Does sex have a purpose?

[Ardhanariswar]

"Why do you waste intelligence defending the propensity for sexual gratification? I am sure you could be applying your intelligence in more important departments."


those who wish to live the path of life as the householder should do so, i dont think it is in your area to demean other people for wanting to live life.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

"The Burbs"! I love it!

Ceridwen -
Glad to take you back to a happy moment. Good movie. I started to quote Robin Williams from "Good Morning Vietnam". Can you guess which line I was going to apply to Par?

Paraprakrti,
If it will make you feel better, I'll make the argument that you seem hell-bent on winning (and it has been pointed out a couple of times - no one else is even making the argument). Here you go:
"Man, I sure am glad I have sex indiscriminately with multiple partners and without a care about the consequences. Yep - this promiscuous sex is the only reason I live for tomorrow. No doubt about it, my carefree lifestyle is the way to go."

Okay - now you can go ahead and tell me how far off base I am (you have been all along - so don't stop now). Of course, no one has taken this position yet, but for those of us that feel like sex might just be a good thing that also curls your toes, feel free to rip us a new tail for our sinful ways.

Next time you are communing with God, ask him if he cares that I occasionally get my cookies for the pleasure of it. My guess is he'll just shake his head in amazement at the very thought of the question - if he exists. Oh - by the way - my version of God says it's okay as long as no one gets hurt. Ergo, you must be wrong.

TVOR

 

[Mister Emu]

But we're not talking about WHY we evolved reproductive organs. We're talking about what we think of them in present terms. For cavemen, procreation was the primary use of sex, and a good thing too, or we might not be here. Today, however, we aren't struggling to populate the earth. It is okay to have sex without the intention of having children.

The purpose of sex is procreation, your (in general your, not a specific person) purpose for having sexual intercourse might be pleasure, or something else, this does not change that the reason we can copulate at all(and therefore the purpose of said copulation) is procreation.

 

[Sunstone]

The human ear is obviously evolved to efficiently funnel sound to the inner ear. Thus, the "purpose" of the ear is to funnel sound. But I've known people who liked their ears nibbled on during moments of passion. Did that make them perverts because they were not using their ears for their evolutionary "purpose"? In the same way, I've noticed that many people wear decorations in or on their ears. Is this a perversion of the purpose for which ears evolved?

Just because the ear evolved as a means of funnelling sound does not mean that the sole legitimate use for the ear is to funnel sound. And just because sex evolved as a means for procreation does not mean that the sole legitimate use we have for it is procreation.

 

[Mister Emu]

Did I say perverted anywhere in my post? No. Have I reffered to those who indulge in sensual gratification as perverts? No.

I will ask that in further discussion you refrain from putting words in my mouth.

The fact that there are different uses for the ear does not change that the purpose of the ear is hearing.

The fact that there are different uses for sex does not change that the purpose of sex is procreation.

 

[Sunstone]

Did I say those were your words? NO. Those happen to be the words I used not you. You jump to accuse.

 

[Mister Emu]

I'm sorry, speech mannerisms are hard to interpret via written word.

I thought you were accusing me of calling people perverts.

Again I apologize.

 

[Sunstone]

No hard feelings. Thanks for the apology.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Just wanted to let both Mister Emu and Sunstone know that I thought the way they worked toward understanding what the other had meant was admirable.
Also, although this wasn't the point of this thread, I just wanted to say how much I agree with something-

... speech mannerisms are hard to interpret via written word.

I find that this is incredibly true. The only thing I find worse for communicating is the phone, where one has the words and the tone of voice to go by, but nothing else. So much of communication is in the nuances of facial expressions, gestures, all these things that we can't see unless we're in visual contact with the person, that the odds of someone having another interpretation of what another person meant are extrodinarily high, I'd imagine... Does anyone know of any studies about this?

Okay, let the original topic resume! Sorry for that brief detour!

 

[Paraprakrti]

"Why do you waste intelligence defending the propensity for sexual gratification? I am sure you could be applying your intelligence in more important departments."


those who wish to live the path of life as the householder should do so, i dont think it is in your area to demean other people for wanting to live life.

But no one here is promoting grhastha. They are all promoting grhamedhi.
They may think that I am their enemy, but that is their disease.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Ahhhh.... I think that this is where we learn where the misunderstanding is coming from. Thanks to Gerani's cultural understanding, mentioning "the path of life as the householder," we are now able to see where things are originating from. Since the thread is under " Religious Education/ Debate/General Debates," most people are trying to not bring religion into the debate. Had the topic been "Religious Education/ Debate/ Religious Debates," then your arguments would be understood for what they are- religious arguments.

Since I claim no understanding myself, I was able to use this site in order to see where you are coming from. (I think. I realize that a person needs an entire lifetime in order to understand the intracacies of certain religions, so I apologize if I get it wrong.) According to them, grhastha is the second spiritual level (asrama) and the main differences between grhastha and grhamedhi are:

The scriptures distinguish between grhastha (one who lives a householder life according to the scriptures), and grhamedhi (attached, materialistic householder who misuses his material facilities for unlimited sensual enjoyment). The first one is praised because he follows the path of spiritual elevation but the other is condemned.

I love it when an otherwise raucous debate is cleared up by the understanding of what caused the misunderstanding! *does a happy dance* Here's where the miscommunication seems to break down to:

But no one here is promoting grhastha.

Wonderfully put! No one was promoting grhastha because they didn't realize you were coming at the discussion from a religious point of view! By that argument, everyone here is promoting grhastha. They are living their lives according to whatever scriptures they go by (if they have any they choose to go by), and they all seem to be seeking spiritual elevation over sensual enjoyment.

They are all promoting grhamedhi.

This is so beautiful! *is getting teary-eyed, because she'd become concerned about the tone of this thread.* Another misunderstanding that would have been clear if we'd known you were coming at it from a religious stance. We are not 'all' promoting grhamedhi, since we didn't know that was what you were perceiving it as!

The closest parallel I can use, to explain it to my own limited thinking: some Wiccans and Pagans wear a five-pointed star, in order to honor their connection with the elements, which many see as being Fire, Water, Earth, Air and the fifth representing Spirit. They normally wear it with the fifth point upward, symbolizing the belief that Spirit is the most important of these elements. In contrast (again, please forgive me if I misunderstand) Satanists wear the same five-pointed star, but they wear it with the fifth point downward, to them symbolizing their belief of man's acceptance and the perfection of what is material over that which is spiritual.

So our entire misunderstanding was the equivalent of some people having a discussion about the purpose of sex in a non-religious context when a person walks into the room and begins telling them that they should wear a star right-side-up, and that doing so the other way around makes them 'diseased', when none of the people knew that this had religious connatations except for the fellow with the star, who perhaps was thinking that these people were discussing this in a religious manner! I'm so happy to understand! To steal one of my favorite lines from "The A-Team," 'I love it when a plan comes together!'

They may think that I am their enemy, but that is their disease.

See? Once I found the microscope for seeing where the misunderstanding came from, the microscope proving that you, too, are diseased, Paraprakrti.This discovery meant I also found the antibacterial soap that'll prove there was no 'disease' in the first place!

I made a big, virtual bubble-bath of this soap to get rid of this disease of misunderstanding! *pulls out a tub big enough for everyone* Let's all dive in, clear away the confusion and break out the rubber-duckies!

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm doing a cannon-ball! *hops into the tub, happily*

 

[Bastet]

I'm happy that the penny has dropped for you where Paraprakrti is concerned, Feathers. I already knew where s/he is coming from on this topic, as very obviously are several other people in this thread. While this thread is in the General Debates section, it seems some people are incapable of separating religion from some subjects, as they are only ever guided by their holy books. I gave up arguing against such idiocy (although I found it particularly hard to ignore the blatantly stupid assertions about rape), a page or two back, because, no matter what I or anyone else would say to the contrary, they will not question their religious teachings. Not my problem.

 

[true blood]

When more then half the posters relate sex to spirituality its kinda hard not to include ones religion. Besides that fact the notion that carnal has something to do with spiritual is almost comical.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

It is immaterial to me from what standpoint Par is making his/her argument. If it is religious in its roots, it is no less pompous. We have all seen individuals on here that can't seem to get past their individual biases - and are therefore not open to different ideas. I did notice that Par has not responded to my earlier posts directed to him, so I take it that he either has reached his point of exasperation or has seen the error of his ways (highly unlikely). Whatever the reason, at the very least, he has slowed down in his posting replies with a highly offensive tone. So, my goal is accomplished (at least in the short term).
Feathers - I don't have any ill feelings toward Par - his inability to allow for differing opinions makes him the smaller person. His loss, not mine.

There, now we can both have claimed the "win". :bonk:

TVOR

 

[Ardhanariswar]

a paraprakrti:

http://www.bhagavad-gita.us/bhagavad-gita-3-34.htm

Gita 3:34

indriyasyendriyasyarthe
raga-dvesau vyavasthitau
tayor na vasam agacchet
tau hy asya paripanthinau​

There are principles to regulate attachment and aversion pertaining to the senses and their objects. One should not come under the control of such attachment and aversion, because they are stumbling blocks on the path of self-realization.

Unrestricted sense enjoyment is the cause of material encagement, but one who follows the rules and regulations of the revealed scriptures does not become entangled by the sense objects. For example, sex enjoyment is a necessity for the conditioned soul, and sex enjoyment is allowed under the license of marriage ties.

thats what scripture says. we can enjoy sex, but we should not (as advised by the gita) to not have sex 24-7.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Furthermore...

Bhagavad-Gita
chapter 7


TEXT 11:

balam balavatam caham
kama-raga-vivarjitam
dharmaviruddho bhutesu
kamo 'smi bharatarsabha

SYNONYMS:

balam--strength; bala-vatam--of the strong; ca--and; aham--I am; kama--passion; raga--attachment; vivarjitam--devoid of; dharma-aviruddhah--not against the religious principles; bhutesu--in all beings; kamah--sex life; asmi--I am; bharata-rsabha--O lord of the Bharatas.

TRANSLATION:

I am the strength of the strong, devoid of passion and desire. I am sex life which is not contrary to religious principles, O Lord of the Bharatas [Arjuna].

PURPORT:

The strong man's strength should be applied to protect the weak, not for personal aggression. Similarly, sex life, according to religious principles (dharma), should be for the propagation of children, not otherwise. The responsibility of parents is then to make their offspring Krsna conscious.


The rules and restrictions that are spoken of in the purported verse you posted are to only have sex with your spouse and for the purpose of begetting and properly raising a child.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Ahhhh.... I think that this is where we learn where the misunderstanding is coming from. Thanks to Gerani's cultural understanding, mentioning "the path of life as the householder," we are now able to see where things are originating from. Since the thread is under " Religious Education/ Debate/General Debates," most people are trying to not bring religion into the debate. Had the topic been "Religious Education/ Debate/ Religious Debates," then your arguments would be understood for what they are- religious arguments.

Even if we do not agree with the spiritual benefit of avoiding illicit sex, we should be able to understand how it benefits on a material level. That is why most of the examples I give have to do with things like abortion. The only reason I mentioned grhastha was because Gerani brought up householder life.

Wonderfully put! No one was promoting grhastha because they didn't realize you were coming at the discussion from a religious point of view! By that argument, everyone here is promoting grhastha. They are living their lives according to whatever scriptures they go by (if they have any they choose to go by), and they all seem to be seeking spiritual elevation over sensual enjoyment.

If everyone here is seeking spiritual elevation over sensual enjoyment, then this conversation wouldn't be going on. All people need to realize is that sex is for procreation. That is its main purpose. If we make pleasure its main purpose (BY OUR OWN WHIMS) then that is a perversion. Pleasure will be there, regardless, but if the natural intent is not there then the sexual act is a perverted lust. Now, if you are inclined to argue this point then it proves that you are not seeking spiritual elevation over sensual enjoyment.
Nor does this have to be from a religious point of view. Sexual indulgement causes suffering. If you can't see that, then visit a couple other threads about abortion. There is also STD's. And beside all this, being indulged in sexual gratification produces people who pointlessly try to defend the propensity. This thread is proof of sexual indulgement. If most of you are so inclined to defend it, then why are you wasting your time posting on the internet. You should be having sex!

This is so beautiful! *is getting teary-eyed, because she'd become concerned about the tone of this thread.* Another misunderstanding that would have been clear if we'd known you were coming at it from a religious stance. We are not 'all' promoting grhamedhi, since we didn't know that was what you were perceiving it as!

My "religious stance" is practical even to those who do not follow in them particularly. Even if you do not accept anything spiritual, anyone can understand the value of being unattached to material indulgement by the result of material suffering. No, the definition of grhamedhi is what you are promoting. Just because you did not know the word "grhamedhi" doesn't mean that you are exempt from it.

So our entire misunderstanding was the equivalent of some people having a discussion about the purpose of sex in a non-religious context when a person walks into the room and begins telling them that they should wear a star right-side-up, and that doing so the other way around makes them 'diseased', when none of the people knew that this had religious connatations except for the fellow with the star, who perhaps was thinking that these people were discussing this in a religious manner! I'm so happy to understand! To steal one of my favorite lines from "The A-Team," 'I love it when a plan comes together!'

Religious or non-religious... what would be common sense, if people were not so quick to defend the sexual gratification propensity. Just ask yourself why you even persist in defending it. What is your motivation? And once you determine that, why do you persist talking about it?

 

[Pah]

Tantric sex
http://www.luckymojo.com/tktantradefinition.html

Tantra (a Sanskrit word which means "woven together") is a term loosely applied to several divergent and even contradictory schools of Hindu yoga in which the sexual union of male and female is worshipped either in principle or in human practice. It has also come to be applied to sex-based religious practices developed in other religions, including Bon, Tibetan Buddhism, Taoism, Christianty, Judaism, and Transcendentalism.

Pre-Hindu tantra: Shaktiism and Shaivism
Although tantra yoga texts themselves are only dated to the medieval period in India, it is thought by some that the earliest strand of tantra yoga, derived from the Dravidian, pre-Hindu religion of Shaktiism (worship of the goddess in her numerous forms), focuses on yoni puja, a ceremony honouring the vulva -- either of a statue or a living woman. Depending upon the school of study, this puja may involve making offerings of food and liquids while chanting prayers or it may involve the deliberate sexual arousal of a woman who is believed to embody or personify the deity. A related thread of tantra yoga that derives from Shaivism (the worship of the god Siva, which predates the syncretistic religion now known as Hinduism) has at its center linga puja, a ceremony honouring the penis, often in the form of a natural upright stone. Similar objects of worship have been found among the archaeological remains of many neolithic people around the world, leading some theorists to speculate that "sex worship" in some form or another is humanity's oldest relgiion.

Tibetan Buddhism and pre-Buddhist Bon forms of tantra
A modified verion of pre-Hindu tantrism can be found in contemporary Tibetan Buddhism, where it seems to be a blend of pre-Buddhist goddess worship mingled with influences from the ancient Tibetan animist religion known as Bon. Like Hindu tantra, Tibetan Buddhist tantra encompasses schools of practice that range from the meditational to the sexually active.

Taoist "tantric" alchemy
That other great Asian religion, Taoism, has its own tantric schools, each with a different view of the role of sexual activity in the life of the aspirant. One strand of Taoist tantra is called sexual alchemy, or, more popularly tantric alchemy. Like Western alchemy, Taoist sexual alchemy places a certain amount of emphasis on the search for immortality or at least long life. Presumeably influenced by the male-centered, kundalini-derived forms of Hindu tantra, Taoist tantric alchemy involves breath and muscle control and emhasizes the retention of sperm as proof of spiritual attainment. Other Taoist tantra teachers, working out of a paradigm that seems to be derived from Shaktiism, claim that Lao Tzu, the founder of Taoism, was in fact advocating a form of yoni puja or worship of the vulva when he wrote about "the valley spirit."

Judeo-Christian "tantric sex": karezza et al
Going still farther afield, the term "tantra" or "tantric sex" is frequently -- for the sake of convenience -- applied in error to Western religious or spiritual practices in which slow, mindful sexual union (or masturbation) creates a path to the experience of spiritual ecstasy. Some of these Western practices arose during the 19th century, apparently by spontaneous discovery, and have no specific relationship to tantra yoga at all -- although one American popularizer of Western sacred sex (Alice Bunker Stockham) is known to have travelled to India to study Hindu tantra yoga. Each "discoverer" gave his or her system a unique name -- the Reverend John Humphrey Noyes preached the doctrine of "Male Continence"; A. E. Newton wrote of "The Better Way;" Alice Stockham pioneered "Karezza"; Paschal Beverly Randolph advocated "Eulis!...or the Anseiratic Mysteries"; Thomas Lake Harris practiced a form of breath-eroticism as well as non-corporeal sexual union with beings from other dimensions; George Washington Savory described "Hell Upon Earth Made Heaven" through the religio-mystical practice of "Passive Coition" and "Bosom Love;" Stockham's student John William Lloyd coined the term "Magnetation;" and Stockham herself published George N. Miller's novel, "Strike of a Sex," in which he described the fictional but karezza-like "Zugassent's Discovery." While these Western spiritual practices share certain common sexual techniques with traditional Hindu tantra yoga, most of them fit conveniently into Christian, Jewish, or Transcendentalist conceptual frameworks, obviating the need for the practioner to adopt a culturally "foreign" religion.

It should be obvious now that sex can be spiritual

-pah-

 

[Ardhanariswar]

forgive me paraprakrti. ive made the mistake of quoting from a krishna consciousness website.

according to the path of the house holder, sex is also used for pleasure. its the reason why God made it so! we dont have sex all around. no. we have sex in moderation. to appreciate our partners in this physical passionate way that seals our love and bond together. yes, you can have kids too. as for gays, its for the previous reason, pure love and joy.

i really dont think religion has the right to mandate how much sex people have. if people love each other, go for it. if you want kids, go for it. God is love, im POSITIVE that God does not want us to have sex every hour, but in moderation.

just ask God. simple question. ask him yourself if you want to know when you can have sex or not.

thats the householderlife. the life you describe is of krishna. which is slightly off context cuz he made love to every gopi in vridavanam. he speaks in the gita from of that of a sage, a wise person, one who has given up the life of the householder (including sex) in search of the truth.
this is the later part of the householder stage, yet can also be traveled upon by the bachelor after completing studies (the bachelor can either get married or become an ascetic).

 

[Paraprakrti]

I'm happy that the penny has dropped for you where Paraprakrti is concerned, Feathers. I already knew where s/he is coming from on this topic, as very obviously are several other people in this thread. While this thread is in the General Debates section, it seems some people are incapable of separating religion from some subjects, as they are only ever guided by their holy books. I gave up arguing against such idiocy (although I found it particularly hard to ignore the blatantly stupid assertions about rape), a page or two back, because, no matter what I or anyone else would say to the contrary, they will not question their religious teachings. Not my problem.

It is unnecessary to separate this subject from my "holy books" because the conclusion is beneficial whether or not anyone perceives the spiritual benefit. It was never even brought up as a religious context until Gerani metioned something and so I responded to him. My assertions about rape were that if people were less indulged in sexual gratification (through sexual imagery in media, ads, etc) then there would be less rape because people would have an understanding what the sexual act is primarily for and there would be no media influences toward sexual gratification. There is no current example of this type of society. Everywhere is degraded to some degree. So you can keep disagreeing, but there is a direct connection between the propensity for unrestricted sexual gratification and rape. Consentuality does not rationalize it. A man watches television but didn't give consent to be brainwashed by sexual imagery all over the place. He goes out with his friends and 95% of the discussion topics revolve around sex. Sure, this man could find new friends and stop watching television, but he does not know why he should. He has no real knowledge of the value of restricting the sexual propensity in light of gaining knowledge. If he had been raised with the knowledge of sex primarily as a means for procreation, then he wouldn't be so susceptible to societal brainwashing. Consent is never given the opportunity in the first place. Then we wonder why people violate that consent when it comes down to the sexual act itself. I am not speaking to justify anyone's propensity to rape, but at the end of the day we all have to look at ourselves. Rape is prominent because we allow it to be.