|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
 Posted - Oct 01 2006 : 9:33:07 PM
|
"Does spanking break the code of non-harming?"
Haha! Yes, no yogis are allowed to engage in spanking. |
 |
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Oct 01 2006 : 10:20:29 PM
|
No, yogic spanking can be done. What you must do is intone 'Namaste' silently with each spank, thereby recognizing the god within the spankee. Aloud, yell 'Baby' ( 'Bay-bAAAAAY' ) and let the slapping hand land on the bAAAAAAy of 'Baby'. Make sure the 'namaste' is never uttered aloud, or the effect will be totally destroyed for the spankee.
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
Kyman
530 Posts |
Posted - Oct 02 2006 : 12:51:14 AM
|
HAHAHA!
That is quite an advanced technique, obsidian. Who's your master, and does she have a sister?
|
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Oct 02 2006 : 03:25:22 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Etherfish
Chiron wrote:
"I agree 100%. I just can't imagine Jesus or Buddha sitting cross-legged in a cave somewhere with a picture of Pamela Anderson.."
Of course not. Silicone and pictures weren't discovered yet.
But maybe some people feel the need to hide it more than others. I can't imagine a catholic priest having sexual desires either, but I've seen monkeys masturbating at the zoo. . . .
Oh yeah, we're better than that. We're not savages anymore. We have guns and nuclear bombs and text messaging.
Okay .... hang on .... so *why* was the priest at the zoo?
And, hey, I mean - is it really Jesus's fault, if the monkey brought Pamela Anderson to that particular cave? Huh?
Jeez, if the Buddha hadn't been carrying his blackberry, sounds like this all might have blown over ....... instead of .... oh. Wait. Nevermind.
Er .... um .... "carry on"!
Kirtanman
Brought to you by the "sometimes ya just gotta jump in" Dept. ....
 |
|
|
|
Chiron
Russia
397 Posts |
Posted - Oct 02 2006 : 06:09:24 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Etherfish
wolfgang wrote:
"I am really puzzled now, Ether."
I was just joking Wolfgang. The point I was trying to make is we can't imagine our spiritual leaders having sexual feelings because of taboos; see david's post above.
Christ was a man. He supposedly had no sexual desire, etc.
It's the whole thing of the concept of sexual energy being raised into spiritual energy, and people misunderstanding it.
Christ was a man. And then that man transformed himself and transcended all limits of man. He did have sexual desire, like every other man, but controlled it and redirected it for spiritual purposes. Nobody is agruing otherwise here.
I think that in order to redirect that energy for spiritual purposes, some degree of control must be attained. A person turning to porn and then claiming that to be part of their spiritual pursuits is IMO simply a cover for uncontrolled sexual desire, where that certain degree of control has not been attained. Ofcouse I could be wrong, and if you feel that porn aids you in your spiritual pursuits, then you are welcome to use it. I have respect that all paths are different, but I would rather think directly about God, or infinite love, instead of having to go through porn.
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
Paw,
erotic puritanism (sorry, I don't have a better term), is I believe a very definite psychosexual syndrome that can affect a single person, or even a whole culture or population. It's a disease. Or, another way of putting it, a disturbance of development.
Erotic obsession or uncontrolled sexual desire is another definite psychosexual syndrome. And it can be argued that this phychosexual syndrome is more prevalent today throughout the world (much of the time under the cover of erotic puritanism).
Sexual desire cannot be suppressed, no arguement there. The genie will find its way out of the bottle one way or another. The energy is simply too strong and it is part of our inherent nature. So extreme forms of sexual puritanism are simply futile attemts to suppress our true nature. I can agree that it is also a psychosexual syndrome that needs to be addressed. But sexual desire can be controlled to a degree, and IMO must be controlled to a degree in order to redirect it for our spiritual pursuits. I guess the key word here is balance, as usual, and everyone will find their own to suit their current needs. |
Edited by - Chiron on Oct 02 2006 06:54:20 AM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Oct 02 2006 : 10:23:35 AM
|
Chiron said:
Erotic obsession or uncontrolled sexual desire is another definite psychosexual syndrome. And it can be argued that this phychosexual syndrome is more prevalent today throughout the world (much of the time under the cover of erotic puritanism).
I agree 100% with that. Far from being mutually exclusive, the presence of one of these syndromes will probably often make the other even more likely to arise, and exacerbate it, and make it harder to get rid of.
What is the difference between the meanings of the words "erotica" and "porn"? As far as I can see, when the words differ in meaning, the only difference is that "porn" carries a negative connotation; saying " This here porn " is like saying "This here erotica ( which is bad / which I disapprove of) ".
Now, there may be good reasons to disapprove of certain erotica. But we have to keep in mind that when we use the word "porn", rather than "erotica" the word is already loaded for some people. This can confuse the debate, if we aren't careful.
Chiron said:
A person turning to porn and then claiming that to be part of their spiritual pursuits is IMO simply a cover for uncontrolled sexual desire, where that certain degree of control has not been attained.
Not necessarily so, I believe. But it could be true often, which does bring up the possibility of self-deception on the issue, and the need not to fool oneself.
Erotica, sex-toys, sex-games, are in themselves just ways for people to have fun with sex. If they heighten the pleasure of the experience, that's good in itself. As far as I'm concerned, there's enough hardship, discontent, loneliness, and conflict in the world, and enough things to pull a relationship apart. Any glue that helps to keep it together is a good thing for that.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Oct 02 2006 11:24:00 AM |
|
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Oct 02 2006 : 11:56:39 AM
|
| erotic puritanism....those Methodists know how to ROCK. I think of porn as one-way objectification; someone's being objectified without his/her/its consent or knowledge. With erotica, the objectification is agreed upon by all parties. Sex with children is an extreme example of porn---there wouldn't be 'child erotica', for instance. Tantric erotica is a chosen path for many, and I've never known a person on this path who engages with an unwilling partner. Even in dominant/submissive roles, the 'action' is not reality-based. I have a friend - a really good guy, extremely intelligent and thoughtful - who is seriously, serially into tantric erotica (s&m, to be specific), for the purpose of spiritual growth. Not the sole purpose, to be sure, but it's way up there on the list. All of his partners (there have been many, and they agree to be his 'slaves') are fully aware of his intent, and go into it for their own reasons. I know him fairly well, and would say that he's spiritually advanced. |
Edited by - Manipura on Oct 02 2006 12:26:12 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Oct 02 2006 : 12:49:31 PM
|
Sex with children is an extreme example of porn---there wouldn't be 'child erotica', for instance.
Why not? Why isn't it just 'erotica involving children'? You don't have to pack approval into the word 'erotica' or pack disapproval into the word 'porn'.
Terms that are heavily rhetorically loaded on the one hand, but have a vague definition on the other, make for poor-quality debates and discussions. The heat level goes tends to go up; and the light level goes down.
Regardless of the erotic imagery, there will be someone who can find "objectification" in it. Of course, in the old days, they used to find 'satan' in it instead!
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Oct 02 2006 1:02:00 PM |
|
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Oct 02 2006 : 1:38:37 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
Sex with children is an extreme example of porn---there wouldn't be 'child erotica', for instance.
Why not? Why isn't it just 'erotica involving children'?
Because children would rarely, if ever, be consensual sex partners.
quote:
Terms that are heavily rhetorically loaded on the one hand, but have a vague definition on the other, make for poor-quality debates and discussions. The heat level goes tends to go up; and the light level goes down.
I was just suggesting a definition in my post. No heat intended. I thought it was interesting, that's all. In the words of Kirtanman, carry on! |
|
|
|
Victor
USA
910 Posts |
Posted - Oct 02 2006 : 2:17:16 PM
|
"I think of porn as one-way objectification; someone's being objectified without his/her/its consent or knowledge"
I guess that most commercial porn would fall under the erotica heading for you then. Porn performers not only are aware that they are being objectified but they are paid for it! |
|
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Oct 02 2006 : 2:35:06 PM
|
| I do think of commercial porn as erotica. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Oct 02 2006 : 3:14:27 PM
|
No heat intended.
Meg, there was no heat generated. When I said heat, I didn't mean I was or you were getting heated.  I'm just making recommendations against vague or individual meanings, which can cloud a discussion.
In a discussion about whether 'porn/erotica' is legitimate or not, I wouldn't want to keep terms that are loaded for some people with the assumption that they are legitimate/illegitimate.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Oct 02 2006 3:18:06 PM |
|
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Oct 02 2006 : 3:39:49 PM
|
| I understood what you were saying, David. I was expressing an opinion that some may think irrelevant or bone-headed or cloud-forming, but such is the nature of public forums. My recommendation is to criticize the opinion, not the posting of it. Makes for better discussion and all. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Oct 02 2006 : 4:54:39 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by meg
I understood what you were saying, David. I was expressing an opinion that some may think irrelevant or bone-headed or cloud-forming, but such is the nature of public forums. My recommendation is to criticize the opinion, not the posting of it. Makes for better discussion and all.
I see. I think it makes for a better discussion if we look into the loaded terms we are using, and I say that. You think we have a better discussion overall, if I don't say such a thing, and you say that.
Fair enough. Maybe you thought I was collaring you or scolding you or something. Perhaps "makes for a better discussion" were the wrong words or something. Sorry. They don't keep me here for my charm, do they?
The idea I meant to express is about the avoidance of language-traps. It isn't just for the actual discussion here, but for the way we look at things. Regarding the actual discussion, yes, I think some people might benefit from seeing that they are immediately disposed against "erotica" if the word "porn" is used for it.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Oct 02 2006 4:59:30 PM |
|
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Oct 02 2006 : 8:23:34 PM
|
| I see that I have misunderstood you, and sincerely apologize for misinterpreting your meaning. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Oct 02 2006 : 10:48:38 PM
|
No, my intent was friendly, but my tone was ambiguous; until such time as they do keep me here for my charm, the fault is mine.
|
|
|
|
paw
52 Posts |
Posted - Oct 04 2006 : 05:13:04 AM
|
Chiron says:
"This is the way I also thought at first. And I'm a young guy compared to you so my sex drive is alot stronger. Once you learn to send the energy up the spine, brahmacharya and tantra become the natural choices. I used to think it would be impossible to not have orgasm after sex.. but you just gotta ride it out and the alternative isn't worse at all. It becomes an inner, ongoing orgasm, just without the ejaculation."
Yes, I agree, I look forward with hope to ecstatic conductivity. The "inner, ongoing orgasm"-if tantra leads to this, then tantra is what I need.
"I think you should thoroughly study tantra, because IMO that is the best solution for you right now. And your wife's interest might also light up with your increased performance :D :D"
Increased performance? Why, what have you heard?
|
|
|
|
paw
52 Posts |
Posted - Oct 04 2006 : 05:22:31 AM
|
david_obsidian says:
"Maybe the majority of us have the disease in varying degrees. It may be that your body-mind is on the verge of shaking it off. One of the things that yoga brings is that the body's own intelligence says 'to hell with this crap, I've had enough'. It can know something is crap and be set on getting rid of it even if the conscious mind and surrounding culture are not yet so convinced."
Very much so in my case. My dear wife is still a fundamentalist, and our kids too. It's a huge deal for me to leave it, explore new ideas, and go within seeking truth.
erotic puritanism is a disease-yes, most explicitly. |
|
|
|
Kyman
530 Posts |
Posted - Oct 04 2006 : 7:43:03 PM
|
I had an orgasm in a dream, but did not ejaculate.
Doesn't count as a wet dream, you see. hehe |
|
|
|
Wolfgang
Germany
470 Posts |
Posted - Oct 17 2006 : 05:27:32 AM
|
Coming back to the topic of this thread: porn - looking at porn,
where porn and erotica are non-discriminating words.
Something is keeping me occupied and I want to quote a passage of the bible here:
"You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But now I tell you:
anyone who looks at a woman and wants to possess her is guilty of committing
adultery with her in his heart."
Now, would looking at erotic pictures fall into this line ?
Looking at a picture is not the same as looking at the person,
especially if the person on the picture does not know me (and
in real life I also don't know him/her)
I could go further and take the example of looking at an erotic
tantric statue: here it is no specific person at all,
rather it becomes an idealised image in my mind,
so, am I then loving the ideal love of my mind ?
Now: how would this fit in above mentioned quote of Jesus ?
|
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Oct 17 2006 : 09:27:03 AM
|
I think Jesus was saying, "Get yer mind outta the gutter!" |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Oct 17 2006 : 09:54:42 AM
|
I don't know Wolfgang. It seems like a very severe thing to say. If I saw a teacher saying that here and now, I've have a lot of questions for him about what he means, and if he is sure he is teaching well with that -- it looks like he's setting people up to get stuck in sexual neuroticism. But as for Jesus himself, who knows. Did he have a bad teaching moment? Or a bad attitude to sex? Or was he just speaking from some of the limitations of his era and culture? Or does he have a good attitude to sex, but it is coming across ambiguously .....Or is the whole thing just a mistranslation, or hopelessly out-of-context... a cobbled-together, third-hand report from which the original nuance is not obvious? Who knows? I certainly don't.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Oct 17 2006 09:56:28 AM |
|
|
|
Richard
United Kingdom
857 Posts |
Posted - Oct 17 2006 : 10:00:18 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
.....Or is the whole thing just a mistranslation, or hopelessly out-of-context... a cobbled-together, third-hand report from which the original nuance is not obvious?
I would definitely go along with that David and the same thing goes for lot more of the new testament too
Richard |
|
|
|
Wolfgang
Germany
470 Posts |
Posted - Oct 17 2006 : 12:02:21 PM
|
I quite agree that lot's of passages in the bible are
many times just for the people of that age in that culture.
And lot's of passages are mistranslated, snipped and changed
over the centuries (that would be a whole new thread).
But let's look at the quote a bit and analyse the ethics:
Of course "possessing" a wife is out of the question
and can not be regarded as highly moral or ethical.
What would this quote be in todays world ?
If you are married and have promised to only have one partner,
then as long as this partnership last, neither partner
should look for a third partner.
The question is: when looking at a picture/statue/image,
is this beeing unfaithful to your partner ?
I guess, sometimes it could indeed be so,
at other times it could be a way for both partners
to evolve to a higher level of understanding.
I guess it gets difficult, if one partner regards
looking at erotics as "sinful" and the other sees it
as a means to explore self and sexuality.
Now, the situation of course changes if you are in
a partnership and out of greed/lust/sexual desire
you are looking to satisfy that desire with another
woman. But that would indicate that the relationship
with your partner is not honest, otherwise you would
tell your partner about the "temptation" and you would
be able to resolve it.
At the root of the quotation in question is basically
the "law" for monogamy, which every human either
accepts of being the right thing for him, or dismisses and
finds his own rules (but monogamy would also be a new thread).
I would like you (anybody) to elaborate on the ethics of imagining
erotics in contrast to being "faithful/unfaithful" to a partner.
L&L
Wolfgang
|
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Oct 17 2006 : 1:19:49 PM
|
It boils down to "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you". If you wouldn't mind in the least bit if your wife is looking at other men all the time, and that she wouldn't mind at all if you looked at other women all of the time, then go for it. But how many of us can say that we wouldn't mind? I know I can't. Even if I told myself that it's all good...I know in my heart that it's not "all good". I would be comprimising what I feel is right.
What feels right to me is if I'm in a relationship with someone, they should be interested in me and not other guys. If they look at me as the same as the rest of the guys in the world, what's the point? Might as well not be together, because then it's meaningless. Might as well have relationships with everyone...date a new person every night...so long as we are all the same as eachother.
In the same way, I should be more interested in her than all of the other girls in the world. If I think of her the same way I think of everyone else, then where's the connection? The relationship would just be all business. There's no love in that.
Love is about being interested in someone else's life. Sharing your life with them. Fighting life's battles side by side.
If you are interested in all people, and share your deepest secrets and stresses with everyone, then what's the point of having a person to sleep with at night and wake up with? A safety pad for sex? Someone to cook for you? That's all business, and no REAL-ationship (that was pretty corny huh).
It's confusing when someone you love cheats on you...after you thought they loved you too. It doesn't do good things to the person you are cheating on - your lover. It does bad things to them psychologically when you cheat on them, despite how cool they are about it. Deep down...they're questioning everything.
I have yet to meet a person who doesn't innately believe in monogamous love. I have met tons of people who are all about "free love". I think they're liars. I can see it in their eyes, and subtleties in their actions, that they want that one person....the soul mate. The guy or girl of their dreams.
I don't think it's just from stories we've heard growing up...I think it's the way we're supposed to function. I believe it's biological.
And about cheating....Cheating isn't simply having sex with another person. Wanting to have sex with another person is the same thing as doing it, as far as your heart is concerned...because you're not focused and dedicated to the one you "love"...you're way far off in lust-land, forgetting about your partner. You are becoming interested in someone else, outside of the shared life between you and your partner. Then, if you're hiding it from your partner, you're not sharing your life...and you're being unfaithful. They can't trust you (faith) because you're not sharing yourself with them.
So is that even love? I'd say, when you're lusting after women other than your partner, you are breaking the love with your partner. You're being selfish, instead of functioning as the singular unit of man and woman.
I really don't think Jesus' saying is unclear in any way. Sure, it's hard to swallow, but it's what he said as far as we know. It means exactly what it says, in my opinion. It seems like quite the impossible rule to follow...but I'm not going to say it means something else just because of that. He did also say that the way is narrow, and that few make it.
But I also think he was talking not so much about being married and not committing mental adultery, but just anyone lusting after a woman that he's not with. It shows where your desires lie...not with God, but with physical attraction to females. And a person could say, "But I practice yoga everyday and have tons of bhakti and still am attracted to women." To which Jesus would probably respond, "You can't serve two masters."
Lust is an indication of your karma. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
porn ?
