Does sex have a purpose?

[Feathers in Hair]

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?

*sad smile* Because I was trying to like you, Paraprakrti. I know this probably means little or nothing to you, but it matters to me. I try to see the good in everyone, and I was foolish to think I could make everyone get along by
prancing around like the little idiot clown I am. I dislike conflict (even in forum environments, like this one), and it makes me cry when someone belittles me, or another person. My motivation, since I don't think I ever advocated one way or the other, in persisting to talk about it, was trying to make peace. (For the record? I dislike sex, personally, and am not sure if I could be motivated to do it even for procreative reasons.)

May you be blessed, Paraprakrti. I am sure there is much good in you, I'm just having difficulty seeing it right now.

 

[Paraprakrti]

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.

This is your whimsy. Sex in moderation means for begetting and raising a child. That is pure love. Homosex is not pure love, it is pure lust.

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.

Love is in connection with the reservoir of love, aka: God. Any so-called love that ignores that reservoir is a perverted reflection of that love, aka: lust. God prescribes that householders engage in sex for the purpose of family life. Either "religion" will mandate and people will be self-controlled and thus peaceful, or we will mandate it by our own foolish whims and suffer. The suffering is already there, I shouldn't even have to mention it.

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

God prescribes for us to have sex for the purpose of procreation. He knows we want peace and happiness and this is the way to attain it, not by material indulgement.

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.

That is okay, you are not Krsna. Lord Siva drank an ocean of poison. So now you go imitate Him. I'll make it easier for you: Just drink a cup of poison.

 

[Paraprakrti]

*sad smile* Because I was trying to like you, Paraprakrti. I know this probably means little or nothing to you, but it matters to me. I try to see the good in everyone, and I was foolish to think I could make everyone get along by
prancing around like the little idiot clown I am. I dislike conflict (even in forum environments, like this one), and it makes me cry when someone belittles me, or another person. My motivation, since I don't think I ever advocated one way or the other, in persisting to talk about it, was trying to make peace. (For the record? I dislike sex, personally, and am not sure if I could be motivated to do it even for procreative reasons.)

May you be blessed, Paraprakrti. I am sure there is much good in you, I'm just having difficulty seeing it right now.

You don't see good because people are not getting along with each other; because what I am saying is not pleasing to the ears (or rather in this case, eyes) of those who are indulged in sexual gratification.

But what is the value of getting along to suffer?

Do you understand when, as a child, a parent may chastise you in order to teach you something? So that may not be getting along at that moment, but it is getting along in the long run.

I doubt that many people here, (if at all), are going to accept what I am saying. The good in it outweighs the good in being attached to sexual gratification. People are so clinged to sexual gratification, though, that they will fight against anything that offends it. No rationality is needed.
And now I am the bad guy. This would be almost funny if it wasn't so sad. A clear sense of rationality can understand tha value of restricting sexual gratification. But people sacrifice this understanding due to lustful attachments. That is all there is to it. We are bound to not get along. Soetimes the doctor restricts the patients eatables. And if we decide to deviate from that prescribed method, then we suffer. I'm the bad guy cuz we shouldn't always eat cake. Whatever.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Pardon me while I reflect on the error of my ways - Okay - now I feel better. I didn't realize that Father Par was just trying to help. For a moment there, I thought he was just trying to ram his belief system down our throat, and calling us ignorant fools for not agreeing with his position.

Feathers -
I respect the fact that you didn't want to hurt his feelings - and it was a noble effort on your part to try to understand his position. The problem lies in the fact that he is not debating anything. He does not state that "In my opinion" or "As I see it" because he doesn't care what the rest of us think or believe. He is simply using the forum to state what his limited view of the world is - and if that causes anyone else to be uncomfortable, so be it. Consider him the Buddhists' version of Jimmy Swaggart or Jerry Falwell - and treat him as such.

TVOR

 

[Ceridwen018]

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.

What if we make spirituality it's #1 importance?

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.

Let's get spiritual, baby! Whacha!

 

[Jaymes]

Homosex is not pure love, it is pure lust.

Wow, that left a sour taste in my mouth. No, I mean literally. I literally tasted something sour.

Words fail me. Thanks for saying that I can never have sex with the person I love out of loving them.. only out of lusting after them.

 

[Sunstone]

Homosex is not pure love, it is pure lust.

Are you speaking from experience?

In fact, is anything you're saying based on your own experience? Or is it all rather hypothetical?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Someone posting on this thread has some serious issues - I mean, to the point that help should be sought.

TVOR

 

[Jaymes]

Someone posting on this thread has some serious issues - I mean, to the point that help should be sought.

TVOR

Actually, several people posting here probably do.

(Lighten the mood any?)

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Actually, several people posting here probably do.

(Lighten the mood any?)

Great point Jensa. Truth be told, we all do. Kinda makes me sad to think I'm no better than him in some ways.

TVOR

 

[Jaymes]

That is okay, you are not Krsna. Lord Siva drank an ocean of poison. So now you go imitate Him. I'll make it easier for you: Just drink a cup of poison.

Whoa, I just now noticed that. Am I the only one seeing that as incredibly rude and tactless?

 

[Ceridwen018]

*raises hand*

Oh well...maybe where he comes from, poison means apple juice.....

 

[Paraprakrti]

Pardon me while I reflect on the error of my ways - Okay - now I feel better. I didn't realize that Father Par was just trying to help. For a moment there, I thought he was just trying to ram his belief system down our throat, and calling us ignorant fools for not agreeing with his position.

Here we go...

As soon as I try to make an analogy that is perhaps identifiable someone backfires with sarcasm. That's nice.

 

[Paraprakrti]

What if we make spirituality it's #1 importance?

Sex in itself is not spiritual. But sex as a means of procreating and properly raising a child can be spiritual. It is not absolutely necessary that one has sex at all. But it is understandable that people desire sex, so the facility is given in married life and for the reason of starting a family. Plus, to raise a child to be mindful of God is spiritual. If we were to make this sex's #1 importance then there would be less unwanted population and no question of abortion. Children would be taught better values, seeing that sex is not predominant in society. Of course, this is all ideal. I don't expect society as a whole to do a complete 180. A few individuals may understand the value of what I am saying. Is there anyone out there? *echoes*


To Pah:

Worshipping the genitals in deity form is not spirituality. If it is, then we can just say everything is spirituality.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Wow, that left a sour taste in my mouth. No, I mean literally. I literally tasted something sour.

Words fail me. Thanks for saying that I can never have sex with the person I love out of loving them.. only out of lusting after them.

Love is often defined relative to our own whimsy. We decide when we are in love. That is understandable. What I am speaking of herein is a standard of what love is. A standard that is often higher than how most people perceive the concept. Now, my reason for posting that was in a religious context because it was in reply to Gerani and we had been discussing Sastra. Nevertheless, I can understand that your propensity to feel love (whether for a member of the opposite or the same sex) is legit. Lust is only a perverted reflection of love. That loving propensity is what is driving the feeling, but the feeling itself is being misguided by some degree of material pleasure, either dealing with the gross body or the subtle mind and emotions. So I do not doubt that you have love, Jensa. But love really has nothing to do with the act of sexual gratification. That applies to homosex as well as heterosex.

 

[Sunstone]

I can understand the point that sex evolved as a means of procreation, but I have a great deal of difficulty with the claim that, because sex evolved as a means of procreation, procreation is its sole legitimizing purpose. To assert that seems to be equivalent to asserting that we are or ought to be completely determined by our biology. And I'm not ready to buy into that one.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Are you speaking from experience?

In fact, is anything you're saying based on your own experience? Or is it all rather hypothetical?

Sex purely for gratification is lust, homosex or heterosex. I mentioned it for homosex because Gerani mentioned gays. I have experience of sexual gratification, and that is all that matters. I even have experience of an emotional connection through the sexual act. Nevertheless, I still understand the value of love and when it is misapplied in the form of lust.

 

[Paraprakrti]

I can understand the point that sex evolved as a means of procreation, but I have a great deal of difficulty with the claim that, because sex evolved as a means of procreation, procreation is its sole legitimizing purpose. To assert that seems to be equivalent to asserting that we are or ought to be completely determined by our biology. And I'm not ready to buy into that one.

I think you are assuming that I am implying that all pleasure is wrong. I am not saying or implying that. The desire to feel pleasure is intrinsic to our nature. But it should be obvious that that pleasure, when taken through material things, results in some degree of suffering. It is not a surprise when I look around and see people trying to have the pleasure while simultaneously trying to avoid the pain. What people are looking for is another type of pleasure. We can call it "spiritual pleasure". If you are one that is inclined to seek pleasure free from pain and then turn around and deny the existence of anything transcendental, then be happy suffering. What more can you do? But for those who have some tinge of faith in a pure concept of pleasure, then perhaps you should consider these things carefully.

 

[Jaymes]

Love is often defined relative to our own whimsy. We decide when we are in love.

Yea, because I just up and thought, "Hey, wouldn't it be nice to decide I'm in love with someone who will cause my family to condemn and shun me, because that's fun. Oh yea, and I don't want to ever be able to go in public without being stared at. That's loads of fun." Yea, perfectly logical reason to decide to be in love with someone.

But love really has nothing to do with the act of sexual gratification.

It has plenty to do with it. Not always, but in stable relationships it does.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Someone posting on this thread has some serious issues - I mean, to the point that help should be sought.

TVOR

All BS aside, I'll assume that person is me...

What kind of help do you prescribe?