and rid themselves of the clutter that plagues the majority of people.

Scameter: Well, for one, because as I explained, sexual desires are impulsive and emotional, not rational. Reason is not the basis of sexual desires; emotion is. It could be different, but it is entirely against one's will what one's sexual emotions do when encountered with a sexually-stimulating situation. When people like monks try to resist those impulses, they're not entirely blocking them or not having them at all; they're merely denying them, as you attempt to do.

Your first sentence doesn't answer anything, I already know this. My question is why can't someone partake in sex out of reason? They most certainly can. I am not sure why one has to want to do something in order to do it. That makes little sense. I did not ask why can't one "want" to have sex through reason; I asked why "can't" someone have sex out of reason...there is a huge difference. If the population of humans somehow fictionally eliminated the sex drive, then they could still have sex for the sake of perpetuation of the species...even if they take no joy in the act.

As to monks experiencing sexual desire and simply suppressing it, how do you know? Are you a monk who has put thousands of hours into meditation and the cleansing of one's mind? When the average human being suppresses desire or emotionally, it will always find a release in one form or another. But the true monk, who has mastered his mind, does not display the dam-bursting behavior of suppressed emotion. His mind has become purified to the point that impulses and conditioned reactions don't permeate his mentality at all.

Scameter: You would never have sex out of reason. Your motivations may be tempered or guided by reason, such as using a condom during sex or, if you were one of only two people in the world, having sex for survival. But, the thing that makes a person *want* to have sex is the pleasure of it. This is why nature specifically put it in us, just like nature specifically gave us reason to temper our actions, but not to dominate them. Without emotion, life would be dry, boring and irrelevant.

Again I say nothing about humans "wanting" to have sex...wanting implies conditioned attachment which is definitely not what I am discussing. Yes, for the vast majority of people, they have sex because it causes pleasure...it's a reward for making sure the species survives. But look at regular morality; one can do good without thought of reward, and many do. You don't have to be rewarded in order to be motivated to do something.

[scameter]

Akamu:Jumping out of the way of a moving vehicle may be reactional in a human who has not conditioned themselves to sue their mind properly; but one who has learned to sue thought and purification of mind will always perform better than that human who relies on instincts.

I don't think that's true at all in situations where instincts would apply. Thought slows the person down, and that's because thinking is meant for situations where quick action aren't required, such as in tool-making or various types of social interaction. But, if you're about to get punched in the face, or run over by a car, you can't slow down and contemplate the issue. Even if you did, you would still choose the same action that you instincts would naturally choose for you, and with much better speed: avoid danger. Sure, one can tone their instincts and make them better, but thought will always be slower than instincts.

Akamu:I did not ask why can't one "want" to have sex through reason; I asked why "can't" someone have sex out of reason...there is a huge difference. If the population of humans somehow fictionally eliminated the sex drive, then they could still have sex for the sake of perpetuation of the species...even if they take no joy in the act.

Not all motivation is enjoyment, or even pain. But, all motivation is founded on an emotional desire to do it. One acts out of reason because one wants to, not because one has to. The only actions we take in life that aren't specifically done because we want to are things done by our body or subconcious without our imput, such as instinctual reaction, and feelings that just pop into our head. But, actions where we have a choice require some emotional motivation for doing them. If the sex drive in a person was gone, we would not care if the species continued. That's because emotional motivation is what convices our minds that the thing we're doing or want to do has so importance or meaning to it. If we only had reason, we would not care if the species continued, or if we had sex, or if we were alive, because rationally, there is no meaning behind it. This is my problem with people like atheists and nihilists who claim that life has absolutely no meaning or purpose, even meaning they place themselves, and yet still continue to try to be happy, moral, or whatever. They're hypocrites. If you do anything that is not reactional, you have a motivation for doing it which is based in emotion. Reason is a tool, a guide, and sure it is valuable in what it does, but not any moreso than any other part of our body/brain.

Akamu:As to monks experiencing sexual desire and simply suppressing it, how do you know? Are you a monk who has put thousands of hours into meditation and the cleansing of one's mind?

I'm being logical, based on evidence, my personal experience and rationality. That statement could be applied to anything at all, if one eliminates objectivity from life, everything would be entirely subjective.

Akamu:But the true monk, who has mastered his mind, does not display the dam-bursting behavior of suppressed emotion. His mind has become purified to the point that impulses and conditioned reactions don't permeate his mentality at all.

Well, for one, to use your reason: how do you know? But, for two, the true monk does not display the dam-bursting behavior of suppressed emotion because they trick their minds into thinking that the emotion isn't there anymore, and thus their mind acts as if it isn't, the emotion eventually dissipating or being replaced by other emotions. Though I don't see the value of this personally, that is what they do. Emotion is a faculty of the brain, it cannot simply be turned off, just like a monk cannot simply stop their heart from beating and continue to live. And, there is a big difference between emotion and emotional reaction. Not all emotional feelings are simply reacted upon; most are felt, and then considered by the human mind and decided whether they should be acted on or not.

Akamu:But look at regular morality; one can do good without thought of reward, and many do. You don't have to be rewarded in order to be motivated to do something.

Perhaps. But, I didn't say people have sex for pleasure as a reward. In fact, most of them have sex to be close to another person, and the pleasure resulting from sex is not only physical, but also the emotional release of the sexual tension/pressure that they have built up over time. It is not really a reward.

[Akamu]

This is turning into an endless exchange of opinions, but I'll have one more go.

Scameter: I don't think that's true at all in situations where instincts would apply. Thought slows the person down, and that's because thinking is meant for situations where quick action aren't required, such as in tool-making or various types of social interaction. But, if you're about to get punched in the face, or run over by a car, you can't slow down and contemplate the issue. Even if you did, you would still choose the same action that you instincts would naturally choose for you, and with much better speed: avoid danger. Sure, one can tone their instincts and make them better, but thought will always be slower than instincts.

You are lumping all thought into a slow contemplative process. Really, this isn't even about thought or instinctual reaction anymore. The martial arts master who has complete control of his mind is gonna react, but it is a different reaction than one would have by flinching when someone snaps in their face. Becoming the master of your mind allows you to be conscious of and to control your reactions. And this all relates nicely back to the subject of this thread: sex. In most people, sexual reaction is impure and subconscious; they are not even aware of it. If your reaction is to become sexually aroused and partake in sex, and it is conducive to reason and logic, then by all means indulge. I never said sex is evil or impermissible. But people let it control their lives and allow themselves to be deceived by it. I am asking for people to take control of their minds and see what is really there. Sex is not magical...sex is not love. To most people, sex is a drug, sex is an escape, sex is an addiction, sex is how they define themselves, sex is a magical fairy tale. Obsession with it causes you to see things that are not there, that do not exist.

Scameter: But, actions where we have a choice require some emotional motivation for doing them. That's because emotional motivation is what convices our minds that the thing we're doing or want to do has so importance or meaning to it. If we only had reason, we would not care if the species continued, or if we had sex, or if we were alive, because rationally, there is no meaning behind it.

One doesn't need emotional motivation to make a choice; all they have to do is make the choice. And of course a choice can be made by logic or reason over emotion. For example, one who is mature enough to realize they are in a bad relationship and to end it regardless of the pain it will cause to be separated from someone you once claimed to love.

As to your last sentence, I never attacked emotion, so I'm not sure how it was brought up. Emotion is perfectly fine except when it is coupled with self-deceit, which it so often is...especially in regard to sex, love, and relationships.

Scameter: If the sex drive in a person was gone, we would not care if the species continued.

This is false. I have no desire for sex and I care about the continuation of the species. Try posting that statement on an asexual forum and see the responses you get.

Scameter: I'm being logical, based on evidence, my personal experience and rationality. That statement could be applied to anything at all, if one eliminates objectivity from life, everything would be entirely subjective.


What evidence is there to prove that hundreds and hundreds of generations of dedicated monks practicing an art in existence for thousands of years are suffering from some sort of mass delusion? There is quite a plethora of evidence showing exactly the opposite. And what personal experience and rationality can you claim towards this? The last I heard you talk about meditation, you attacked it as the practice of a false religion. I don't mean offense, but your mind appears to be quite preset against this particular subject and thus rationality cannot be involved. I honor your opinion though.

Scameter: Well, for one, to use your reason: how do you know?

Because there is evidence to support my claim (everything from brain-activity measuring devices to psych analysis tests) and I have interacted with quite a few of them at length to have received at least some vague idea about their mental state.

Scameter: But, for two, the true monk does not display the dam-bursting behavior of suppressed emotion because they trick their minds into thinking that the emotion isn't there anymore, and thus their mind acts as if it isn't, the emotion eventually dissipating or being replaced by other emotions. Though I don't see the value of this personally, that is what they do.

Apparently you are in possession of facts that millions and millions of people cannot grasp. I can see why you don't see any value in what you described; I wouldn't either. Again I will inquire as to how you are in possession of this bit of insight when countless monks, who have dedicated their lives for generations to the act of purifying and getting to know their mind, have not become aware that their efforts are fruitless because a teenage American has deemed it so? I apologize again for the harsh tone, but I think it is incredulous that someone can claim such opinion as fact. I realize I cannot prove to you the opposite, but there are countless of years of experience and even scientific data on that side.

Scameter: And, there is a big difference between emotion and emotional reaction. Not all emotional feelings are simply reacted upon; most are felt, and then considered by the human mind and decided whether they should be acted on or not.

Exactly. The difference is the presence of logic and reason. Conditioning yourself all your life to react to those emotions that bring about "pleasure" for you is counterproductive, though. Pleasure does not necessarily = good, but I'm sure I didn't have to tell you that.

Scameter: Perhaps. But, I didn't say people have sex for pleasure as a reward. In fact, most of them have sex to be close to another person, and the pleasure resulting from sex is not only physical, but also the emotional release of the sexual tension/pressure that they have built up over time. It is not really a reward.

How does having sex with someone bring you closer? Did i miss something about producing friction between 2 partners' genitals bringing about some magical event of bonding? This is a delusion discussed among social psychologists extensively. It is called Fundamental Attribution Error. Basically it can be applied to sex in that when an individual is in a heightened state of arousal and attraction is experienced, then that object of attraction becomes much more strongly highlighted in the individual experiencing that attraction. So basically, this attributional error ensures that we keep having sex with our partner to satisfy a high fertility rate. In essence, meet someone you think is hot - have sex - that person becomes much more desirable - have more sex - the human population is ensured.

Edit: I am not trying to undermine anyone who is partaking in a truly loving relationship. I would expect people on this board to know the difference between one established around sex and one established on pure love. Just making it clear that I am implying a separation of sex and love and am not using the terms interchangeably.

[scameter]

Akamu:The martial arts master who has complete control of his mind is gonna react, but it is a different reaction than one would have by flinching when someone snaps in their face.

Honestly, discussing something like Buddhist monks or martial artists is difficult, for one because they tend to be very isolated, and for two, because very few people actually are either of them, excluding the basic local karate classes.

Akamu:This is turning into an endless exchange of opinions, but I'll have one more go.

You're right. There is very little progress being made, which seems quite common in my discussions. So, there really isn't any need in me replying to the rest of your replies. Nothing against them or you; they're all probably entirely accurate. I just really don't see any need in continuing an essentially completed discussion.

[Thomas Knierim]

In modern society, sexuality has unfortunately become quite a problem for many young people. Social norms and taboos have pretty much caved in during the latter half of the 20th century. Now there is HIV and AIDS, and Western society is often hypocritical and dishonest about sexual behaviour. This has created an enormous amount of confusion. America is a case in point. American popular culture gives ample testimony of society's inability to deal with the "problem". Fundamentally, it's of course a human problem rather than a cultural problem.

The cultures of the past often had traditional mechanisms to deal with sexuality, such as sexual rites and customs, religious ethics, and moral codes. Whether these mechanisms were desirable may be debated in every case, but it seems undoubted that they have lost their grip. The newly gained sexual liberty puts high demands on personal responsibility. As a result, many people, especially young people with "raging hormones", are seemingly overwhelmed.

In the eyes of many, there is only one sane way to deal with sexual energy and that is sublimation. This is again something that Eastern philosophies have realised many centuries before Freud introduced the idea to Western society. Sublimation means transference of sexual energy (or "libido" to use a Freudian term) into more productive outlets or perhaps socially more acceptable ones. It must not be confused with repression or denial, as these two latter mechanisms have fundamentally different origins and effects.

There are three commonly chosen avenues to sublimation of sexual energy. The first is to make sexuality an art that is brought to distinguished refinement. The second is to make sexuality something sacred that is shared with a chosen partner. The third is celibacy, which requires the complete transformation of sexual energy into mental or spiritual energy. These are certainly not the only possibilities of sublimation, but I think they constitute the most common ones. Now as far as Freudian psychology goes, this is it. There's either sublimation, which is sane and desirable, or there's uncontrolled desire, repression, reaction formation, or something similarly unhealthy.

Freud has -being quite true to his own dogma- never considered the alternative of approaching sexual energy head-on, namely by contemplating it as it arises. This could be called a mindfulness approach, but if that sounds too Buddhist to you, you could simply call it reflecting on the nature of sexual energy. Needless to say that this needs to be practiced as sexual desires and impulses arise and therefore it cannot be practiced in the psychiatrist's office. Perhaps this is the reason why Freud wasn't interested in it. :lol:

The effect of reflecting on sexual desire is quite similar to the effect of reflecting on other desires (although it might be more difficult), namely it defuses it. This occurs through the process of conscious involvement. Instead of engaging the mind in possible operation plans with the directive to execute upon the desire, the mind is instead engaged in noticing, perceiving, and analysing the desire itself. This activity fundamentally alters the quality of the experience. The mind can still decide to execute upon the desire, but the impulse is defused. Hence, I'd suggest to consider this a true alternative mechanism to the known Freudian defense mechanisms.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Thomas:As a result, many people, especially young people with "raging hormones", are seemingly overwhelmed.

Interestingly, I was reading a book of the collected works of Pope Benedict XVI, and he said that celibacy and marriage are interconnected, that they essentially influence one another and depend on one another. For instance, he said that one of the causes of the Reformation was the lowering of fidelity to celibacy be monks and priests during that particular time, and also that in modern times, the apparent lack of respect for matrimony and especially sex in it for Western people has made them have infidelity, and that this infidelity is reflected and affects the celibacy of Catholic monks and priests, which obviously has had some problems over the past few years. He said that one problem is that people don't realize this interconnectedness, for one, and that for two, people think that monks/priests who *freely* choose to be celibate for forced into something that they hate and despise, and that this is merely a vision of the corrupt nature of "antiquated" organizations such as the Catholic church. He said that monks/priests are never forced into celibacy, but rather recognize that in denying the most important thing to many people and certainly one of the most important parts of being a human/animal, namely having sex and reproducing, they are fully giving themselves to God, as Jesus described in the Bible, and that when this is done with pure fidelity by monks/priest, that fidelity reflects on other people and makes them have more fidelity in marriage.

Thomas:It must not be confused with repression or denial, as these two latter mechanisms have fundamentally different origins and effects.

It's actually a bit unfortunate that you posted that after I posted that monks deny/repress their sexual urges, because I was also going to post that they redirect that energy into other outlets. I'm sure this sounds like an excuse, but I am being honest. But, nevermind.

Thomas:Freud has -being quite true to his own dogma- never considered the alternative of approaching sexual energy head-on, namely by contemplating it as it arises.

Personally, I think that the best solution to diffusing one's sexual energy is, obviously, through having sex or using some other sexual style such as masturbation, or, if one doesn't wish to do that or cannot resist the urge for intercourse anymore, they should either get married and simply have sex when they want to or, when the urge to have sex arises in their mind, they should feel it, as you say contemplate it, consider it, and use techniques to forget about it, allowing it to over time dissipate, such as working, playing sports, focusing on God, meditating, or whatever one prefers. I know I essentially mentioned this earlier in an apparently negative tone, I didn't really mean that it is negative itself; I just personally do not see the need for celibacy, but I think it could be a good thing for society and if the individual wishes to do it, for whatever reasons, they should certainly be allowed to.

[Akamu]

Celibacy: I know I essentially mentioned this earlier in an apparently negative tone, I didn't really mean that it is negative itself; I just personally do not see the need for celibacy, but I think it could be a good thing for society and if the individual wishes to do it, for whatever reasons, they should certainly be allowed to.

Sure, there's no need for it outside of the person practicing it. But for the person attempting to master himself, sex can be the largest hurdle to overcome. Next to eating, drinking, and breathing, sex is probably one of the strongest urges we have; however, unlike the former urges mentioned, sex is not a requisite of survival (for the individual.) To overcome and master that urge yields very appealing rewards for those people taking on this feat. That is just one reason why there is a subjective need for it on the level of the individual. But there are other reasons as well.

Celibacy is a really good topic, in my opinion...but it is kinda veering off the topic. I may start a thread dedicated to it at some point.

[scameter]

Akamu:Sure, there's no need for it outside of the person practicing it. But for the person attempting to master himself, sex can be the largest hurdle to overcome.

That's my point. I don't personally see any need or reason or desire to "master" myself beyond using reason to guide my actions, courage to push through what is difficult, and wisdom to discern, among other things. I don't think sex needs to be excluded from oneself, merely done with sense. For instance, don't simply act on every sexual impulse you have. Feel the sexual desires and impulses, consider them, and feel them, and then either masturbate or have sex with another person to relieve the tension, or simply use the monk's method. But, I don't think it's necessary to be entirely celibate.

Akamu:Celibacy is a really good topic, in my opinion...but it is kinda veering off the topic. I may start a thread dedicated to it at some point.

Well, I honestly don't think it's veering off that much, since we're talking about negative views of sex in this topic and celibacy is essentially the complete denial of sex. But, don't let me discourage you from forming a good new topic. :)

[Akamu]

Scameter: That's my point. I don't personally see any need or reason or desire to "master" myself beyond using reason to guide my actions, courage to push through what is difficult, and wisdom to discern, among other things. I don't think sex needs to be excluded from oneself, merely done with sense. For instance, don't simply act on every sexual impulse you have. Feel the sexual desires and impulses, consider them, and feel them, and then either masturbate or have sex with another person to relieve the tension, or simply use the monk's method. But, I don't think it's necessary to be entirely celibate.

One who values celibacy would say they don't see the "point" in being subject to that very animalistic urge. It is largely subjective, so I can't really argue anything, but if someone holds the belief that pleasure and pain dictates human existence, then that person may want to transcend such a condition. To some people, sex is just another conditional happiness that one wants to overcome for their own benefit. If you can learn to be truly happy and be at peace with yourself without such conditions, then I think it is worth it for someone to give it a try if that's what they value. To me, it is an empty pleasure, so why indulge and strengthen your ego in such? Of course not everyone has an unhealthy view about sex...I am referring to impulsive people who are out to satisfy their hormones at every beckon call.

[scameter]

Akamu:It is largely subjective, so I can't really argue anything

Indeed, and that goes for any reply I could really give to the rest of your post, because my reponse would merely be more replies. But, just to complete my point, as I said before, I'm not saying to simply give in to every impulse, sexual or otherwise. In fact, that goes against my point, that no one faculty of the mind is any more important than another. As I said, reason is a good guide, and should certainly be used to temper one's (sexual) impulses, but not to remove them completely. Unless you simply want to.

[Thomas Knierim]

Scameter: I was reading a book of the collected works of Pope Benedict XVI, and he said that celibacy and marriage are interconnected.

:goodlaugh::lol:

I think the Pope has got a point there, though he probably did not intend to be funny. A British comedian (forgot his name) expressed it this way: "If those religious fundamentals don't like sex, why don't they get married like the rest of us."

Akamu, please go ahead and start your thread.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

:lol: I assume that's what you were laughing about. I was wondering why you found what I said funny. :P

[xChristine_Mariiex]

Wow, if you put sex in that form, it does actually sound disgusting.

[Akamu]

Wow, if you put sex in that form, it does actually sound disgusting.

Sorry, it has been a while since this thread...but what form are you referring to?

[chirag_360]

Just straying a little bit off the track.Why is it that you feels this disgust very very strong after masturbation?? It is so beautiful and divine that you experience two extreme emotions during this act . During the moment you feel over joyous and pleasure but rigt next moment you go philosophical and the very thought of sex disgusts you

WHY????

[Patheya]

I've thought a lot about what you've all been saying..
Its one of these personal, no one answer can answer type topics.

Though we can shed some light.

There was a girl. She was bought up in an open-minded family, with no real sexual restrictions. Just 'be safe'.

The girl didn't feel attracted to sex in itself.

Actually, she didn't like physical contact. She viewed people who showed physical affection as needy and weak.

She was strong, independent. She didn't need anyone.

As she grew up and had more connection to the world, she realised just how different she was to the world. She had a choice.

Go and live away from the society. Join a like minded community. Live inside the mind and spirit. Do not feed or get to know the body.

One day, she sat and thought about it... and then, it became clear that she had to learn more about her body, and this included sex. She saw herself as a trinity - the mind, the spirit and the body.

And she was unbalanced.

She began, methodically, to learn what she could about the body.

She felt, to neglect the body would be like a body fixated person neglecting the mind, or the spirit.

She believed in balance. She believed in it, especially with regard to the body, because, funnily enough, she was born with it.

It carried her everywhere. She fed it. She groomed it.

It wasn't easy for the girl. She had to overcome a natural aversion. She had to see through the negatives she had associated with the body and with physical contact.

Over the years, she became more balanced. She doesn't judge people the same way she did before. She understands, because she is one of them.

The same needs, the same desires. She is not removed, or disgusted, or indifferent.

[Akamu]

I don't think you can equate neglecting sex with cheating the body of needs. The need for sex is in the mind, it is a chemical drive ensuring the perpetuation of the species. Would you consider someone who is perfectly affectionate and unafriad of human touch unhealthy or incomplete? I believe in the trinity of body, spirit, and mind as much as anyone. But I also believe that we should be who we are, and if this is someone who chooses a life of celibacy for whatever reason, then so be it.

It is simply of my opinion that people glorify sex and eliminate any other equivalent means of expression. It is quite possible that some people are meant to focus this energy elsewhere.

[Akamu]

Just straying a little bit off the track.Why is it that you feels this disgust very very strong after masturbation?? It is so beautiful and divine that you experience two extreme emotions during this act . During the moment you feel over joyous and pleasure but rigt next moment you go philosophical and the very thought of sex disgusts you

WHY????

Why is masturbation and sex "beautiful or divine"? Because it feels good? So does an injection of heroin (so I hear, I am not actually a drug addict lol)...which is biologically quite similar to the human reaction in sex. Now, I completely understand the love one feels for another human and that sex is a physical expression of this love, but I am simply talking about sex as an isolated variable. I am all for the belief in love and the power of that emotion towards someone...but until I see compelling reason to believe otherwise, I still think sex is nothing beyond a physical chemical rush to which humans attribute some divine or extraordinary significance.

[schrodinger]

I am all for the belief in love and the power of that emotion towards someone...but until I see compelling reason to believe otherwise, I still think sex is nothing beyond a physical chemical rush to which humans attribute some divine or extraordinary significance.

It might be that the chemical rush is necessary to enable some people to get over their disgust and ensure the perpetuation of the human race. If there were not pleasure from sex, why would anyone bother with such a ridiculous act? Now that our planet is facing over population, the disgust factor might be increasing as a natural means to slow the population growth. This would seem to be preferable to that other effective control on population: war!

[Akamu]

It might be that the chemical rush is necessary to enable some people to get over their disgust and ensure the perpetuation of the human race. If there were not pleasure from sex, why would anyone bother with such a ridiculous act? Now that our planet is facing over population, the disgust factor might be increasing as a natural means to slow the population growth. This would seem to be preferable to that other effective control on population: war!

Indeed, my thoughts exactly. Asexuality and even homosexuality arising as a means of natural population control. A great alternative to wars, famines, and diseases. I voiced exactly this earlier in this thread or the Celibacy thread...I can;t remember which.

[j000han]

Why is masturbation and sex "beautiful or divine"? Because it feels good? So does an injection of heroin (so I hear, I am not actually a drug addict lol)...which is biologically quite similar to the human reaction in sex. Now I completely understand the love one feels for another human and that sex is a physical expression of this love. But I am simply talking about sex as an isolated variable. I am all for the belief in love and the power of that emotion towards someone...but until I see compelling reason to believe otherwise, I still think sex is nothing beyond a physical chemical rush to which humans attribute some divine or extraordinary significance.
Thank you so much for that.
Below is the disclosure of the last of a series of e-mail-exchances that happened a while ago between the_.aphid and me.
In this was issued the use of the word sequence F-U-C-K in the context of my response to the thread named 'camera's on lights on'.
Now after having read the aliases of the list of members of the BV-forum, i came to realize that perhaps i may have overrated the 'potential' of this forum.
On the other hand i never cease to be optimistic about the creative potential
of the human mind.
One of the worst poisons of this mind to assimilate and neutralize is 'sarcasm'
Though it can be pictured by an emoticon :rolleyes:,
the word still is pointing to what 'sarcasm' actually does/is.
At this point I have none whatshowever need nor desire to express it,
as i have none of it inside me.
I have noticed that there may be some diffrence in opinion with regard to 'playing' 'war games', be these real/virtual/actual.
I am thouroughly disgusted with any advertisements and/or advertisers that support/promote those games.
I have a hunch that when you read this you'll be hard pressed to disagree with me.
But just in case if it is not perfectly clear now what the deal is here then....
Here it is succinctly:
[Respect yourself as you respect your neighbours]
Now...
can you read that to your self without any sense of 'sarcasm'?
So here it is....

Re: with all due respect
[quote=the_aphid]Whatever...it was a friendly warning. Continue posting your "required" vulgarities, and someone will suspend or ban your privileges of posting at this site. It is a forum rule, and a simple one at that, which in no way suppresses your freedom of speech. It simply limits your freedom to use absolutely any word you wish to express what is on your mind.
Why?
Because like it or not, intended or not, some people find that word offensive.
>
I understand that some people find that word offensive.
And i be most intrested to find out what exactly the mindset is of that kind of people;
iow. what is (so) offensive about that particular word.
It is not that i doubt your motive(s) in notifying me that by using 'vulgarities' i might put my privilege to post on this forum at risk.
It is just that i do not consider any word essentially vulgair.
The vulgairity and hence the sense of 'feeling'
offended by merely a four letter word is in the mind of the reader and nowhere else.
as to:
[It is a forum rule, and a simple one at that, which in no way suppresses your freedom of speech.]
That is where you and i differ from opinion.
Don't you find it somewhat strange that
a word that is practically on the tip of tongue
of a large population, a word that has been used in so many contexts can not be discussed,but merely is being judged/condemned here on TBV?
If truly a thread that recently has been start with (as i assume a sincere intent) to discuss human sexuality,
then surely it is not unreasonable to make an attempt to uncover the hypocracy that goes by the mask of being offended by someone using a 'slang' word that essentially makes reference to the act of procreation.
I'm glad that i have been able to 'test' the waters so to speak.
Nevertheless as for now i'll respect the rules of this forum.
as to:
[Because like it or not, intended or not, some people find that word offensive]
That is with all due respect entirely their (16 hex)-aso. bussiness, as it is mine to not put my privilege(s) at stake.:lol:
regards.

[Akamu]

Forgive me, jooohan, but your post has utterly confused me. Was it a response to this thread? Maybe I am just tired and it is gong over my head :blink: My apologies if that is the case.

[Patheya]

If we are disgusted, then we are not at peace with what is.
A tree is not disgusted with its sap. (though I can't speak tree - so no, I can't prove it)
We are.
Then we interprete.
Then we go 'wrong', as far as I see it.
If we concentrate on being, then the disgust isn't there any more.

I way for me to get over anything I have a problem with, is to experience it - yes, with a couple of restrictions. I Have not killed somone to see why I don't like it. So, experiencing things has helped me understand why people are the way they are.
Beliefs, passions, obsessions, causes, virtues - I've struggled with 'being human' for a long time. Experiencing humaness has helped me a lot.
This is a totally personal response - not meant to be a uiversal truth.

[Akamu]

I don't think one has to partake in something just because it "is." Perhaps disgust is a strong word, I regret repeating it. However I certainly don't see sex as a "magical, divine" act as some describe it. I think it is just an act and that certain aspects of our body make it feel pleasurable in order to ensure the continuation of our species. I am well aware of that energy that is summoned during sex, but this same energy can be summoned and channeled elsewhere if the subject so desires to express it via other means. I respect everyone's opinions, but I only take issue with them when one who abstains from sex is called "unnatural."

[the_aphid]

However I certainly don't see sex as a "magical, divine" act as some describe it. I think it is just an act and that certain aspects of our body make it feel pleasurable in order to ensure the continuation of our species. I am well aware of that energy that is summoned during sex, but this same energy can be summoned and channeled elsewhere if the subject so desires to express it via other means. I respect everyone's opinions, but I only take issue with them when one who abstains from sex is called "unnatural."Not that I disagree with your argument Akamu, but do you not think that it is possible to obtain some form of spiritual communion during sex, some experience of enlightenment, perhaps similar to that which could be obtained through meditation? I mean, the anatomical functions/stimulations of arousal, orgasm and ejaculation are no less 'magical' or 'divine' than say, the function of breathing. Yet I still think it is conceivable that some form of spiritual experience can be found through devout practice of breathing. And similarly, people make arguments about the practice of tantric sexuality, and I don't simply think that it is all tripe.

Personally, I agree that the vast majority of people who claim that their sexual experiences are 'magical' are perhaps exaggerating to say the least, and instead they should simply be describing it as pleasureable. To continue with your analogy of drug use, I don't think the average user of psychedelics is really experiencing anything all that profound or magical, once again...it is simply pleasurable. However, I don't think that means drug use (or sex) is incapable of producing truly spiritual and enlightening experiences, something beyond the 'basic' electrochemical sensations associated with a 'stimulant'.

[Akamu]

Not that I disagree with your argument Akamu, but do you not think that it is possible to obtain some form of spiritual communion during sex, some experience of enlightenment, perhaps similar to that which could be obtained through meditation? I mean, the anatomical functions/stimulations of arousal, orgasm and ejaculation are no less 'magical' or 'divine' than say, the function of breathing. Yet I still think it is conceivable that some form of spiritual experience can be found through devout practice of breathing. And similarly, people make arguments about the practice of tantric sexuality, and I don't simply think that it is all tripe.


Indeed I understand where you are coming from, but I am not speaking of the sort of ideal sex in which you have brought up. Your average person in this world does not engage in sex for spiritual communion. As you had said, most do it for the sake of mere (intense) pleasure. Were more people to treat sex in a more spiritual or at least "respected" sense, then I would not take issue with it. I am by no means condemning sex. I am, however, arguing against illusions created by projecting our own perceptions onto various things in this world. People tend to place importance into things proprtionally equal to how much pleasure it yields. It so happen that sex feels really good, therefore, to the average Joe, sex becomes their "god." It begins to dictate their actions in life and they soon rationalize this via injecting the spirit of necessity. Would people have so much sex if it didn't feel good? Sex does not have a place in the hierarchy of needs, one does not need sex in order to live as some may imply. Again, I am not saying sex is wrong or don't engage in sex, I am just saying people shouldn't project necessity where it isn't necessary.

[rusty79]

I don't think you can equate neglecting sex with cheating the body of needs. The need for sex is in the mind, it is a chemical drive ensuring the perpetuation of the species. Would you consider someone who is perfectly affectionate and unafriad of human touch unhealthy or incomplete? I believe in the trinity of body, spirit, and mind as much as anyone. But I also believe that we should be who we are, and if this is someone who chooses a life of celibacy for whatever reason, then so be it.

It is simply of my opinion that people glorify sex and eliminate any other equivalent means of expression. It is quite possible that some people are meant to focus this energy elsewhere.
hello everyone,
I agree that it is not a "necessary" function of our lives. I also dislike those who tell us that we must have a healthy "sex life", it is not a physiological need for our health. I see no reason to be told how to run such an intimate part of my life-----if I choose to abstain; it is no one's business but my own.

Yes, we should be who we are; even if in later years we lose interest in this part of the life cycle. Thank you for being brave and discussing this!