antisexualism as a form of mental illness?

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21

I am nothing like angry, Ucci - you seem to think that one must undergo some metaphysical time/space/dimensional continuum warpchange to see that sex is just sex, that’s all. I think you did read that post wrong. I thought I made it clear that she did this with my knowledge and assent. I must review my communications skills.

I don’t advocate any one approach to anything as enlightened - life’s a bit more complicated than that, and child abuse is more complicated than just sex. Man, you just metion sex around here and all reason flies out the window.

For the record, my exwife is on her fourth (that I know of) marriage - I was number two. I have lost touch with her. So I don’t know the answer to your question. I don’t claim that it’s great - I think you are over-reacting a bit - as I said, it is you that assumes something like this must be a great big deal for any human. It’s not.

I don’t think there is any shame in joining the army and killing people to defend the country. I think it’s not a good thing for two-year-olds to participate in this. This is not complicated.

22

Again, it’s time for me to wait and return to it all in the morning. :slight_smile:

23

Thy perfect companion must beith designed.
Thy golem of forms.
Thy power of many the pure.

24

Shame is something umanity was taught to have it. Somehow in a hard way, if you think religion. Neanderthalis were ashamed of their nudity? Guess not.

On the other hand, even if I am open-minded, sorry man, but to see a 70 y.o. naked woman on street, is not my kind of “artistic view” if you know what I mean. Maybe is a pattern, but before “no shame society” has to be decency.

25

The WhiteWolf must care for no-one.

Zero attachment to anything.

This state of mind is key for the sort of spiritual travel which he must practice.

Woof.

Iem teh blue dawg.

26 
  Here's the deal. The question I asked was about equivalency.  Whether or not some people can manage to [i]accept[/i] or [i]put up with[/i] items in the second half of my examples for a certain length of time is completely different. People can [i]adjust[/i] to anything. It if takes negotiation, and a swallowing of one's pride, and a period of adjustment, then sex is not the equivalent of a handshake, or morally neutral. 
  That's the point. You and your wife didn't have to sit down and discuss whether or not it was ok for her to play checkers with other men for a while.  She wasn't distressed about the fact that she'd only ever made baked ziti for 2 men in her life. Sex is different. That's all I wanted to point out- that it's different, and that the presumption of difference runs very deep in us, even in people who scoff at conservative values of sex. 
 The child abuse example illustrates my point perfectly. The example you chose to compare sex to with children was [i]killing[/i]. A soldier killing for an army is like a man having sex with his wife- examples of the appropriate use of a morally complex actions, and of course neither should feel shame. 
I would be the first to admit that "There's something special about killing" also. It, too, is never a morally neutral decision to make.  Like sex, we keep it from children because we know there's something special about it. In both cases, it runs deeper than simply saying "Killing and Sex are the business of adults". We all recognize that killing and sex are not appropriate in just any old situation (killing especially) even amongst adults.  I cannot imagine a defense to a position that says "Sex is as morally neutral as a handshake, no better or worse, [i]unless[/i] a child is involved, and then it becomes one of the most immoral acts a human can possibly perform."  Seems like raw bullshit to me.

Dan~:

A high-five? Pretend I said handshake, that will work just as well.

Do you see, Dan~? Do you see the way you want to look down on people who behave the way we’ve just mentioned?

Sure, people can come to arrangements- the mafia does it all the time. My argument is intended to be personal, not universal. You have implied (if I read you correctly) that sex is just a natural, good act that shouldn’t have all these strings and shame attached. What I’ve tried to do is show you that maybe you do want strings attached after all- that maybe those strings are just as natural as sex itself, and that maybe you even are glad that they are there (or will be, the next time you’re in a serious relationship, if you aren’t now).

Cheating? You mean like at Connect Four? Even if we try to shift this away from sex, and onto an honor, trust, and betrayl thing, cheating on your spouse is only such a huge betrayl because of the special nature of sex. Is it incumbant on me to tell my long-term girl that I expect her not to have sex with other men? Is that some peculiar hang-up of mine that I should discuss, or is it incumbant on her to assume that based on the fact that we’re both human beings?

27

I’ve estimated that most sexual morality is cultural, not instinctive.

I’ll give an example of a scenario:

GF “cheated”. She said she feels love for more persons then just you. You meet mr.2; mr.2 turns out to be a really nice guy. You become friends with mr.2. Now loving and giving to the GF is a team-sport. There are special things which she can find in one of them, that she cannot find in the other. Now that she has both lovers, she has an ideal. But yes, each man will be at a loss, if she only has half time for each of them.

Let us farther say, that – like a friendship, a sexual relationship is something which can happen between more then one person.

It has been known to happen sometimes – that a person may feel jealous over his or her best-friend when that person is spending time with people other then him/herself. If each of them had many friends, the jealousy has far lower odds of existing.

If you had many lovers, you wouldn’t feel bad if one of them was busy when you were in some sort of need.

If someone’s body is touched, different areas of the body have more pleasure-sensing neurves then others, but it’s all still the same thing.

It would be possible to cause very strong sensations upon the other – whilst avoiding the sex-organs. Now what? Would that still count as “sex” or “cheating”? What if it felt even better then contact with the sex-organs, but there was no orgasm or anything like that, would that still count as “cheating”? Or, let’s say that they did have sex, but it was awful, no fun at all, then what?

Is this a question of emotion, or mechanical action?

28

Farther note:

If I hath interacted with beings empathically, astrally, telepathically, etc., or even shared bodies with them; – suppose this was more deep and intimate then any sex. Would I be right to expect them to be devout to me afterwards?

Is this all just a question of human jealously & teritorial-“greed”?
Really?

29

You are absolutely correct Dan(…squiggle here).

Within religious movements that forbid/forbade sexual activity, a seemingly neurotic behavior very often tends to manifest. Most physically well individuals are naturally inclined towards sexual activity.

As you stated, no “other” animal feels shame for a natural act, programmed into the body of the creature.

Even within Taoist schools, it is acknowledged that absolute celibacy most often leads to dementia, because it causes an unnatural imbalance in the body and mind. They have “techniques” for rectifying such, but we can leave that aside.

30

Tell me.

I can’t get my quote right now from The Book Of Dan~,
but,
Metaction is a vector sort of instinct, which is most pure when it goes strait towards its target.

Nothing added to make the honesty more appealing, nothing added to make the honesty less offensive. Nothing added to make the honesty less shameful. Nothing added to make the honesty farther explianed, yet.

“I want this.
This makes me feel this way.”

If you’ll think about it, most insticts and emotional energy pass though a web of twists-and-turns, and each time instinct is bent, inner friction causes discomfort, stress, etc.

We must admit that humans are VERY dishonest.

31

Yes, but I’m working towards acceptance.

[Gotta poop out that piety.]

32

Dan(…squiggle here)

There is a reason why I used quotes with technique … think about it, it becomes very obvious. Monks, celibacy, burgeoning loneliness, animal instinct, mental overrides … daily … and the end result is … well, you’re a male … it should be understandable.

Of course, we are built to react naturally. Social conformity/institutionalized beliefs tell us that “naturalness” of action is wrong … now we are caught in a double bind.

You’ll never get me to disagree with that … ever.

33

Woof.

It’s time to start worshipping the creator’s true-will again. :laughing:

34

I took a ‘Taoism and Chinese culture’ course, to fulfill an arts requirement.

The instructor talked of a meditative exercise to bring one’s self to orgasm, and to internalize (probably into the urethra) the effluent. The exercise was supposedly representative of the agentic expression of wu-wei; if i remember correctly.

I am surprised that i should travel this road again :laughing:

35

Sperm reclusion? Is that the name? Oh great… :unamused:

I say: just open up your base-chakra, instead.

36

Dan(…squiggle here),

Not quite that simple. First is the mental attachment we have to the endorphins created during the orgasmic state, once experienced, we most likely want the return of that sensation.

Secondly, the base point on the spine, although easiest to open, is also a trap. Because that euphoria can be recreated so easily, it often turns to sexual dependency.

Third, physiologically, the actual release of those sexual materials is part of the trigger process, and the energy spent holding that back, can be just a detrimental as constantly expelling it.

No easy “round the back” with sex for any mammalian.

37

Dan~ says:

Find love that is deeper, more soothing and more comforting/fine then sex, n then you’ll have something else, better to turn to, for certain needs?

[Am I being idea?]… :confused:

38

Acceptance of girls cheating on you (or on other guys)? Pedophilia? Good luck!

39

I wasn’t talking about that.

I dunno how you saw what I’d written previously – about jealousy, but think about it for a while. Can one be jealous about the quantizable output of another body, as if it were property?

40

Apparently!