all sex exclusively based on sexual desire is bad, but so is sex based exclusively on desire for offspring. theyre both selfish.
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Context
9
@georgia selfish? if mutually enjoyable how selfish?
@ug by selfish I dont mean one person desires something the other doesnt, I mean one person wants something in return. motivated by self-interest, not by pure love.
@georgia what's pure love?
@ug love without concern for self-interest
@georgia yeah but the point of fucking is you both enjoy it
@ug the point of sex is not kama, its prema. enjoyment from sex should be derived from love, not from pleasure. love is selfless, pleasure is always self-interested.
@scathach @ug this is the "if it didnt make my genitals feel good, i wouldnt be having it" argument. the necessary condition is not a sufficient condition.
i think its true that sex that feels bad in any way including physically means it should not be undergone typically, just like food that tastes bad shouldnt be eaten. but the involvement of the senses doesnt mean that one cant have sex for a higher purpose, or that sex doesnt have this higher purpose. theres a huge difference between making someone feel good through sex because you love them, and making someone feel good through sex because it makes one feel physical pleasure as well. when i say sex should be an expression of love, not a way of getting pleasure, that doesnt mean one should express love by doing things to someone they DONT like! thats silly! just like the point of kissing isnt to make your mouth feel good, the point of sex isnt to make your penis feel good. why is one easy for people to understand, and not the other?
anyway, sexual intercourse is just one form of physical intimacy, and just one form of expressing love. of the forms of expressing love, it is not a necessary one, and not the best one, either.
since indulgence of the senses is involved in having sex, people who are truly desireless usually stop having sex. the Buddha stopped having sex after he was liberated. when i talk about the purpose of sex being prema, that doenst mean sex is necessary for prema or that sex is close to the best way to develop or show prema.
anyway, kama is an important part of life for most people. most people arent nishkama karma yogins.
i think its true that sex that feels bad in any way including physically means it should not be undergone typically, just like food that tastes bad shouldnt be eaten. but the involvement of the senses doesnt mean that one cant have sex for a higher purpose, or that sex doesnt have this higher purpose. theres a huge difference between making someone feel good through sex because you love them, and making someone feel good through sex because it makes one feel physical pleasure as well. when i say sex should be an expression of love, not a way of getting pleasure, that doesnt mean one should express love by doing things to someone they DONT like! thats silly! just like the point of kissing isnt to make your mouth feel good, the point of sex isnt to make your penis feel good. why is one easy for people to understand, and not the other?
anyway, sexual intercourse is just one form of physical intimacy, and just one form of expressing love. of the forms of expressing love, it is not a necessary one, and not the best one, either.
since indulgence of the senses is involved in having sex, people who are truly desireless usually stop having sex. the Buddha stopped having sex after he was liberated. when i talk about the purpose of sex being prema, that doenst mean sex is necessary for prema or that sex is close to the best way to develop or show prema.
anyway, kama is an important part of life for most people. most people arent nishkama karma yogins.
@georgia @ug That's not the argument I'm making at all; I'm saying enjoyment of sex comes from both affection and physical pleasure (which doesn't just mean orgasms) and sex that's only enjoyable because of love without any physical enjoyment doesn't exist and makes no sense
If you're going to moralize about sex you should really have firsthand experience
If you're going to moralize about sex you should really have firsthand experience
Replies
6
@scathach @georgia
also don't think sex just for pleasure is neccessarily selfish, like you can derive pleasure from satisfying the other person, or just hte act of seducing/arousing an other takes a bit of work and consideration, a good lover will properly groom themselves, dress and smell nice, make sure their partner is having a good time, someone who only considers their own pleasure is not a good lay
also don't think sex just for pleasure is neccessarily selfish, like you can derive pleasure from satisfying the other person, or just hte act of seducing/arousing an other takes a bit of work and consideration, a good lover will properly groom themselves, dress and smell nice, make sure their partner is having a good time, someone who only considers their own pleasure is not a good lay
@ug @scathach the "good lover" you describe acts that way with concern for the other person because they actually care about them. this makes the sex not casual sex. or, if they only care about them because they want to be good at sex, then they are clearly still thinking of themselves.
casual sex is inherently self-involved, being motivated exclusively by seeking sensory enjoyment. all forms of seeking sensory enjoyment as an end in itself are selfish and karmically binding, or not nishkama karma. they are motivated by "i want to feel like this, my senses are mine", so clearly the ego/i-maker is involved. I think when you argue that casual sex is not selfish you are still using the definition I explained to you is not the definition I'm using. I mean self-involved, self-motivated, not "putting oneself before another".
casual sex is inherently self-involved, being motivated exclusively by seeking sensory enjoyment. all forms of seeking sensory enjoyment as an end in itself are selfish and karmically binding, or not nishkama karma. they are motivated by "i want to feel like this, my senses are mine", so clearly the ego/i-maker is involved. I think when you argue that casual sex is not selfish you are still using the definition I explained to you is not the definition I'm using. I mean self-involved, self-motivated, not "putting oneself before another".
@georgia @scathach
also sex for 'a higher purpose' wtf, like yes procreation is a consequence of hetero sex, but there's actually no way of knowing if a single act of intercourse will lead to pregnancy because there's various factors at play like a women's cycle or sperm count... so like even couples who are explicitly trying to make a baby may try for weeks or months, the idea that people specifically arange a sexual encounter for the sole purpose of breeding is just silly, people fuck because it's pleasurable to do so and reproduction is a consequence of that.
also sex for 'a higher purpose' wtf, like yes procreation is a consequence of hetero sex, but there's actually no way of knowing if a single act of intercourse will lead to pregnancy because there's various factors at play like a women's cycle or sperm count... so like even couples who are explicitly trying to make a baby may try for weeks or months, the idea that people specifically arange a sexual encounter for the sole purpose of breeding is just silly, people fuck because it's pleasurable to do so and reproduction is a consequence of that.