Discussion in 'Buddhism' started by China Cat Sunflower, Oct 22, 2008.
What is right sex?
Well obviously in Tantric Buddhism it would be tantric sex.
From what I hear that's some pretty good sex.
Desireless sex? I would say that it is more a matter of knowing desire for what it is, and what it can lead to, rather than a matter of getting rid of it. (Desire will fade by itself.)
Lust can be powerful, and can be quite harmful if it leads to things like adultery. Lust would therefore be best managed within a committed relationship, where the potential for lust to lead to harmful behavior is least likely. (Sex within a committed relationship can then be driven by compassion, rather than being solely driven by desire.)
Whatever it is I'm sure it beats the dirty, regrettable and guilt ridden sex of Judeo-Christianity.
Yes, well...but the guilt is what makes it all titillating and exciting. And the morality really catalyzes well with the commercialized, social sense of sexual identity that keeps everyone confused, under control, and buying stuff.
I wonder what natural sexuality is for humans. Does it necessarily involve role playing? Is it a kind of elemental, primal even, ceremonialism? I also wonder if it's even possible to alter the programming lines of one's sense of sexuality. Not in terms of orientation, but in the sense of what one believes sexuality is. I can't get far enough outside myself to observe my sexual programming. I don't seem to be able to escape the sexual constructs which permeate the culture at large. I can't say what it is I actually want from my sexuality because it doesn't feel like I own it.
Well, Chris, that's because your wife owns it...
Mutually consented, uncomplicated and 100% pleasurable (with a sprinkling of pain is nice) Faithful sex, that doesn't involve bonking somebody else's man or woman and causing others hurt.
Sex is terribly over rated in my opinion. Sometimes I'd rather have a cup of tea washed down with a cigar and a slice of battenburg
I agree with consensual and pleasurable. That's it. And battenburg!! That's some fetish
In the imortal words of Paul Kossof "A man with two women is a man not a fool"
There is no "wrong" sex. However there is both the right and wrong use of sex energy as it pertains to the objective quality of the human organism. So before considering the right and wrong use of sex energy, it is first necessary to agree upon what objective quality of the human organism is including from the transcendent perspective. This is a can of worms best avoided where sex is only considered from the secular perspective.
Good post brah.
I go have sex with a five year old boy that's not wrong if I get off well on it?
A cup of tea and a cigar just doesnt cut it for me...... LOL. IMHO, I think you are doing something wrong. LOL.
There is that too
Isn't "desireless" a less accurate translation than "beyond desire"?
I would have to think so.
We are horribly backwards in regards to sex. Think of what it means to "get off." If someone told you that the purpose of digestion was to create turds or the visible result of digestion you would think it absurd. It is equally naive to think that the sole purpose of sex enrgy is creating babies.
Some women have come close to understanding by realizing that the crime of rape is not a sex crime but a crime of violence. What this means is that sex energy is being used to heighten the expressions of negative emotions. We don't see how much sex energy is used to feed and further negative emotions and draining a person of a needed quality of energy for their own inner growth. The inner imbalance furthered by ignorant misuse of sex energy just furthers the adverse results of the fallen human condition.
It is normal to think that excited negative emotions that feed on sex energy is sex but it really isn't. Sex is naturally animal. Its energies are the creative energies and used both by our animal and spiritual natures. Our acquired negative emotions destroy the balance. Sex for sex sake is necessary but a rather rare experience in these times.
Hey, Nick, we agree on something.
I demand a review.
Battenburg is a timeless classic!
Not a man who would have many friends I would have thought, he sounds repulsive
Separate names with a comma.