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.
I am really puzzled now, Ether.
I myself can very well imagine catholic priests having sexual desires.
In fact, I am absolutely convinced that there are many of them
having sexual desires and struggling to handle these desires.
Many greetings
Wolfgang
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.
The syndrome is present or absent to varying degrees among different people in different cultures, and it affects some people more strongly than others, even if they are brought up in the same way. In historical christian cultures it has been so pervasive that the religion has often basically spoken from the disease itself. When that happens, it can be ten times as hard to get out of it.
I believe that the gist of it is developmentally the arising of sexual desires that cannot ‘integrate’ on a bed of appropriate emotional and spiritual development. Main contributors to the disease include the puritanism and sexual repression in which one is brought up, with the inevitable shame-based hiding of the naked body and so on.
Cultures that do not have it celebrate erotic spiritual art, and that helps keep the syndrome at bay. If one is brought up in a household in which an honored symbol is shakti and shiva copulating, it is much harder for the disease to take root.
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.
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.
Hi Alan, yeah it’s pa and ma, but since I started toe-strike “catwalking”, I am paw :0)
I agree, the erotic seems to be everywhere, as Shiva and Shakti unite in cosmic dance…
“Pull themselves out of it.”
Well said, and I agree.
Sex is very complicated, yet so simple. It truly is to each their own. Who is to say what is attractive to another person? I think the way of yoga would bring about an entirely different pattern of sexual activity than the person who is generally living life through their sensuality.
Does spanking break the code of non-harming?
What is moral seems to me a game of context. A good example by alvin was masterbating in public. no doubt at one time this was probably natural, completely commonplace. People create immorality based on their average behaviors, and those outside the majority create the context. Spanking is probably as common as french kissing, so its position in the spectrum of what is percieved as moral is more in the middle.
It is common for religious ideoligies to dictate this moral context, creating an unnatural shade for human behavior. Which is better for this planet as a whole, people masterbating in public, without much insecurity and embarrisment, vs barely being able to have good sex behind closed doors with someone you’ve known for years ‘with the lights on’. It’s got me thinking. In a general sense, of course. I am not planning on resurrecting our old ‘completely open and natural’ customs.
Go back to when people masterbated in the open public and ‘spanking’ is probably considered the yogic way. Spanking would be for the spirtually elite, those who have transcended the more primal practices.
I would say that health is probably the best determining factor as to what should be labeled moral. This relates to non-harming.
Then it all comes down to how a person defines themselves, because the ego’s idea of health and the balanced core of reality often conflict. For those who engage in rough or passionate sex, this understaking pushes the body and helps it with its cycles, probably helps with the relationship cycles too. For this type of couple, the practices of the person who doesn’t define themselves and asks to be shown the way through surrender, would probably impede their natural equilibrium.
What a can of metaphysical warms.
“Does spanking break the code of non-harming?”
Haha! Yes, no yogis are allowed to engage in spanking.
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.
HAHAHA!
That is quite an advanced technique, obsidian. Who’s your master, and does she have a sister?
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. …
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Because children would rarely, if ever, be consensual sex partners.
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!
“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!
I do think of commercial porn as erotica.
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.
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.