• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Spirituality and sexuality

MyDoorsAreOpen

MyDoorsAreOpen

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
8,549
Spirituality and sexuality have a very complicated relationship, that's varied widely over stretches of place and time, and has often been the subject of intense debate among philosophers and theologians. What's your general take on this relationship?

I really think the Catholic Church has done an incredible disservice to Western Civilization in its fearful approach to all human sexuality. This was just bound to sow the seeds of a large body of Westerners ultimately thinking of all spirituality as the enemy of the sensual and erotic, which in the vast majority of cultures, faiths, and codes of natural law, it most certainly is not! An evolutionary biologist would even agree that a worldview that promotes healthy sexuality has a reproductive advantage over one that doesn't, but I go a step further and see that human sexuality, for most people, is internally consistent with the stated goals of most spiritual systems -- getting in tune with your true nature and finding your place in the bigger picture.

Even many forms of Christianity indigenous to the West are quite sex-positive.

I do think that reckless and poorly thought out sexual activities are a serious impediment to spiritual progress, because they create drama and force you to focus on a lot of petty things you could otherwise ignore and look instead at the big picture, if you life was simpler. Reckless sex can result in great suffering of a great many flavors, not only for you but for other people as well. I really think any mature spiritual tradition that's serious about its members' personal growth and enlightenment, will teach chastity (sex only in situations where it does not risk hurting anyone), and will warn people that sex is something requiring an adult level of judgement and forethought. But any good spiritual tradition will also teach that sex a beautiful thing which can help bind two people, and it's not inherently sinful to enjoy it at all.

Can anyone make a general statement on the Hindu and/or Buddhist view on sex, in your experience? Because both of these traditions are so old and varied in their beliefs and approaches, I doubt there's much general consensus overall, but if you're a fan of Eastern thought, what's been your take?
 
I can't speak with much credibility here as it's something i've only recently been reading further into and practicing to a certain degree.

The notion behind sex in relation to enlightenment/awakening through Hindu philosophy is that sexual energy(which is seen as the lifeforce or Kundalini energy) is channeled through one's chakras through meditation as a mean's of uniting with 'god/shiva' or 'supreme-consciousness', whatever you wish to call it. This form of meditation actually accentuates the sexual drive immensely.

I don't think sex is condemned here, but more or less seen as a desire one must control in order to properly channel that energy.
 
Last edited:
I just typed up a long ass response but got some error and lost everything.

Basically, Buddhism views sex as totally fine, as long as it isn't with someone else's wife/husband, or with children. Also, monastics generally abstain from all sex- though these views vary greatly considering the breadth of the religion and its interpretations.
 
An interesting topic one encounters particularly in India is the idea of something SO audacious that it scares away evil. This is seen in the Hijira people and their antiques, as well as on the exteriors of some ancient temples, which depict reliefs of what can only be described as porn.

I'd have more to write on this in times when I am more on the "eros" side of the eros-thanatos spectrum. Right now I am leaning more toward the other end. But my general opinion is that sex doesn't have a big place (good or bad) in my own spiritual beliefs.

A salient aspect of spiritual movements that utilize sex as a central item is that they fail under what I refer to as "the gay razor" (a very useful tool for gauging the validity of any pan-human claims about sexuality, if you ask me). By this I mean they make the fault of being exclusively hetero-centric, so much so that their followers tend to get very confused and not say much when faced with the question of homosexuality. A lot of these movements tend to place a lot of emphasis on the idea of man/woman dualism (and unity thereof) and, what's more, on the rather gross (IMO) process of reproduction.
 
Last edited:
I do think that reckless and poorly thought out sexual activities are a serious impediment to spiritual progress, because they create drama and force you to focus on a lot of petty things you could otherwise ignore and look instead at the big picture, if you life was simpler. Reckless sex can result in great suffering of a great many flavors, not only for you but for other people as well. I really think any mature spiritual tradition that's serious about its members' personal growth and enlightenment, will teach chastity (sex only in situations where it does not risk hurting anyone), and will warn people that sex is something requiring an adult level of judgement and forethought. But any good spiritual tradition will also teach that sex a beautiful thing which can help bind two people, and it's not inherently sinful to enjoy it at all.
Click to expand...
i thought they taught chastity because they wanted to make us feel shame and guilt about our sexual urges or (oh my) actions... it is a mechanism of control, they are able to direct that sexual energy in other ways and they can scapegoat any pervywankers around to make the peasants happy (if we took a lesson from the bonobos, i think we'd have reach our utopia by now)

sex is important powerful bla bla, but it is just another act. a dick in a pussy :) there should be no reason to restrict anybody from fulfilling his natural sexuality (given that he doesn't hurt anyone... any jail sentence, imo, should be for violent offenders and actually they rehabilitate violent offenders

"when morality rears its ugly head" tim leary
 
Sexual pleasure in any form is just a bodily craving, a desire, which can never be fulfilled. You can have sex as many times as you want, but you won't be satisfied.
Craving for something, that can't satisfy one permanently brings suffering.
And one's sexual desire often does not only bring suffering to self, but to others also by unwholesome acts. (I have proved it to myself and there's a chance I will do it again :\)

Nonetheless I personally have nothing against people having sex, if they both wholly agree to it.
 
>>Sexual pleasure in any form is just a bodily craving, a desire, which can never be fulfilled. You can have sex as many times as you want, but you won't be satisfied>>

you may have the rare combo of being an asexual and not being able to get a boner and not being able to cum, but the rest of us get satisfied.... trust me
 
qwe said:
>>Sexual pleasure in any form is just a bodily craving, a desire, which can never be fulfilled. You can have sex as many times as you want, but you won't be satisfied>>

you may have the rare combo of being an asexual and not being able to get a boner and not being able to cum, but the rest of us get satisfied.... trust me
Click to expand...
I guess you stopped reading my post right there. If you read it further, you would probably have understood, that I meant satisfied permanently. So I encourage you to take your time and read my post to the end. ;)
 
it is permanent because it's cyclical. a human gets horny every so often, and during those periods, tries to get laid. if he gets laid during those periods, he is satisfied

it only ceases to be a good motivator (ceases to be permanent, and to bring suffering) if you are unable to get sex (but anyone can get a prostitute if they have enough money)

i did read your whole post
 
And one's sexual desire often does not only bring suffering to self, but to others also by unwholesome acts. (I have proved it to myself and there's a chance I will do it again )
Click to expand...
sex is a trip. you had a bad trip. i'm not trying to make fun of you when i say the answer is either another sex or psychedelic session or a therapist
 
qwe said:
sex is a trip. you had a bad trip. i'm not trying to make fun of you when i say the answer is either another sex or psychedelic session or a therapist
Click to expand...
You have understood me completely wrong. I am not saying having sex in itself can't be pleasurable. I was talking of the desire for sexual pleasure.

Would you consider craving for something, that can't ever satisfy you permanently positive or negative?

Try to look at it from a further perspective, not just "sex is good, so it's all good".
 
Last edited:
interesting

but is there any desire that is not infinite? and what is desire as opposed to craving?
 
1) desire is not infinite. you can want a cheeseburger 10x more tomorrow than today
2) desires are able to be satiated, basically by definition

>>Would you consider craving for something, that can't ever satisfy you permanently positive or negative?>>

your logic is making no sense, when my girl and i are in the mood, i get satisfied. if i get satisfied every time i go in heat (get horny) then how could you say it is unsatisfiable? it's a biological cycle, every so often we get the urge to have sex, and if we do, we get satiated, if we don't, we cry out of lonliness :)
 
we are talking about is what Levinas calls (in Totality and Infinity) 'metaphysical desire'. 'desire in itself'. or what Camus talks about in his essay on Sisyphus. it is an abstraction, not a desire bound to an object. in essence, taken as such desire is desire for 'otherness'. and this is the fundamental dual structure of desire that is insatiable: in making this otherness its own, pleasure is taken. but, as the otherness is absorbed into the totality of the self, it is not desired, and your desire is already turning away from it, to (a new) otherness. the moment of actual 'satisfaction' is so short-lived and fleeting, and it is questionable whether it really existed or just appeared to come close enough to tell yourself it did. structurally though, it is illusionary. you cannot grasp the otherness desired, for then it ceases to be other. for example: you have mindblowing sex. a mindblowing orgasm ensues. are you satisfied? no! the moment did not even pass and you already say "that was mindblowing!" even at the moment of orgasm itself you think to yourself "wow this is fantastic!", creating a distance between 'you' and 'the orgasm'/your satisfaction (some feel guilty, ashamed, etc...). and there the 'you' escapes its satisfaction and you put yourself above/besides/outside of it. its really easy to look over this teeny bit, but its there. you already desire something else; talk, cuddle, narcissim, go to the bathroom, eat, whatever or even to have sex again! a tiny part of you is not satisfied with it, its outside of the satisfaction. you were never 'complete', you remained dual/opposed to it.

contrary to what you say, its not cyclic, it never got satisfied. though this is something we overlook or forget, its nonetheless always present. you ate a big meal, you are already thinking what you will do next. one could even venture to say that everything we do is an attempt at forgetting something, pushing it away, fleeing from it into the things we do, and we're constantly doing doing doing. Heidegger calls this "Seinsvergessenheit" (forgetfulness of being), in the existentiale (ontologic mode of being) of 'uneigentlichkeit' ('inauthenticity' or lit. 'not-himself-ness' 'not his own or proper being'). which is the binding of our infinite desire or 'openness' to a finite object. an objectification of the essence of our subjectivity which is 'openness'.
the talk would have as its object a 'true state of happiness' wherein we do not feel any need to do or say anything (which isn't the same as not doing or saying anything); instead of constantly being driven by 'something' insatiable until your dead. (Kierkegaard - the Sickness unto Death)

all ultimately draw a similar conclusion (though their ways differ tremendously, and the real point lies exactly therein); which is essentially: to be happy is to accept the infinity of desire itself as the fulfillment of man's heart. ("one must imagine Sysiphus happy"); thus resolving, or putting at rest, desire in desire itself. the destination is the path itself. and so one comes back to where one started from, albeit a richer man.

herein lies the difference between craving and desire: craving is desire having an object (of fulfillment), while desire has itself as its subject.
 
Last edited:
Well written azzazza.

But I think it would be more correct to say, that most humans are doing stuff in an attempt to arrive to this "true state of happiness", but with wrong means, which will never take them there. Instead we become addicted to these short-lived satisfactions - accomplishments for the ego/mind, pleasures for the body like sex and eating etc.

And this is exactly what most spiritual teachings are trying to teach people - that there's a way to "true happiness" (many expressions, you could use here), which isn't connected to any satisfactions for the body and mind - that humans really don't need those to feel good.
This is the very reason why monks and nuns are expected to practise celibacy. It's a teaching.
 
A lot of it is about having mutual respect. People (usually men) often use others (usually women) during sex...it can result in unwanted pregancies and STD's. So it can be very damaging indeed.

It's playing with fire. But I don't doubt it can be delightful, nonetheless :D
 
But I think it would be more correct to say, that most humans are doing stuff in an attempt to arrive to this "true state of happiness", but with wrong means, which will never take them there. Instead we become addicted to these short-lived satisfactions - accomplishments for the ego/mind, pleasures for the body like sex and eating etc.

And this is exactly what most spiritual teachings are trying to teach people - that there's a way to "true happiness" (many expressions, you could use here), which isn't connected to any satisfactions for the body and mind - that humans really don't need those to feel good.
This is the very reason why monks and nuns are expected to practise celibacy. It's a teaching.
Click to expand...

yes, one confuses his own subjectivity with objects (of desire).
-but this is what someone practicing celibacy must also be well aware of: not to let his celibacy become such an object or means of satisfying a desire of running away from something. (what Kierkegaard would call 'anxiety about sin')
 
azzazza !? said:
yes, one confuses his own subjectivity with objects (of desire).
-but this is what someone practicing celibacy must also be well aware of: not to let his celibacy become such an object or means of satisfying a desire of running away from something. (what Kierkegaard would call 'anxiety about sin')
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. The way it teaches one, is that when the desire arises, when you're practicing celibacy, you can become mindful of the desire for what it really is and it loses its grip on you eventually. Sounds really easy, but it isn't, since sexual desire is considered the strongest desire of humans.

But if one just practices celibacy, cause "the rules say so" or if they are just trying to accomplish something for their mind, it's probably gonna take a longer time for him/her to understand the reasoning behind it. If ever..

Quoting from a random web-page:
"The people who choose a celibate lifestyle ('desire' not to have) suffer in a different way from people that choose to have sex ('desire' to have). But all people (monks too) suffer when it comes to sex, if they have desire."
 
Last edited:
i think this is why i "follow" (in the loosest terms) a religious faith where sexual feeling/pleasure is part of the spiritual experience. during the ceremony, you chant and dance to drums until you are in a primal sort of heat. the loa are called, and if you are open enough, released of all those human barriers, the loa will enter you, posses you, and "ride" you to express their desires. during ceremonies where Ezili is called, for example (loa of young women, lust, etc), the woman being ridden by Ezili is kind of expected to behave sexually, kissing men, fondling women, etc.

i kind of think they are almost the same thing.....sex, spirituality. sexspirtuality. spirtualexity.
 
azzazza !? said:
we are talking about is what Levinas calls (in Totality and Infinity) 'metaphysical desire'. 'desire in itself'. or what Camus talks about in his essay on Sisyphus. it is an abstraction, not a desire bound to an object. in essence, taken as such desire is desire for 'otherness'. and this is the fundamental dual structure of desire that is insatiable: in making this otherness its own, pleasure is taken. but, as the otherness is absorbed into the totality of the self, it is not desired, and your desire is already turning away from it, to (a new) otherness. the moment of actual 'satisfaction' is so short-lived and fleeting, and it is questionable whether it really existed or just appeared to come close enough to tell yourself it did. structurally though, it is illusionary. you cannot grasp the otherness desired, for then it ceases to be other. for example: you have mindblowing sex. a mindblowing orgasm ensues. are you satisfied? no! the moment did not even pass and you already say "that was mindblowing!" even at the moment of orgasm itself you think to yourself "wow this is fantastic!", creating a distance between 'you' and 'the orgasm'/your satisfaction (some feel guilty, ashamed, etc...). and there the 'you' escapes its satisfaction and you put yourself above/besides/outside of it. its really easy to look over this teeny bit, but its there. you already desire something else; talk, cuddle, narcissim, go to the bathroom, eat, whatever or even to have sex again! a tiny part of you is not satisfied with it, its outside of the satisfaction. you were never 'complete', you remained dual/opposed to it.

contrary to what you say, its not cyclic, it never got satisfied. though this is something we overlook or forget, its nonetheless always present. you ate a big meal, you are already thinking what you will do next. one could even venture to say that everything we do is an attempt at forgetting something, pushing it away, fleeing from it into the things we do, and we're constantly doing doing doing. Heidegger calls this "Seinsvergessenheit" (forgetfulness of being), in the existentiale (ontologic mode of being) of 'uneigentlichkeit' ('inauthenticity' or lit. 'not-himself-ness' 'not his own or proper being'). which is the binding of our infinite desire or 'openness' to a finite object. an objectification of the essence of our subjectivity which is 'openness'.
the talk would have as its object a 'true state of happiness' wherein we do not feel any need to do or say anything (which isn't the same as not doing or saying anything); instead of constantly being driven by 'something' insatiable until your dead. (Kierkegaard - the Sickness unto Death)

all ultimately draw a similar conclusion (though their ways differ tremendously, and the real point lies exactly therein); which is essentially: to be happy is to accept the infinity of desire itself as the fulfillment of man's heart. ("one must imagine Sysiphus happy"); thus resolving, or putting at rest, desire in desire itself. the destination is the path itself. and so one comes back to where one started from, albeit a richer man.

herein lies the difference between craving and desire: craving is desire having an object (of fulfillment), while desire has itself as its subject.
Click to expand...

holy shit: a well thought out, intelligent post!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top