Does sex have a purpose?

[Sunstone]

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.

Somehow, I doubt that you would put up with all that for mere lust, Jensa.

 

[Sunstone]

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.

I think you missed my point.

 

[Jaymes]

Somehow, I doubt that you would put up with all that for mere lust, Jensa.

Shh, leave me to my homo lust.

You know, it's really too bad there isn't a crying smiley. That about fits my mood right now. What's the phrase? 'Laugh so that you don't cry'?

 

[Paraprakrti]

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.

Whatever it is that influences us to feel love for another, that is how love is defined relative to our own whimsy. Apparently, your whimsy to feel love for this person outweighs the fact that family condemns and shuns you. If this wasn't the case then you wouldn't have made the decision that you have, (or at least the one you are implying that you have). I never said the whimsy of love is logical. It is a fact that something inclined you to feel the way you do. Whatever that may have been, it was your definition of love, relative to your whims based on that inclination.

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

Define a stable relationship. In comparison to one's relationship with God, everything else is unstable. Or better yet, the only reason anything else remains stable for as long as it does is due to one's stability in God. That kind of stability does not require sexual gratification. In a material relationship sex may be there, but it doesn't have to be. Sexual gratification is an added bonus for married types. The primary intent of sex should be to start a family. This is where you differ in the situation. You cannot start a family by engaging in a sexual type act with your partner. And I am sure you will defend your position to the death. Nevertheless, your *loving* relationship will not be stable because you have sex. If it is enduring primarily by sexual means, then that proves the lustfulness of the situation.

 

[Paraprakrti]

I think you missed my point.

How about this?...

We are not completely determined by our biology. Therefore the propensity to seek pleasure is intrinsic to our nature. Furthermore I explained the nature of pleasure through material things...

Now do you see the relevancy in my reply?

 

[Paraprakrti]

Shh, leave me to my homo lust.

You know, it's really too bad there isn't a crying smiley. That about fits my mood right now. What's the phrase? 'Laugh so that you don't cry'?

It is not a matter of you doing anything out of lust... as far as you feel, you are in love... and that feeling is legit. I have already explained that. Lust is the confusion of love. It is when one, under feelings of love, thinks that the gratification lies in material pleasure. So I do not doubt that you have love.

Seriously, did you not read my whole reply to you?

 

[Jaymes]

What is it with you and the word 'whimsy'? You make it sound like I--or anyone, for that matter--takes up loving someone lightly. If they've an iota of sense it's the exact opposite.

And please, cut the condescending act. Not only is it disrespectful, it also makes you look like an idiot.

 

[Paraprakrti]

What is it with you and the word 'whimsy'? You make it sound like I--or anyone, for that matter--takes up loving someone lightly. If they've an iota of sense it's the exact opposite.

I apologize for how it sounds. I don't mean to say that it is any less important, because apparently love is always important to each of us. Perhaps I should not use the word whimsy. My point is just to say that we each define what love is to ourselves. It isn't something that we typically think of objectively. But rather in this case I am explaining the concept in an objective way by contrasting it from lust, aka: material gratification.

And please, cut the condescending act. Not only is it disrespectful, it also makes you look like an idiot.

I honestly don't see this act. I apologize, still I believe my words are sincere.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Par -

You want to cut the BS - and yet you maintain your attitude and continue your cutting remarks to the other posters in this thread. As I said earlier, I (as would the vast majority of posters) would prefer to debate this (or any other thread) on an intellectual level, where all sides of an issue are discussed rationally. That is hard to do (if not impossible) when someone insists on being rude, condescending, pompous, etc. All of these words (and more) have been used to describe your attitude throughout this thread (by other posters and myself). You whine about the fact that I am sarcastic in response to your posts, yet you haven't strayed from the path you started on. So, let me say it again - most of the others (i.e. Feathers) are to nice to reply to you in kind, but I am not. When you begin to respect the rights of others to hold differing views, morals, and positions, I will desist in my sarcastic tone. Until then, I will continue to look for some cheese to go with that whine I hear in your posts.

When you posted the following:
"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." :bonk:
You confirmed that my earliest assessment of your purpose on here was correct. You have no intention of trying to get along with others, consequently, I have no desire to meet you halfway.

TVOR

 

[Paraprakrti]

Par -

You want to cut the BS - and yet you maintain your attitude and continue your cutting remarks to the other posters in this thread. As I said earlier, I (as would the vast majority of posters) would prefer to debate this (or any other thread) on an intellectual level, where all sides of an issue are discussed rationally. That is hard to do (if not impossible) when someone insists on being rude, condescending, pompous, etc. All of these words (and more) have been used to describe your attitude throughout this thread (by other posters and myself). You whine about the fact that I am sarcastic in response to your posts, yet you haven't strayed from the path you started on. So, let me say it again - most of the others (i.e. Feathers) are to nice to reply to you in kind, but I am not. When you begin to respect the rights of others to hold differing views, morals, and positions, I will desist in my sarcastic tone. Until then, I will continue to look for some cheese to go with that whine I hear in your posts.

When you posted the following:
"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." :bonk:
You confirmed that my earliest assessment of your purpose on here was correct. You have no intention of trying to get along with others, consequently, I have no desire to meet you halfway.

TVOR

That particular reply was appropriate. And when Gerani addresses it we can come to terms with it's intent. Until then, you should have no concern for it because it was not directed toward you.

Getting along with others or not getting along... my intent is indifferent. And I have not disrespected anyone's rights. If anyone feels their comfort level threatened by what I say then they have the right to reply. And I think most people are. I guess it is hard for you to perceive, but my intentions are sincere. Your sarcasm is unnecessary. I could have just ignored it, and maybe I will next time.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You have no intention of trying to get along with others, consequently, I have no desire to meet you halfway.

Is that what the man depicted in your avatar would say?

**MOD POST**

I think all of us should please consider doing one or more of the following things:

1) Try to give your opinions/criticisms without personally attacking a poster
2) Realize that everyone has the right to their own opinion, no matter how much it offends you
3) Take a deep breath

If we could please continue the discussion keeping these things in mind, I would really appreciate it. Thanks.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

My apologies Mr. Sprinkles. I will refrain from further posts in this thread.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Ardhanariswar]

"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. "

thats your point of view. sex is also used to bond relationship between two loving spouses. homos do that too. the kind of sex that is not good is having sex all around, with anyone, and no discipline. that happens with heteros and homos.

you are confused between what is pure saying that homos are not pure, but in the eyes of God, its as pure as hetero. well, thats what i asked God and thats what i got for a reply.

 

[Ardhanariswar]

the gita doesnt say anything against homosexuality.

in fact....

http://www.galva108.org/

take a peek.

 

[Paraprakrti]

"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. "

thats your point of view. sex is also used to bond relationship between two loving spouses. homos do that too. the kind of sex that is not good is having sex all around, with anyone, and no discipline. that happens with heteros and homos.

I don't doubt that sex can create a bonding between two people. You have an understanding of these things, Gerani, what is the value of a bonding through material sense gratification? What does it have to do with the soul? The Gita teaches how to differentiate the soul from bodily activities. And here you are suggesting that the sexual act for material gratifying purposes is authorized by the Gita. It simply is not. You are going out on a limb to try and rationalize how it is.

you are confused between what is pure saying that homos are not pure, but in the eyes of God, its as pure as hetero. well, thats what i asked God and thats what i got for a reply.

Then you tell me what is "pure". How do you define pure? Whatever pleases the material senses? Whatever pleases the mind in it's undying servitude to the material senses? If you are sitting there trying to rationalize to me why sexual gratification is pure, then is it God that has your surrender or is it the senses?

 

[Ardhanariswar]

"Then you tell me what is "pure". How do you define pure? Whatever pleases the material senses? Whatever pleases the mind in it's undying servitude to the material senses? If you are sitting there trying to rationalize to me why sexual gratification is pure, then is it God that has your surrender or is it the senses?"

research about tantra. sexual gratification between two parners is pure! what else is it? dirty? because of their love, they are joined by it. there is much more to physically having sex. you mentally have sex too. its an art. and there is spirituality behind sex.

you see sex as just a physical act, but when its done out of love, as hetero partners as well as homo parnters do, there is meaning behind it. its love. and God is love. whats wrong with that? nothing...

 

[Ardhanariswar]

sure, having sex doesnt reach you to enlightenment, but its living life and loving it! God wants us to live for he gave us LIFE! and part of life is having sex and/or eating chocolate cake! so LIVE! breath! thank God for his wonderful gifts. and be fuzzay!

 

[Paraprakrti]

the gita doesnt say anything against homosexuality.

in fact....

http://www.galva108.org/

take a peek.

The founders of this organization would have a better chance if they left Prabhupada's name out of it.

They cannot rationalize homosexuality through Prabhupada's lectures. They even quote where he puts homosexuality down. Then they try to reason it by saying that Prabhupada was referring to men who are born srtaight but later decide to be gay. This is going out on a limb.

There are plenty of places where Prabhupada specifically states that sex life is for begetting and raising a child. Therefore this 'Galva' organization is ridiculous because sex life amongst two men or two women will not result in child birth. All they are doing is trying to twist Sastra to fit their own perverted desire.

 

[Paraprakrti]

research about tantra. sexual gratification between two parners is pure! what else is it? dirty? because of their love, they are joined by it. there is much more to physically having sex. you mentally have sex too. its an art. and there is spirituality behind sex.

Two completely separate things... Love and sexual gratification. Trying to rationalize sexual gratification on the strength of love is called lust. Physically and mentally are gross and subtle material qualities, respectively. Spiritually is completely transcendental. Just because someone feels emtionally attached to another through the sexual act does not constitute a pure sense of love.

you see sex as just a physical act, but when its done out of love, as hetero partners as well as homo parnters do, there is meaning behind it. its love. and God is love. whats wrong with that? nothing...

How is it done out of love with the intent on sense gratification? What are you saying to your partner, "I love you so much that I am going to indulge you in material sense gratification. I am going to entangle you in Maya even more"? This is not love. Love in the grhastha asrama means engaging in sex for the propagation and raising of children. Love is inherent in such an act and neither is its focus solely on the sense gratification (or emotional gratification) of either of the people.

 

[Paraprakrti]

sure, having sex doesnt reach you to enlightenment, but its living life and loving it! God wants us to live for he gave us LIFE! and part of life is having sex and/or eating chocolate cake! so LIVE! breath! thank God for his wonderful gifts. and be fuzzay!

Loving life through material things is perverted. That is the cause of suffering. The only part of LIFE that sex constitutes is procreation. Consider that you have taken to this body by the sexual encounter of your mother and father. You cannot determine whether or not the sexual act that produced this body was even pleasurable. Perhaps it was the worst sex ever. Nevertheless, you are here. It is pointless to try and defend the propensity for sexual gratification. None of us are the product of such gratification. We (these bodies) are a product of the sexual act that just so happens to include gratification. Sex is for procreation otherwise you wouldn't have the facility to even state your opinion in this thread.