What about celibacy????

The machine has it's own impulses. As the passenger, we have to accept that. If we hinder it in it's functions, there is sure to be a reaction. For some, sexual abstinence is extremely painful. It goes further too, because of the way in which people bond in loving relationships.

Perhaps William Blake was right when he said 'those who restrain their desires do so because their desire is weak enough to be restrained'.

But that would put them in a category of people whom that other great poet, Dante placed in the 1st circle of hell 'the lukewarm' - those whose lives were bland, who never lived or knew fire or passion.

I'm not promoting unbridled lust or promiscuity, but legitimate love relations between conscious people, and of course, spirituality comes into it.
To quote Blake once again 'the nakedness of woman is the work of God'.

It worries me a bit that some may choose celibacy because they have problems forming relationships, and then use that as a way of convincing themselves they are in some way above the herd. There's evidence even in this thread to suggest this I thnk.

You get the pain of the body whether you like it or not, so my attitude is why not have the pleasure too.
Sexual abstinence is to deny oneself one of the primary joys of being human. That's my own view, and I know others disagree, but I feel I have to remain true to my self, and my own experiences.

 

No...I think sex is a beautiful and sacred thing if true love is involved...and true love, as I understand it, is detached. I could be wrong though.

 

Ah! Love again!


I can only speak from personal experience on this -

I'd say there is unconditional love - if you believe in saints or avatars, that's the kind of love they have which accepts everyone without condition, and that is a detached love I'd say.
Similarly, love of people in general can be detached - you just try to act with good intentions and so on without looking for recognition or reward.

Love between man and woman however, is rarely detached in my experience, which is what gives rise to many, many relationship problems.
In a way Nicole, what you said earlier about sacrifice comes into play here. To fall in love deeply is itself a sacrifice - you sacrifce your independence in a way, your independent happiness perhaps - for that love. If the other person then after time, turns away, or goes off, one will suffer. But some say, and I'm one, that it is all worth it - the ups and downs, joys and sorrows.
But that's again just my personal bent of character.
It's better to have loved and lost etc.....

 

Mmm...but perhaps if we are one's in the persuit of the spiritual path and we understand love to that deeper level...we can make those relationships between man and woman deep and detached and unconditional...not saying, of course, that this is at all easy...which it isn't (it is sacrifice... sacrifice of your ego...which in turn makes it selfless and somewhat spiritual I think)... but say that you do this... even if your partner doesn't see it as this level that you do... but you see it that way...

If this is so... there is no difference, between joy and sorrow, up and down, celebacy and sex... we are beyond this... so if we're having this in a spiritual and true love context...the original question that Hari brought up, doesn't matter....?

This is all to my limited understanding...I could be totally wrong on this...of course.

 

As I say, I can only speak about this from experience.So, at the risk of sounding like one of Jane Austen's characters - I know how hard it would be for me if I was in love with someone and they withdrew their affections. I know I'd be moved by it, and I can't see how I could avoid it. In time, the bad feeling would subside. Perhaps.

On the other hand, I would never want to be a control freak - I like people to be them selves and do their own thing. That's why I say love is like a sacrifice - because you place your heart under someone else's control to some extent. It needs trust.
And I don't see how it can be avoided, as a lot of the joy of love is in small things which the other person gives, and which bring a kind of deep inner feeling of love, satisfaction, oneness even. I don't mean sex necessarily - just a way of expressing something - whatever it is that makes that person that person, and no other. A word, a gesture.
It's hard to loose that.
Such is my experience of love, at least a fragment of it.

 

What is that thing that we are searching for in the other person? isn't it joy? when we can experience that without depending on any action, who needs "love" to give us joy?

I think if you look closely, people are not that different. What makes oen person different from the other is our perception of what the other person represents to us.

I am happy for you Mr. Sedrick , if you have found love, but I can't help but think that it is somehow just a feeling that passes , unconditional love comes after and it is a step above this feeling.

 

Like the stones would sing
" I cant get no satisfaction"

Whatever gives us deep and truthful satisfaction that we seek and adore it an hold on to it with fervor.

Does sex give satisfaction?

Then even the 'stones' would be very satisfied.

 

Ah well, I'm afraid I haven't found love at this stage. But I remain optimistic and hopeful.

If it wasn't for the fact that the human being is a social creature, and we have the sexual impulse as an innate part of our make up, I might agree that one can be happy without sexual relationships.
However, it's not really under our control. One has no choice if you see someone you find attractive - other than to deny the fact to oneself.

As to why one person is attractive another not - that's sems to depend upon the quirks of the individual. It is nonetheless the way it is. like it or not.

 

It satisfies the sexual impulse, and the wider relationship it can lead to can transform your life.

The rolling stones are hardly the people to invoke in favour of celibacy.

 

Let me invoke athletes who preach a temporary period off abstinence
prior to the competition.
This certainly is not spritual/ intelecual;

I dont know how relative to the discussion tobaccco or alchol consumption is

 

Tobacco, alc, drugs are a different issue. We could survive as a speices without them, but withoiut sex we'd rapidly die out.

Sexuality is intrinsic to the human being. Use of any given sustance is like an add on thing.

The idea behind athletes laying off it prior to competition could be based on the idea that sex drains energy.
As anyone familiar with the works of Wilhelm Riech will tell you (and the US govt don't want you to know about this) his theory is quite the reverse. Orgasm, according to Riech, actually energizes the whole body.

 

snake...regressing back to 1980...I remember well the night before I was to begin taking my preliminary architectural licensing exams...a grueling 3-day affair. My wife of less than one year and myself were in our hotel room, and the question came up about the wisdom of having sex on the eve of such an ordeal.

We went ahead and did it, and I passed four out of five the exams...a much-better-than-average pass rate.

After the required year later, we returned, and I nailed her, and the rest of the exams...four more days...cold.

Don't know how relevant this is to the discussion, but it's a good memory.

 

I don't know quite how to express it - it's like a kind of flow of energy that sex seems to liberate - and I also think it relieves stress.


My own current position as a divorcee causes me some troubles at times I can tell you -

 

Just for the benefit of anyone unfamiar with the work of Wihelm Riech - He said there is an energy which he calls 'orgone' (Hindu prana perhaps?) Sex releases this energy into the body and in the emotional and mental parts of the being.


Riech claimed that this energy is absolutely key to both physical and mental health. Sexual repression, in Riech's view (and that of his mentor, Freud) is the primary cause of mental imbalances and emotional problems etc.
He claimed to be able to measure and map this energy, and devised something called the Orgone Accumulator, a kind of box one sits in and recieves a charge of orgone.

I saw a film about the American novelist William S. Burroughs some years ago, and there's no denying that for a man in his late 70's as WSB was at the time, he looked remarkably youthful and energetic, a fact which he put down to daily use of one of Riech's accumulators.

Riech himself was imprisoned by the US govt on trumped up charges in order to silence him, as his views were seen as a threat to the social order. He died in jail.

 

At pushing 58, I've found that the whole sexual thing just slows down of its own accord...to about 10% of what it was at 25-30.


Fifty seemed to be a big turning point for me...not trying to discourage you, though!

IMO, this is why the old Vedic system divided life into four stages, wisely recognizing that celibacy and renunciation, if you're inclined to go that route in the last years, don't come relatively easily until advanced age.

Regading Reich...I'll have to read up on him.

 

Ha - well, I can't say I have the desire or the energy as I did 20 years ago, but I hope I'm not past it yet!
Seriously, for me, it is as much about companionship as sex. I could get just sex quite easily if that's all I wanted - I could go and pick up some babe, or even pay for it - but that's not my agenda.

Riech is probably worth checking out IMO. I'm no expert on his works, but from what I gather, he has been influential on a number of later therapists and so on.

I had a chat once with an elderly Benedictine about celibacy, and I asked if it got easier with time, or with age. He said the urge lessens with age, but that after over 30 years as a monk, he was still struggling, and that every other brother he'd spoken with about it found the same thing. Nice old chap.

As I say, maybe with age the sex impulse does lessen, but the other aspects of relationships are still attractive.

 

Obviously. That was the point, "I can't get no satisfaction" may be reffering to that same thing. Keith Ricahard and Jagger, had no restrictions of any kind.They actually wrote the song together.The "no satisfaction" thing meant where a life of indulgence leads to.

 

So? It's not just about sex really is it? It's more a critique of modern life in general with all it's banalities.


Having no restrictions - I assume you mean they could easily shag any woman they wanted? But that's extreme, and it's promiscuous behaviour, which I've already made clear I don't promote.

If you want, I expect I could come up with dozens of songs extolling the virtues of romantic love - the Stones are no authority.

BTW Hari - I hardly listen to rock music these days - I'm pretty well into electronic stuff, mostly just music - no 'stars', no words, or just simple phrases etc. The days of seeing rock bands as people with something to say which I need to hear are long gone for me - although I went through that phase.
More the raver than the rocker.:H

 

From my age/personal perspective, sex is a by-product of a companionable relationship...an aspect of the complete picture.

I honestly wouldn't have a clue if I were to become single again after nearly 28 years of marriage.

 

Well, in my wholle life I have bought maybe 1% of 1% of 1% of what most kids buy in a week today.

I just play my own which is all instrumental and experimental and try to come up with original chord progressions which is the great challenge.