# Reading > Religious Texts >  The Benefits of Celibacy and Chastity

## NikolaiI

A couple weeks ago I was reading a book, about the benefits of celibacy and chastity, and it was really remarkable and enlightening. I never knew how beneficial it was for health and well-being, physically, mentally and spiritually. This book was actually mainly centered on celibacy in males, and I don't know much about it with women. 

But anyway, being celibate much improves how much energy one has, and one's ability to think well and creatively. The evidence is fairly persuasive for this. Sex depletes vital fluids, which if not depleted get reabsorbed into the body, to be precise, reabsorbed into the spine, which is where the nervous center is. Thus to be celibate retains the vital fluids which are very helpful for brain development and so forth. 

Semen consists of almost the exact same chemical constituion as the brain. It is mostly lechitin, and the grey matter in the brain is composed of 20% lechitin.

As a disclaimer, I am not a scientist and I could be wrong about the wording of some of this. It's also been a couple of weeks since I read from the book, so forgive my imperfect knowledge. But it's my understanding that the vital fluids, when conserved, are reabsorbed into the spine, and that the nervous center is also around the same area. 

If anyone knows more than I do and would like to share, please do!  :Smile:  And of course I am very interested to know all your opinions.

Lastly, the list of scientists, philosophers, artists, mathematicians, and so forth, and geniuses from all fields, who lived continent lives is very great. I'll just list a few which are a little more well known to people, especially from the Western countries.

Pythagoras, Hippocrates, Democritus, Aristotle, Celsus, Prophets Elijah and Elisha, John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, Apollonius of Tyana, Plotinus, Porphyry, Fra Angelico, Michelangelo, Pascal, Spinoza, Newton, Leibniz, Handel, Kant, Beethoven, Schopenhauer, Thoreau, Spencer, Nietzsche, Tesla, Sidis...

Have any of you studied about the physiological and other benefits of celibacy and chastity? For me it is also connected with vegetarianism and avoidance of intoxication, which have somewhat similar benefits..

----------


## ennison

The benefits of celibacy are very overrated. But less overrated than the supposed benefits of intoxication.

----------


## NikolaiI

How are they overrated and by whom exactly? Western society glorifies sex more than anything, and the mentality is that women must expose themselves and put out if they will get dates, which is utterly degrading.

----------


## MarkBastable

> But anyway, being celibate much improves how much energy one has, and one's ability to think well and creatively. The evidence is fairly persuasive for this.



Or as Rabelais said, rolling off a whore, "There goes another poem."

----------


## mayneverhave

Besides avoiding the risk of getting VD, I can't think of a reason to be celibate.

Sex is, like eating and drinking, a fundamental part of human existence.

----------


## Scheherazade

It might help one save money.

----------


## Maximilianus

> It might help one save money.


Oh well, you don't have to pay for all you want... there are those who give services free of charge. They are like artists... just for the sake of the art is why they do what they do and give what they give...  :FRlol: 




> Or as Rabelais said, rolling off a whore, "There goes another poem."


Wow, wow, wait! What if the whore is an inspiring one, uh? Rabelais could well say "there comes another poem"... unless he only got intercourses with uninspiring whores, in which case it's all his fault for choosing wrongly...  :FRlol:

----------


## Janine

*Nikalai,* there actual medical evidence that this is true? I don't think that Beethoven or Michelangelo were celebate. Michelangelo wrote some very lusty love poems to someone(?) and Beethoven was known to have several lovers. I don't see where it diminished their brains in anyway. Doesn't the fluid quickly get replaced by the body and what about endorphins which are released when an orgasims take place? 
What then, a lot of celebate miserable people walking around expanding their gray matter! I am not sure this is entirely true; where did you read it? If it were true, by now I would probably be an Einstein! 

 :FRlol:  *Max* and *Mark*; you both have me falling on the floor with laughter. *Scher,* I love your line. I guess we would all save money; I think bachelors already know that.

----------


## Maximilianus

> *Nikalai,* there actual medical evidence that this is true?


I humbly believe it's more like one of those mystical and philosophical paths, in which case I should say I don't really feel like walking such a path. I'm not _that_ mystical  :Biggrin: 



> ... Beethoven was known to have several lovers.


And there was a particular woman at the very top of his list. I can't recall her name right now, but I do believe there's some evidence that she was the woman he mostly loved, including physical love  :Wink: 
We can fairly say the same about Bach, Shakespeare and Professor Tolkien. They were all husbands and fathers, and apparently their family duties didn't damage their creativity to a compromising degree.



> Doesn't the fluid quickly get replaced by the body and what about endorphins which are released when an orgasms take place?


Have you noticed that you've just made it sound as a healthy practice?  :FRlol: 



> What then, a lot of celebate miserable people walking around expanding their gray matter! ... If it were true, by now I would probably be an Einstein!


  :FRlol:  and I'd already be devising weird formulas and a full counter-theory to the relativity theory  :FRlol: 




> *Max* and *Mark*; you both have me falling on the floor with laughter.


Laughter has been largely proved to be healthy.... what about celibate?  :FRlol:

----------


## Janine

> I humbly believe it's more like one of those mystical and philosophical paths, in which case I should say I don't really feel like walking such a path. I'm not _that_ mystical


I don't know about that. D.H.Lawrence might disagree with that idea. He thought having sex one was being transfigured; isn't that mystical enough for you?  :FRlol:  He enjoyed sex and he was considered a genius! I am not sure if the evidence is conclusive here, concerning celebacy and intellectual capacity. 




> And there was a particular woman at the very top of his list. I can't recall her name right now, but I do believe there's some evidence that she was the woman he mostly loved, including physical love We can fairly say the same about Bach, Shakespeare and Professor Tolkien. They were all husbands and fathers, and apparently their family duties didn't damage their creativity to a compromising degree.


Exactly, I don't recall her name either, but one in particular was definitely his lover for years. I don't think they just held hands or kissed.




> Have you noticed that you've just made it sound as a healthy practice? 
>  and I'd already be devising weird formulas and a full counter-theory to the relativity theory


 Exactly my point, Max...exactly my point!  :Wink:  :Brow:  :FRlol: 

 :Smash:  Yah!


> Laughter has been largely proved to be healthy.... what about celibate?


 Right up there, along side of sex for endorphins. Just don't laugh at the same time!  :Biggrin:  :FRlol:

----------


## Jozanny

If the word of a published and practicing writer means anything, celibacy dampens creative energy. My ex is impotent because he is sick, and I am not getting any action because I have given up looking, because, but even Chaucer knew the value of the bawdy.

----------


## Nightshade

Ummm I am sure I read somewhere that Michelangelo was what we would now call a pedophile with a taste for boys. 
 :Confused:

----------


## mal4mac

Wikipedia: 'Celibacy is, in its strictest definition, the lifestyle of someone who is and is striving to remain unmarried all his/her life. However, the term is often popularly used to describe a state of life where one chooses to abstain from all sexual activities, which is strictly "continence". '

I'll accept that the list of greats you mention were unmarried, how can you know if they were continent? Anyway, you can produce a list of married greats that is more impressive. Just off the top of my head:

Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Socrates, Einstein, Darwin, Schrodinger, Dickens, George Eliot, ...

So your idea that "continence = greatness" doesn't seem to hold semen ..er.. sorry, water.

Does anyone have a list of those who have admitted to be incontinent with no partner? Few since Diogenes have had the courage to admit that. Few (before Roth!) have had the courage to put it in their novels. Tolstoy bravely talked about a "safety valve", thinking the censors were too thick to get even a simple metaphor. Conversely, are there any who have bluntly stated they have been strictly continent? If so, do you believe them? :-)

----------


## MarkBastable

> Lastly, the list of scientists, philosophers, artists, mathematicians, and so forth, and geniuses from all fields, who lived continent lives is very great. I'll just list a few which are a little more well known to people, especially from the Western countries.
> 
> Pythagoras, Hippocrates, Democritus, Aristotle, Celsus, Prophets Elijah and Elisha, John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, Apollonius of Tyana, Plotinus, Porphyry, Fra Angelico, Michelangelo, Pascal, Spinoza, Newton, Leibniz, Handel, Kant, Beethoven, Schopenhauer, Thoreau, Spencer, Nietzsche, Tesla, Sidis....


Let's assume you're right about these. Their celibacy would only support your argument if we failed to come up with a list of similarly great artists and thinkers who were _not_ celibate.

But I think we can create such a list, easily.

Here we go - feel free to join in....

Picasso, Dali, Donne, Marvell, Dickens, Joyce, Mahler, Roth, Catullus, Titian, Maupassant, Tolstoy, Turgenev...

And these are just some of those who were - as it were - _noticeably_ not celibate. If you included all those who were just ordinarily living a life of which sex was a part, you'd essentially have to list practically every artist and thinker that ever lived. 

So unless you can come up with an argument that the people in your list are more creative and more driven than other artists, _and_ that those qualities are attributable only to the celibacy, then reeling off a list of celibate artists gives no useful support to the original premise.

----------


## NikolaiI

> Conversely, are there any who have bluntly stated they have been strictly continent? If so, do you believe them? :-)


Sidis.

And Janine, yes there is evidence that is true.

Also I didn't mention them, but every single Hindu saint or acarya has been strictly celibate. Narada, Sankaracarya, Sri Ramakrishna, thousands of others, enlightened persons. Also Buddhists were chaste, such as Lord Buddha, Milarepa, etc.; further enlightened Christians were also chaste, such as Jesus, although he wasn't really a Christian; then there is Fra Angelico, etc. 

Perhaps later I can put some quotes from a couple of some of these people.

----------


## billl

I've heard discussions and statements about this before. Books on yoga told me it was healthy to "not ejaculate," and science reports in mainstream news told me that frequent ejaculation (well it is difficult to put it succinctly w/out humor) has health benefits. I've just spent less than five minutes looking over some web search results for associated keywords, and the same schism shows up. Articles defending celibacy in the Catholic clergy or expounding upon yogic practices say sexual continence is good, and Western medical/mainstream media say the opposite.

One impression I got back when I was doing asanas and reading (well, browsing) about the more spiritual end of yoga was that it was part of getting students in line with the yogic way of life. Not meaning to be offensive, but I think it might be fair for a lay person to detect a certain "if a student can be made to control this particular instinct, then they can be expected to follow much other advice closely as well." Celibacy would obviously help to develop single-mindedness (in more senses than one). I find it easier to associate celibacy with the carrying on of traditional behaviors, rather than promoting creativity. But there are bound to be exceptions.

As usual in the yin/yang dance of ideas, I find there to be a strong case to be made for developing such control, but also a strong case for realizing self-denial and submission might not always be the best path in the long-term. The best advice I ever read about this particular issue (well, the advice that struck me as the most reasonable at the time) was from some Tantric teacher in some magazine article, who said that, once the point is reached where one is ready to "finish," then it should be a situation where the man feels comfortable whether he chooses to do so or not do so. Why not mix things up, from time to time?

----------


## NikolaiI

> So unless you can come up with an argument that the people in your list are more creative and more driven than other artists, and that those qualities are attributable only to the celibacy, then reeling off a list of celibate artists gives no useful support to the original premise.


Just to shorten the list a little; I would say, Gandhi, Thoreau, Sri Aurobindo, Swami Vivekananda, Nietzsche, Sidis, Buddha, Christ, these are mostly great leaders and all great geniuses in their own fields. Most of them are also vegetarians and do not engage in intoxication, which are pretty much equally as necessary as celibacy.

It's not an argument, Mark. I am not arguing that only geniuses are celibate or that all geniuses are celibate, or that all celibates are geniuses. I never said or implied with tone anything remotely like that. The fact is, loss of the vital fluids results in loss of energy. It is as simple as that. In fact, it is a big loss of energy, and may have other deteriorative effects. That's the negative side, but the positive side is that chastity, celibacy, they greatly increase the energy, in relation to not being celibate. 

One other person, who was in the list, but may not be quite as well known, was Sidis. Sidis was an extraordinary genius with perhaps the highest IQ ever to live. He was lecturing at Harvard when he was 11, and he could speak all the languages of the world, over 200, and translate between them instantly. When he was a teenager he decided not to be celibate for the rest of his life.

Um, to clarify; I am attempting to have a discussion, not an argument - secondly, I am presenting reasons and evidence to help people consider that perhaps the media's glorification and worship of sex is not the only way, and definitely not the ultimate truth, nor should it be taken for granted without questioning if it is true. So the list of such persons as Pythagoras, Nietzsche, so on, and others - which actually I had meant to add Tolstoy to, so I am not sure, I should learn more about him.. - is part of the reasons but it is a much smaller part than the fact that the loss of vital fluids is unhealthy.




> I've heard discussions and statements about this before. Books on yoga told me it was healthy to "not ejaculate," and science reports in mainstream news told me that frequent ejaculation (well it is difficult to put it succinctly w/out humor) has health benefits. I've just spent less than five minutes looking over some web search results for associated keywords, and the same schism shows up. Articles defending celibacy in the Catholic clergy or expounding upon yogic practices say sexual continence is good, and Western medical/mainstream media say the opposite.
> 
> One impression I got back when I was doing asanas and reading (well, browsing) about the more spiritual end of yoga was that it was part of getting students in line with the yogic way of life. Not meaning to be offensive, but I think it might be fair for a lay person to detect a certain "if a student can be made to control this particular instinct, then they can be expected to follow much other advice closely as well." Celibacy would obviously help to develop single-mindedness (in more senses than one). I find it easier to associate celibacy with the carrying on of traditional behaviors, rather than promoting creativity. But there are bound to be exceptions.
> 
> As usual in the yin/yang dance of ideas, I find there to be a strong case to be made for developing such control, but also a strong case for realizing self-denial and submission might not always be the best path in the long-term. The best advice I ever read about this particular issue (well, the advice that struck me as the most reasonable at the time) was from some Tantric teacher in some magazine article, who said that, once the point is reached where one is ready to "finish," then it should be a situation where the man feels comfortable whether he chooses to do so or not do so. Why not mix things up, from time to time?


Yeah. That is the thing. People do not know and there are so many, for many years, who have said that it's unhealthy to be abstinent. The book I am reading talks about this a lot. A lot of scientists, I mean a lot of them, have understood that celibacy is first of all not unhealthy, and secondly actually has health benefits. 

And the problem is, it's so engrained in our society, the glorification and almost worship of sex, that anything to the contrary is met with severe skepticism, or ridicule. 

I do not know what books you read on Yoga but from my understanding, celibacy is necessary for the practice of yoga, as well as are vegetarianism and freedom from intoxication. If one desires to practice yoga as it should be, then one should also be pure of intoxication and meat-eating, as well as being celibate. 

You see, Westerners are so imbibed that they react this way, with skepticism, mockery and scorn. (I don't mean your reaction, Bill.) They do not think there is any other way. However, in India, for example, it is very different. There is a common practice of brahmacari, which means celibate student life. Brahmacari is also a spiritual discipline, the reason of which is to develop self-control, patience, as well as other good qualities. Swami Vivekananda, who is very greatly revered and respected as a perfect spiritual master to many Indians, said once that he owed a great deal of his spiritual understanding to his practice of brahmacari as a youth. 

Actually, it is not self-denial. The whole philosophy of enjoyment is rather flawed. The flaw is in the misconception that "I am my body." You see, you are saying, "My body." - so who is the I? The I is not the body, but it is the soul. Christ said, it is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh is nothing. Emerson says, the light within, or the soul, is all, while the rest is nothing. 

It is a high ideal to be free of desire, but it is an ancient remedy for suffering. The Buddha also taught that attachment is the main cause of suffering. 

Swami Vivekananda said, "So long as there is desire or want, it is a sure sign that there is imperfection. A perfect, free being cannot have any desire."

So, it is a very high goal to be perfect. And here in the USA, it is a common phrase, "No one is perfect." In fact the idea of perfection is the most offensive one! Why? It is because we are taught that we are, just by nature, a fallen human. But this is not true - we are not by nature a fallen human, but in essential nature we are pure consciousness.

We are in ignorance of our true nature, which is saccidananda, or existence-knowledge-bliss. We think we are this body, and all the things that go with it; but they are all externals, they are like the outer clothing, or the car - while we are the person wearing the clothes, or the driver - the soul.

It is actually not impossible to be perfect. Why should it be? Why have we gotten so mixed up as to get this limitation engraved in our hearts - no one is perfect, and perfection is offensive? How can we reconcile that with our natural optimism that anything is possible? 

Our natural position is boundless joy - we come from light, do we not? The sun is a great source of energy, it is the source of all life on earth. So our source is light - why can we not then be pure? Whatever is the source, everything comes from it, and everything returns to it. So why are so imbibed against anyone who speaks of a spiritual light, as Emerson did? Especially when some of those are giants among humanity, geniuses and saints? 

No, it is not self-denial to follow in the path of the divine saints such as Christ, Buddha, Swami Vivekananda, who understood and embodied a divine love. We have become cynical and cold-hearted, interestingly, by following the propaganda of glorification of sense-enjoyment and worship of sex. Swami Vivekananda also said, "anything done in selfishness is contraction, anything done in love is expansion. Therefore live by love as the only law of life."

Now I am not saying sex is wrong; just used for the wrong purposes it is wrong. I would agree with Plato who said, sex should only be used as a means of procreation.

What about this thought, everyone - what if the orgasm is so pleasurable, evolutionarily or by design, or by whatever force - because it is bringing a new life into the world? And that a new life has the potential to be an embodiment of love? Thus we have evolved, or been designed, to feel an orgasm because it is the exultation of the new life?

----------


## billl

Nikolai, I liked your last paragraph. I'm no expert on Tantric texts as they relate to sex (or at all, for that matter, although I've read some stuff), but that sounds like an interesting avenue to check out, if you like reading about this sort of thing. In sex, there's definitely stuff going on with forces (maybe it is kundalini, or just chi, or even "orgone"...), and it can get more subtle and interesting than just "orgasm." The quote you provided about doing something "in love" producing expansion actually seems to apply here, in my opinion, regardless of the Swami's opinion on this specific matter.

You're right about selfish sex, but I don't see why sex for the purpose of making a child would be the only kind of non-selfish sex. When sex is about love, it really shouldn't be selfish. In fact, one problem that can happen is that either the man or the woman might feel that their partner is being selfish. Indeed, when I think of the stories I've heard about guys visiting prostitutes, it is enough to tell me that it wouldn't be very satisfying, relative to sex with a lover. And the sex in ads and movies is of course an objectification, something apart from our personal experiences with a lover, and so it's easy to see how the whole thing is a sort of a manipulation of people, part of business and mass entertainment. People can get mechanical and transactional about sex, but that doesn't correctly describe all non-procreational types of sex.

Regarding body fluids and energy, I think that jogging followed by a nap could be criticized via the same logic. I think the evidence is conflicting at best.

Regarding the list: Nietszche went mad, eventually, and some think he might have suffered from syphillis. He certainly said a few things that would disturb women, though, and didn't write a lot about "romantic" love, so who knows. I know the list isn't key to your position, but I just want to attach some asterisks to this particular entry.

Of course, for some people, celibacy is exactly what they need, and it might help them become what they want to be. But your original post seemed to be suggesting that it would be best for everyone, and I don't think a sufficiently strong case for that can be made. 

I read most of your posts, and I think you've been very generous in sharing your experiences and ideas--I think you have your own approach, but also are providing an interesting look at some non-Western thought and thinkers. Sorry if I'm making to big of a thing about this particular topic, but the discussion was getting interesting and I wanted to join in.

----------


## MarkBastable

> \
> 
> It's not an argument, Mark. I am not arguing that only geniuses are celibate or that all geniuses are celibate, or that all celibates are geniuses. I never said or implied with tone anything remotely like that. The fact is, loss of the vital fluids results in loss of energy. It is as simple as that. In fact, it is a big loss of energy, and may have other deteriorative effects.


I didn't mean 'argument' in the sense of 'conflict', but in the sense of 'proposition'.

Loss of vital fluids results in the loss of energy only in the way that talking, sweating or begging for alms as a mendicant monk results in loss of energy. Fortunately the human body is designed to expend and then replenish energy stores. There's nothing deteriorative about it.

----------


## Janine

> I didn't mean 'argument' in the sense of 'conflict', but in the sense of 'proposition'.
> 
> Loss of vital fluids results in the loss of energy only in the way that talking, sweating or begging for alms as a mendicant monk results in loss of energy. Fortunately the human body is designed to expend and then replenish energy stores. There's nothing deteriorative about it.


I agree. There is just no validity to the statements being presented here. One can donate stem cells, blood, etc and one's own body quickly replenishes the fluids and cells. This whole idea of celebacy taking a toll on the body seems a bit far-fetched to me. Now if you wish to speak of moderation in all things, I could agree that sex can be over-rated and endulged in maybe too much and therefore could cause a person harm, but condemning sex is not natural. Do you see animals restraining themselves, when it is mating season? Maybe people need mating seasons, too.

----------


## Maximilianus

> Yah! Right up there, along side of sex for endorphins. Just don't laugh at the same time!


You don't know how multitasking I can be ....  :FRlol: 



> If the word of a published and practicing writer means anything, celibacy dampens creative energy.


Sorry, you mean "dampen" in the sense of improving, or in the sense of spoiling?



> ...are there any who have bluntly stated they have been strictly continent? If so, do you believe them? :-)


People may say they've been continent as they may say they are addicted to whatever their hormones tell them to do, and in any case they may be talking an absolute truth or an absolute lie. There are those who speak marvels about continence and it doesn't mean they can really contain themselves. There are those who speak marvels about sex and it doesn't mean they practice it regularly.



> Let's assume you're right about these. Their celibacy would only support your argument if we failed to come up with a list of similarly great artists and thinkers who were _not_ celibate.
> 
> But I think we can create such a list, easily.
> 
> Here we go - feel free to join in....
> 
> Picasso, Dali, Donne, Marvell, Dickens, Joyce, Mahler, Roth, Catullus, Titian, Maupassant, Tolstoy, Turgenev...


I will add Leonhard Euler, a brilliant mathematician who was also a family man. If I don't remember wrong, he had quite a few children, so he wasn't precisely containing himself. However, he made significant discoveries now taken for granted in the math field.



> Sidis.
> 
> And Janine, yes there is evidence that is true.
> 
> Also I didn't mention them, but every single Hindu saint or acarya has been strictly celibate. Narada, Sankaracarya, Sri Ramakrishna, thousands of others, enlightened persons. Also Buddhists were chaste, such as Lord Buddha, Milarepa, etc.; further enlightened Christians were also chaste, such as Jesus, although he wasn't really a Christian; then there is Fra Angelico, etc. 
> 
> Perhaps later I can put some quotes from a couple of some of these people.


That's what they have said, or what some of their followers (many of them fanatics) have said, but how do you know it is 100% true? Just because someone says so? Well, I'm sure you were not with them 24 hours a day carrying out a surveillance on each one of their acts, and surely no one else was either. There's a theory that states that Jesus may have taken Mary Magdalene as his wife and that they had children of their own. It can be another lie out of many ones often told, or it can be true. As far as I am concerned if it were true, it wouldn't be wrong. So what? Having had relations with women makes him less holy or enlightened? Does holiness and enlightenment ejaculate away during an orgasm not to ever be recovered?

It is true that sex is being highly overrated nowadays, but I believe that considering sexual intercourses as a means of departing from health is too much of a misconception. We shouldn't overrate sex, but I believe we shouldn't underrate it either, don't you?

Finally, people often regarded as saints are ultimately the same the rest of us are, that is, human beings made of flesh and blood. If you are a biological entity, flesh is weak and blood boils. I wouldn't put much confidence on the words of those who contradict the very biological nature of living creatures as we are, as though they were saying that sex has the sole purpose of spoiling whatever it touches. So what would we have to do? Just look but don't touch? In my humble view, that's just unnatural at the least.

----------


## ennison

Celibacy is unhealthy and unnatural

----------


## NikolaiI

> Regarding body fluids and energy, I think that jogging followed by a nap could be criticized via the same logic. I think the evidence is conflicting at best.


Yes there is conflicting evidence. If you are interested though, you might look at some of the writings by Dr. R. W. Bernard, A.B., M.A., Ph.D.

http://www.ktk.ru/~cm/contin.htm

I would recommend for all the book _Brain Gain_, subtitled "The Wisdom of Celibacy and Chastity," written by His Holiness Danavir Goswami. I am sure you will find it enlightening. When I first read some of it, I learned a lot, but reading it a little more I gained some more understanding. I would present for you more information from this book, but I am not really feeling up to the task of being one against everyone in such an argument. All I can do is urge you to study and find out the truth for yourself, and give you the assurance that my life is immeasurably better becuase I am now aware of these facts.




> Celibacy is unhealthy and unnatural


(quotes from _Brain Gain_)

"Buddha taught five precepts (known as Righta Action). Right Action follows after Right Speech. Right Action entails refraining from killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct. These three evil deeds are caused by craving and anger, associated with ignorance. By the gradual eliminating of these causes from the mind, blameworthy actions will find no expression. Being pure in mind, a person will lead a pure life."

"Buddha: 'A mendicant (Bhikku) leads a life of voluntary poverty and celibacy.'"

"Tolstoy: 'Any man can find hundreds of examples around him showing that continence is possible and less dangerous or harmful to health and incontinence.'"

"Von Gruber: 'There's no reason why [sexual] continence should be injurious.'"


To be honest I pretty much took these at random. There are many good quotes from _Brain Gain_. 

Um - I can't really take you all on, in this, one against everyone else. I apologize. I am sorry to see I am the only person who is willing to speak up for the benefits of celibacy and chastity. I hope you all have a good life. If you do some research about the dozens or hundreds of scientists within the last one or two centuries who have done research, I am sure you will find some good reasons to be chaste. I'm not up to the task of presenting it all before you and it's true that Bernard's work is very lengthy and probably will be of little or no use to you. So therefore all I can do is give you my honest assessment that it is very persuasive. 

Thank you.

----------


## Maximilianus

> Um - I can't really take you all on, in this, one against everyone else. I apologize. I am sorry to see I am the only person who is willing to speak up for the benefits of celibacy and chastity. I hope you all have a good life. If you do some research about the dozens or hundreds of scientists within the last one or two centuries who have done research, I am sure you will find some good reasons to be chaste. I'm not up to the task of presenting it all before you and it's true that Bernard's work is very lengthy and probably will be of little or no use to you. So therefore all I can do is give you my honest assessment that it is very persuasive. 
> 
> Thank you.


Oh, you need not apologize Nikolai. As for me, I think it's been an interesting conversation. Sorry if I sounded too partial on my posts. I didn't mean to say there are no benefits in chastity. What I actually meant is that chastity wouldn't be an alternative for me, being who I am and what I am like. Probably it has its benefits which, if any, I will have to miss  :Biggrin: 

Interesting subject to be discussed though. Thank you too  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## MarkBastable

> "Buddha taught five precepts (known as Righta Action). Right Action follows after Right Speech. Right Action entails refraining from killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct. These three evil deeds are caused by craving and anger, associated with ignorance. By the gradual eliminating of these causes from the mind, blameworthy actions will find no expression. Being pure in mind, a person will lead a pure life."


So the support for you saying that celibacy is a good idea is that someone else said so. Not really scientific method, is it? That's more like hearsay.




> "Buddha: 'A mendicant (Bhikku) leads a life of voluntary poverty and celibacy.'"


Unless the word _voluntary_ is significant, the same could be said for every murderer on death row. And neither the monks nor the murderers, as far as I know, are more healthy or focussed or energetic than a carpenter who gets it regularly, even with a goat.




> "Tolstoy: 'Any man can find hundreds of examples around him showing that continence is possible and less dangerous or harmful to health and incontinence.'"


I'd be interested to know whether Tolstoy said this himself or whether he had one of his characters say it. There's a difference. 

Of Tolstoy himself, I offer this neat para from Wikipedia: 

_On 23 September 1862, Tolstoy married Sophia Andreevna Bers, the daughter of a court physician who was 16 years his junior. They had thirteen children, five of whom died during childhood.[3] The marriage was marked from the outset by sexual passion and emotional insensitivity when Tolstoy, on the eve of their marriage, gave her his diaries detailing his extensive sexual past and the fact that one of the serfs on his estate had born him a son.._





> "Von Gruber: 'There's no reason why [sexual] continence should be injurious.'"


Perhaps not. Your proposition, though, was that it was _beneficial_





> "Um - I can't really take you all on, in this, one against everyone else. I apologize. I am sorry to see I am the only person who is willing to speak up for the benefits of celibacy and chastity.


That may not be because you are a lone voice of reason, but because you are wrong. When one is in the minority, that's always an explanation worth considering.

----------


## grotto

There is nothing wrong with celibacy if it is taken on as a personal decision that needs no validation from others, but to justify something because others whom you hold as somehow on a higher plain than you is setting yourself up for failure. Self knowledge of why you do something is of far more lasting value than following someone elses ideal. We have far too many followers as it is.

Practicing celibacy or abstinence because you feel it is in your best interest is a good experiment, but expressing your self with another human being is also a good experiment, both have there merits. Neither one is right for all. I have practiced both and have found success with both, but those conclusions were mine, not what some ideal presented as salvation.

----------


## mal4mac

> ... loss of the vital fluids results in loss of energy. It is as simple as that. In fact, it is a big loss of energy, and may have other deteriorative effects. That's the negative side, but the positive side is that chastity, celibacy, they greatly increase the energy, in relation to not being celibate.


Given that the sex act involves using some energy and the lost fluids (by mass energy equivalence) have energy, then strictly you are correct! But so what? The person might benefit from losing weight & taking some exercise...




> perhaps the media's glorification and worship of sex is not the only way...


Many people would agree with that! But there are many other ways between your extreme and the media's.




> Actually, it is not self-denial. The whole philosophy of enjoyment is rather flawed. The flaw is in the misconception that "I am my body." You see, you are saying, "My body." - so who is the I? The I is not the body, but it is the soul. Christ said, it is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh is nothing. Emerson says, the light within, or the soul, is all, while the rest is nothing.


So what is toothache? It is part of your body and part of you! Using psychological techniques you may be able to "handle" the toothache, but you can't deny it, and it's due to the impact of bacteria on your body, so you cannot deny the body.

----------


## NikolaiI

"So the support for you saying that celibacy is a good idea is that someone else said so. Not really scientific method, is it? That's more like hearsay."

There is vast amounts of research and it is very convincing. But I do not expect you to read it. 

I don't expect any of you to, but trust me it is scientific.

On an off-topic. I find it sad that people are consistently utterly unable to avoid topics which do not interest them. The _benefits_ of celibacy and chastity do not interest you, because you do not think they exist. Therefore just ignore the thread, please! Or just say, "I am in the category who thinks they do not exist," and leave the thread.

Yet you people seem so competent at going on for such lengths about something that doesn't exist - the benefits of celibacy and chastity. 

Max - thank you for your posts. Mal, we'll have to discuss it later if you don't mind. I hope you won't always think celibacy is an extreme, though. Thank you also for your posts though.

----------


## MarkBastable

> "So the support for you saying that celibacy is a good idea is that someone else said so. Not really scientific method, is it? That's more like hearsay."
> 
> There is vast amounts of research and it is very convincing. But I do not expect you to read it. 
> 
> I don't expect any of you to, but trust me it is scientific.


Then why are you quoting the unscientific opinion of the Buddha? 




> On an off-topic. I find it sad that people are consistently utterly unable to avoid topics which do not interest them. The _benefits_ of celibacy and chastity do not interest you, because you do not think they exist. Therefore just ignore the thread, please! Or just say, "I am in the category who thinks they do not exist," and leave the thread.


It's a discussion forum. Hence the discussion. Surely you wouldn't prefer only to discuss with those who agree with you?

Assuming you relish the debate, and as you've addressed one of my responses to your various apparently supportive quotations, do you think you could find it in your heart to come back with a response to each of the others?

----------


## blazeofglory

One should have a balance approach to it, that means obsessiveness or extremities both lead to downfall. While sex relates to glands and we have them we cannot avoid them except through a suppressive mechanism. 

The Buddha was right in urging us to strike the right course wherein there is any form of extremism.

We know for instance if we are too much obsessed with sex we want to avoid it and if we are too much celibate we want to have it. Taking a right course leads to a balanced life.

If you overeat foods it leads to a state of indigestion and if we undernourish yourself you may fall sick.

By the same token the question of chastity and celibacy is also like that.

----------


## Buh4Bee

I personally think celibacy can be very beneficial if you are living a certain lifestyle or have a particular purpose. I cannot agree that it is a lifestyle for the main stream.

I am more productive when everything in my life is in balance. If celibacy means things are harmonious for someone, than it sounds like it has particular advantages. However, I wouldn't expect most people to understand or agree with such research based advantages.

----------


## Jozanny

> You don't know how multitasking I can be .... 
> 
> Sorry, you mean "dampen" in the sense of improving, or in the sense of spoiling?


Spoiling Max. I do not feel I have much of a choice about being active in the traditional sense of the term, and perhaps that is an error on my part, but this isn't the disability sex e-list, a community to which I am obliged for my sex article for New Mobility :Redface: .

Sex with able-bodied men was tricky enough back when I was healthier. Today I am not sure I could enjoy it even if I met a fellow I could trust. In the spiritual sense, however, I do not believe chastity is sublime for any particular reason. To me, devotion seems to be a transference, and holy rollers simply trade physical pleasure for the emotional drama of the religious experience itself.

The Catholic Church knows full well that celibacy doesn't work; in Europe they look the other way; in America priests become abusers of other men, woman and children, and the church is damaged as a result, though I can't speak to Asian monk norms, but trading physical drives for spiritual drives seems to me just that, a trade.

----------


## Fen

> The Catholic Church knows full well that celibacy doesn't work; in Europe they look the other way; in America priests become abusers of other men, woman and children, and the church is damaged as a result, though I can't speak to Asian monk norms, but trading physical drives for spiritual drives seems to me just that, a trade.


I think that is a tad unfair just because some preists/monks have broken their vows doesn't mean celibacy as a practice doesn't work. It just means some people fail at it. It is not some unattainable ideal until relatively recently it was common practice.

----------


## Jozanny

> I think that is a tad unfair just because some preists/monks have broken their vows doesn't mean celibacy as a practice doesn't work. It just means some people fail at it. It is not some unattainable ideal until relatively recently it was common practice.


My sister nearly withdrew her children from Catholic school when the scandal erupted and swept the country. In the context of keeping children safe, unfair is a bit mild. Believers cede their trust to that collar, and the senior management should excoriate such criminal activity.

It does not, but it also goes against human nature to make chastity some sort of superlative state. Humans are social primates. Physical contact and intimacy are important.

----------


## MarkBastable

> It does not, but it also goes against human nature to make chastity some sort of superlative state. Humans are social primates. Physical contact and intimacy are important.


In other words, celibacy drives you nuts. It may be a benign nuts, in which case you're the Buddha, or it may be a malign nuts, in which case you're protected by the church - but either way, you're nuts.

And I use the words _nuts_ advisedly, and without gender prejudice.

----------


## blazeofglory

Celibacy is something that has more and more accentuated in many religions. But that whether it is practicable or not is questionable.

----------


## Bakiryu

when talking about celibacy just look at the asexual community. they seem ok.

----------


## NikolaiI

There is great wisdom in celibacy and chastity. Chastity is essential as well as celibacy, it is not just a 'look but don't touch.' As Christ said, if you have any lust in you, then that is adultery. But it is quite possible to be pure of heart, or chaste. Don't think that it is not. The Buddha was very pure and not 'nuts,' but a great saint, and enlightening being. Mark one thing I have learned is, it's not good to randomly throw intoa post an out-of-context criticism of Christianity, say.

As to a couple people who say it is impossible or unhealthy. Well, Jozanny, physical intimacy and contact are not only sex. That can also be close physical contact, and many other forms of affection. One good reason for celibacy in marriage should be all the couples who have done it and reported their good results. The internet is not the best source to find these, it seems after some searching, but I have read some reports.

Again I would like to say, or maybe I have not said, celibacy/chastity when used as a part of spiritual life cannot come in a void. If life is all about materialistc pursuits, then dropping one activity will not work. One won't have any training or strength to do this. Spiritual life is not just abstaining from such things as intoxication or meat-eating, there is more that is necessary.

Lastly, I would postulate that it is not entirely as much about our genes as how we are raised, what values we are taught, and our society, peer group, and family. In this country we are taught and live one way. Yet it is not the only way nor the only healthy way, and to think so is merely to limit oneself by one's conditioning - which admittedly is hard not to do. In India, however, the norms and standards are different. Many Indian boys live as a brahmacari until they are married. And if they do not specifically live as a brahmacari, they still live almost as one.

One of the main reasons for chastity/celibacy is that it is essential for spiritual life. Actually all of one's life must be dedicated to spiritual life if one wishes to advance spiritually. We practice meditation and yoga in this country, but it is not a pure form. We practice 15 minutes a day, but we otherwise live the same, watch TV, drink alcohol and eat meat, but if we wished to practice yoga as it is meant to be practiced, then we would have to give up meat, alcohol, television, and so on. This is why one cannot simply give up sex and expect anything beneficial if the rest of one's life is so mundane.

Now, leaving aside the fact that for yoga to be practiced as it is meant to be means that we give up many types of material activities; there is something which must be mentioned and understood, which is the nature of lust.

Lust is never satisfied. When we 'satisfy' lust, we are not satisfying it at all, but reinforcing it, practicing the activity. I would encourage spiritual pursuit for the same reason Buddhists would: don't live this life only for your own comfort; search vigorously, do not mind some suffering, and find out who you really are, what you truly can be. Siddhartha, from Herman Hesse's novel of the same name, said, "I can do three things; think, wait, and fast." It is a wonderful book about the basic differences of life lived for comfort and one's own pleasure, and a life where one seeks something more.




> But that whether it is practicable or not is questionable.


All I can say is from personal experience that since living in a temple and practicing these vows of brahmacari, my life has improved dramatically. Learning this way of life is the best thing I've ever done.

My summary point is that it is not difficult, nor impossible, nor harmful, quite the opposite there is wisdom and great benefit from it. It is only difficult if we have been trained for it, over and over. It is difficult to go against such things. But if one is not taught that lust is inconquerable, then it is different. You see it is not like that at all. You simply make your own reality. Do you think it is impossible to gain self-control? Then it is. And if you are engrained with the belief that celibacy is harmful, then you will have no reason to ever try to be free of desire. 

Also, there are some great teachers who taught chastity. Both the Buddha and Christ, as well as countless sages and saints since then, of several different religions; have taught purity as being necessary for spiritual life. Christ said, if you look upon a woman with lust, you have committed adultery. And for those who are not married, this means complete purity is necessary. And it is not an impossible standard to hold to. It is what you make it. 

But again you can't take it in a void or a vacuum. You can't live with maya and expect to be a pure devotee. Whatever influences you accumulate around you in your life and environment, they will have their effect on you. 

So if you, Mark, and whoever else, want to discredit persons such as Christ and Buddha as 'nuts,' or crazy, then do so. But you are missing out on something great - being free from desire. In my opinion, both Christ and Buddha were fully enlightened divine sages. And they are not the only ones. You may call me crazy also, that is fine. You are also discounting other great sages, including Sri Aurobindo, who was a much more brilliant soul than I will ever be... Srila Prabhupada as well. The world would do some good if it put some energy into purity of heart. It is not impossible to be as innocent as a child. As in Hindu practice, purity is understood as a pre-requisite for peace.

----------


## MarkBastable

> Mark one thing I have learned is, it's not good to randomly throw intoa post an out-of-context criticism of Christianity, say.


When I made serious point-by-point responses to your propositions, you ignored them. So I decided to try facetiousness.




> So if you, Mark, and whoever else, want to discredit persons such as Christ and Buddha as 'nuts,' or crazy, then do so. But you are missing out on something great - being free from desire.


I don't wish to discredit Christ (who never, as far as I remember, advocated celibacy). I just don't feel the need to agree with him - particularly given his limited experience of human life.

I tend to go along with this view, from Kingsley Amis.



_Should you revisit us,

Stay a little longer,

And get to know the place.

Experience hunger,

Madness, disease and war.

You heard about them, true,

The last time you came here;

It's different having them.

And what about a go

At love, marriage, children?

All good, but bringing some

Risk of remorse and pain

And fear of an odd sort:

A sort one should, again,

Feel, not just hear about,

To be qualified as

A human-race expert.

On local life, we trust

The resident witness,

Not the royal tourist.



People have suffered worse

And more durable wrongs

Than you did on that cross

(I knowyou won't get me

Up on one of those things),

Without sure prospect of

Ascending good as new

On the third day, without

"I die, but man shall live"

As a nice cheering thought.



So, next time, come off it,

And get some service in,

Jack, long before you start

Laying down the old law:

If you still want to then.

Tell your dad that from me._

----------


## grotto

Never mind, it's a mootdebate, deleted

----------


## NikolaiI

> When I made serious point-by-point responses to your propositions, you ignored them. So I decided to try facetiousness.


Yes, but I may decide to make a practice of not replying when people mentiion illicit sex with a goat as being better than celibacy - which is even itself a step or two beyond facetiousness. 

However, in reply to your question about Tolstoy, I did look it up and it wasn't in a fiction but it was a response to some people's questions about one of his works.

----------


## MarkBastable

> Yes, but I may decide to make a practice of not replying when people mentiion illicit sex with a goat as being better than celibacy...


I don't think you have any right to assume it was illicit. For all you know, the goat may have been the initiating party. 

In any case, the salient point remains valid - that the situation of monks and condemned men is similar, so if it was the celibacy that was giving rise to the benefits you suggest one would expect that they'd accrue for murderers too. 

However, if they don't, then we'd be forced to conclude that it's not the celibacy that's getting the monks to a higher plane, so it must be the soup or - and here's a bit of a thought - the fact that they don't have to deal with the stresses of a job, a mortgage, a family, keeping a roof over their heads, or any the other things that pretty much hold a society together and that also, incidentally, generate the money that becomes alms for the mendicant monks.

As it happens, I was stuck on a train today for three hours with nothing to occupy me - and I just stared out of the window looking at a tree, and I got some very satisfying thinking done. I cleared up some stuff that has been bugging me and I determined a course of action to deal with some other stuff, all of which had fallen into perspective, I'm pleased to say. I really wish I could do that more often. I'm pretty sure that most people, given the time to sit and contemplate the infinite, would take a few tottering steps towards oneness, even if they were to get laid once in a while.

But - all I'm saying is - that should not be a central policy of a well-lived and unselfish human life.

----------


## NikolaiI

> I don't think you have any right to assume it was illicit. For all you know, the goat may have been the initiating party. 
> 
> In any case, the salient point remains valid - that the situation of monks and condemned men is similar, so if it was the celibacy that was giving rise to the benefits you suggest one would expect that they'd accrue for murderers too. 
> 
> However, if they don't, then we'd be forced to conclude that it's not the celibacy that's getting the monks to a higher plane, so it must be the soup or - and here's a bit of a thought - the fact that they don't have to deal with the stresses of a job, a mortgage, a family, keeping a roof over their heads, or any the other things that pretty much hold a society together and that also, incidentally, generate the money that becomes alms for the mendicant monks.
> 
> As it happens, I was stuck on a train today for three hours with nothing to occupy me - and I just stared out of the window looking at a tree, and I got some very satisfying thinking done. I cleared up some stuff that has been bugging me and I determined a course of action to deal with some other stuff, all of which had fallen into perspective, I'm pleased to say. I really wish I could do that more often. I'm pretty sure that most people, given the time to sit and contemplate the infinite, would take a few tottering steps towards oneness, even if they were to get laid once in a while.
> 
> But - all I'm saying is - that should not be a central policy of a well-lived and unselfish human life.


It's obscene as well as illegal. It's not appropriate. My point was you had already passed beyond facetiousness into obscenity. 

However the rest of your post is a normal one. I'm not trying to focus on that negative aspect.


Your point is not valid. I said before that being celibate does not make one a genius. Another absolutely essential point of my arguments which you ignored is that it is not simply celibacy in a void. Chastity is required as well, the goal is purity and spiritual life. 

I believe anything is possible, and a murder could become enlightened, that is - know peace in his soul. However it is unlikely. Why? We train ourselves for different things, condition ourselves. The goal of spirituality, as according to Meher Baba, is to become free of the impressions of this life and innumerable past lives. If someone has spent a lifetime of evil, they are not going to simply become good for no reason.

Anger and hate have terrible effects on one's health. I am talking about a subtle difference between the life of someone who is already in the mode of goodness, and one who is then also celibate. That anger and hate, etc., have such negative effects is not just spiritual talk, it is scienticially proven. Surely you know this. Let's say one isn't living a brahmacari life in a spiritual asrama. Then it is probably still necessary, and for all the celibates I listed before this was true, that they have gotten their spiritual nourishment from other activities, such as pursuits in knowledge, art, etc. They were celibate so they would be able to focus better, because part of their life's work was dependent upon genius creative ability, which is not entirely separate from the ability to concentrate completely.

----------


## MarkBastable

> It's obscene as well as illegal. It's not appropriate. My point was you had already passed beyond facetiousness into obscenity.


Yes, sir. Sorry, sir




> Your point is not valid. I said before that being celibate does not make one a genius. Another absolutely essential point of my arguments which you ignored is that it is not simply celibacy in a void. Chastity is required as well, the goal is purity and spiritual life.


That's exactly my valid point. Celibacy on its own is not going to do you any good.




> The goal of spirituality, as according to Meher Baba, is to become free of the impressions of this life and innumerable past lives.


Even if I believed that, I don't think I'd sign up for it. In fact, if I have past lives I'd like to visit them on a regular basis rather then escape them. It would be better than the telly.

----------


## NikolaiI

> That's exactly my valid point. Celibacy on its own is not going to do you any good.


Then we are making the same point...?

I guess my main point is that one can look beyond America, and life in America is not the only way. In America we are immersed or saturated with images, suggestions, expectations, and pressure about sex. Images which are meant to arouse lust are everywhere, on the television, in magazines, on billboards, in store windows. So we are pressured so much to be lustful and then to try to satisfy that lust all the time. But as I pointed out earlier, lust isn't ever "satisfied." When you gratify it, it is like putting fuel on a fire, or you are simply practicing or enforcing the habit.

But my main point is that it is not necessary to think this way, it is not the only way. In other cultures, India being the main one I am thinking of, it is not like this, or it didn't used to be. In fact in our culture it didn't use to be like this either. Anyway - if the environment, persons around one, and all of the influences one on are of a different nature, let's say, spiritual, then one's life is very different. If all of the influences are spiritual, then one develops a pure, developed, spiritual mode of consciousness instead of a lusty consciousness.

That is the main thing, consciousness. It is all about that. And we can have a pure consciousness, and it is rather necessary to attaining peace, actually. It is much healthier as well. That is my position.

----------


## billl

If you think that physical intimacy is not pure by definition (ie. if you agree with the way it is often presented in the Western media), then, yes, the project of purifying one's consciousness might require chastity, celibacy, etc. If however, you are capable of experiencing physical intimacy without regarding it as any less pure than breathing, eating, hugging, or any other important life experience, then one can have a pure consciousness while not practicing celibacy.

People that I have shared experiences with, held, and loved have been extremely special to me. It is not very impressive to me when I hear philosophers, mystics, sages, etc. speak more highly of a general love that is everywhere. I don't mean to dismiss that love, but I don't want to be so wise that it's the only love I know.

Just my opinion--and I know it probably isn't right for everyone. Thank goodness we aren't all the same.

----------


## MarkBastable

> Then we are making the same point?



Not quite, no. 

It seems to me, from what you've said about celibacy as one element of a range of approaches, attitudes and practices, that it's more like Bran Flakes, as sold on TV.

The shoutline is *Bran Flakes are good for you!*


But the small print at the bottom of the screen says _Bran Flakes may have beneficial effects as part of a healthy, balanced diet coupled with an active exercise regime_.


..which may be true, but fails to make clear that if you have a healthy, balanced diet and an active exercise regime, you can skip the Bran Flakes.

I guess we'll agree to differ on that one. 

Billl touches upon a much more important point - which is that you seem to have got the idea that spirituality is pure and that the physical is, well, _less_ pure - dirty. _Lusty_, to use your word. Who told you that, and why do you believe them?

----------


## NikolaiI

Yesterday after coming here I realize I wasted my time and probably yours. After realizing this I felt utterly miserable. Why does everything have to be an argument, a fight? 

I have an urge to post but considering how miserable I felt yesterday after replying to you, Mark, I am not going to. I realized it was a waste of time to discuss with you, of mine and yours too, it was not productive. This is my last visit to this thread.

----------


## MarkBastable

> Yesterday after coming here I realize I wasted my time and probably yours. After realizing this I felt utterly miserable. Why does everything have to be an argument, a fight? 
> 
> I have an urge to post but considering how miserable I felt yesterday after replying to you, Mark, I am not going to. I realized it was a waste of time to discuss with you, of mine and yours too, it was not productive. This is my last visit to this thread.


An argument is not a fight, nor is it a waste of time. It's engagement with other human beings - which is one of the joys of the physical, social, perceptible world.

If it makes you miserable to have to put your opinions up against other opinions expressed by human beings who think you are mistaken, then I can kinda see why you might tend towards the contemplative and removed life.

----------


## kiki1982

> Exactly, I don't recall her name either, but one in particular was definitely his lover for years. I don't think they just held hands or kissed.


Just to clear the Beethoven-discussion up:

There were 4 and a fifth one possibly, unidentified:

Giuglietta Giuccardi whom he asked for her hand in marriage when he was still young and her music teacher. He was refused on the grounds of being a poor artist (I think the father kicked himself later at the thought...). He wrote the Moonlight-Sonata in mourning of her.

Marie Erdödi, a slightly crippled woman of Hungarian descent. The relationship ended somehow, I can't recall why. I think it was because she did not believe her family would approve, although it was not clear why that was an issue, because after all she had her own fortune...

Josephine von Deym (I think née von Brunswick?), the widow of count (?) von Deym. He was considerably older tan she when they married, and she was left with three or four children. Like Marie Erdödi, her family(-in-law) would never approve of a marriage. So the relaionship was abandoned eventually, although the two were on very close terms. 

Alledgedly, Beethoven would have been in love with his sister-in-law Johanna van Beethoven, wife of his brother Johann (?). He sent for the most expensive doctor of Vienna at some point when she was ill, although the two never had a good relationship, taking Johanna and Johann's son Karl away after the death of his father. Scholars have argued that Beethoven in fact wanted to marry her, but that his brother Johann usurped his place. Beethoven (Ludiwg that is) would have blamed her and his brother for ever. 

And then there is his 'immortal beloved' whom he wrote two letters to from Karlsbad 'in pencil, [hers]'. Several women have been listed to be the one, but no-one has been able to come up with the definite answer. 

You can see why my avatar is that mgnificent composer...

On topic:

There are definite advantages to sex, scientifically acknowledged (endorfines (against headache!), relaxing of the muscles amongst a lot of others) and I suppose there are people who find it rather boring and tiring. 

I don't think that the greater artist/brain is the one who does it the most or the least. It is probably the one who feels selfconfident in what he does and as such, has sex when he feels like it (à la Shakespeare, Bach with his 8 or how many (?) children, Mozart (in love permanently with his wife), Beethoven with his mistresses, not to mention Goethe and Schiller).

Other than that, I do believe it is possible t be celibate and chaste. I do not suppose theDalai Lama has a wife and yet he seems to be more than happy.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Oh well, you don't have to pay for all you want... there are those who give services free of charge. They are like artists... just for the sake of the art is why they do what they do and give what they give...


Hmm, why did you immediately take Scher's reference as being only about prostitution. Even consensual sex where you don't pay for the actual sex and it's "free", you still have to buy dinner, pay for some activity, and buy condoms. Or in the case of women paying, buy dinner, buy flowers, pay for some activity, and purchase a diaphragm or prescription birth control pills. Even if you go dutch, you still have to pay for your own meal presumably in a nicer restaurant you'd go to if you were alone. Sex generally costs money somewhere down the road.

----------


## prendrelemick

Of all sexual deviations, Celibacy is the most extreme.

----------


## Jozanny

> Of all sexual deviations, Celibacy is the most extreme.


I don't know about that, especially when you read up on sexual identity disorders, but I have come to believe that there is no real established sexual norm, or to use your word, all sex is a kind of deviation.

----------


## Nightshade

The only excuse I have for posting this is I am on a serious sugar high but whatever, I read somthing in the quaran the other day about celibecy, now unless I completly misunderstood and the transaltion was faulty ( I did double read the arbic and english to be sure) the message was ( and it is adressed to people in a marraiage all sex outside marraiage being a major NO NO) don't take vows of celibcey. But if they had already taken them ( the quran was revealed in stages so it adressed things that were already happening) then they have to complete the vow, breaking a vow being a big deal, but if they had already discoverd that they are not able to then it isnt a mortal sin or the end of the world ( and I think maybe fast a few days as penalty for breaking a vowor making one you couldnt keep not sure on this I have trouble with all the technicall lawy bits.) . 
Also in other parts there is something about sex being the right of both parteners in a marriage and a gift from God and being 'estranged' or constitatly refusing to have sex with your partner is more than grounds for either one to divorce the other.

----------


## blazeofglory

Celibacy or chastity are indeed virtues all religions hold with importance. 

In fact sex is a biological need and there are certain glands that make people sexually active. We must not deal with the issue with emotional and religious attributes. 

Of course we can chastise ourselves and self-control can act as a way of life. But in the long run we will fail and popes have failed. We know they are indulging in homosexuality. 

We must not be hypocrites. People who are oversexed of course live miserably but who are disciplined are better off in life.

I do not go against sex or nor go against chastity. Buddhism strikes the Middle Path. Extremity is what Buddhism goes against.

----------


## Pendragon

I think the problems with Catholic priests kind of prove the problems with celibacy-- the oath is willing but the flesh still has the desires...

----------


## kiki1982

And what with Bouddhist monks? As far as I know they are also celibate... 

Paedophelia has nothing to do with being deprived of sexual desire, or at least not for adults. So those priest do not turn to abusing children because they are deprived of sex in generl, they turn to abusing children because they prefer children and they would have done that too if they had had a wife, children, nephews and nieces. The 'condition' is similar to homosexuality (the desire for the same sex), with the exception that homosexuality is accepted and paedophelia is not (and should never be because it harms the subject). 

Oscar Wilde was still condemned to a prison sentence for his homosexuality, whereas now it is deemed natural.

There are people in the world who are perfectly able to live without sex, but it's not given too all of us.

And do not start slagging me off for putting homosexuality and paedophelia in the same sentence, because sexual preference is an objective thing, whether it is deemed morally wrong or not.

----------


## NikolaiI

> And what with Bouddhist monks? As far as I know they are also celibate...


Yes, all the ones (3 or 4) I have known were!




> There are people in the world who are perfectly able to live without sex, but it's not given too all of us.


I believe it is largely a matter of what we are taught, and what we are exposed to.

----------


## kiki1982

Bouddhist monks should all be, because in order to reach the nirvana (sublime state of well-being) they should undo themselves of all earthly feelings and goals. I.e.: no money, no clothing apart from their well-known orange-red dress, no food-gathering or earning money to buy it (they live on gifts, one meal a day sometimes), no family (feelings of love to earthly beings). 

If they are detached like that, they reach a state of only praying, meditation and sublime happiness; time to reach their divine self. Or so is the theory. 

There is something about it that in the past most men who did not marry there was something wrong with (read: gay and unwillig to have sex and children with a wife). Whether they were celibate is another matter. Some were because they did not want to risk going to prison, others just did their thing and hoped that their cover would never be blown.

I don't know if it is what we are taught or exposed to that teaches us to have incontrollable urges or not. 
The debate around the mentally ill/handicapped (who live without partner, like Down-syndrome men and women for example) and sex (with prostitues or boy/girlfriends they meet), is a good indication that we would never teach them to have those urges, but that they do have them. So much that sometimes prostitutes are called in to solve the 'problem' (if it is one). 

I think rather the 'teaching' lies in te fact that we are taught that, biologically, it is impossible to live without sex or urges (chastity). I don't think it is totally impossible, as is illustrated with those thousands of Bouddhist monks. I cannot imagine them having gay orgies inside the convent. 

So here is the paradox: mentally ill/handicapped people are not supposed to have any urges whatsoever (are supposed to be chaste and celibate), while the rest of us is supposed to have urges that are incontrollable because otherise is not natural. Yet we are all people...  :Confused:  I suppose it is a matter of willing to be celibate or not and getting detatched from that kind of feelings or not.

----------


## Nightshade

> sexual preference is an objective thing


This is true, I read a report on a study a while back anbout hormones and chemical balances and how they affect sexual prefeances ( not sure of the accuracy or whatever) but the jist of it was I think something along the lines of if you have a bit more of this or that decides your sexual perferance and lack or extra of something or other leads to people being Asexual.

----------


## WizzFizz

Sex isn't a necessary thing, we don't die if we don't have sex, but we don't die if we cease to read or speak. Celibacy/Chastity does come with its benefits, the concepts of cleanliness and all the like, however in this way it can be seen as a vice, a similar one to smoking, drinking, etc. The thing is, its fun, shockingly so, because if it weren't we wouldn't do it all and where would the human race be? As for draining creativity, the best work of many have been derived from their worst moments in life. Misery breeds creativity.

----------


## Pendragon

> And what with Bouddhist monks? As far as I know they are also celibate... 
> 
> Paedophelia has nothing to do with being deprived of sexual desire, or at least not for adults. So those priest do not turn to abusing children because they are deprived of sex in generl, they turn to abusing children because they prefer children and they would have done that too if they had had a wife, children, nephews and nieces. The 'condition' is similar to homosexuality (the desire for the same sex), with the exception that homosexuality is accepted and paedophelia is not (and should never be because it harms the subject). 
> 
> Oscar Wilde was still condemned to a prison sentence for his homosexuality, whereas now it is deemed natural.
> 
> There are people in the world who are perfectly able to live without sex, but it's not given too all of us.
> 
> And do not start slagging me off for putting homosexuality and paedophelia in the same sentence, because sexual preference is an objective thing, whether it is deemed morally wrong or not.


I have no intentions of "slagging you off", but allow me to disagree with you. Lack of normal sexual relations has been show to cause mass hysteria, where almost anything can and does happen. Medical fact.

----------


## NikolaiI

> I have no intentions of "slagging you off", but allow me to disagree with you. Lack of normal sexual relations has been show to cause mass hysteria, where almost anything can and does happen. Medical fact.


Causality is almost never a fact.

----------


## kiki1982

> I have no intentions of "slagging you off", but allow me to disagree with you. Lack of normal sexual relations has been show to cause mass hysteria, where almost anything can and does happen. Medical fact.


Point taken about the slagging off. I was just afraid about people not getting my point of comparison...  :Smile: 

But I disagree. I refuse to believe that all celibate people end up mad because they have been deprived of sex. 

To me it is a question of mental strength. Not that I totally disagree with your point: someone who absolutely wants sex (has incontrollable urges) and who does not see the personal need for celibacy should not be forced to be celibate. I can see how that makes one unhappy, brings one into a depression with all nasty concequences. (There are enough homosexuals who used to have that problem when gayness was not accepted yet: they were not allowed to express themselves). 

On the other hand, someone who chooses to be celibate and to keep that vow is objectively completely able to stay sane. 

The problem with the priests is that at least a large portion of them was forced into it: because parents thought it was a nice idea, it was fashionable; because they were homosexual and did not want people to know (true at least in Europe); because it was a family tradition (second son becomes priest); they couldnot deal with women (afraid of them, so never dared to ask for a hand in marriage)... so all petty reasons, the same as why there were so many nuns about. 

It was a joke, at least in Belgium, that the maid of the priest and the priest himself usually had a relationship, but given the social pressure (hence the many 'calings') to become one, I can really believe that the maid of the priest became a kind of mistress... Although I think now, callings are much more serious and young priests now do not so much manipulate the system (I'd like to believe).

Oh, my God. It's like I'm obsessed with gays here. I am sorry about it, but it is a good way of differentiating between forced celibacy and voluntary celibacy and it is not so long ago that it was still frowned upon or was even a crime (in Britain until 1967). 

But allow me to say that I don't consider Bouddhist monks as hysteric.

----------


## NikolaiI

Buddhist monks are definitely not hysteric.. Hindu monks also are celibate. Vaisnavas are celibate... Caitanya Mahaprabhu was celibate. As far as I know, all the most revered saints of both Hinduism and Buddhism were celibate. Milarepa was one of the greatest Buddhas I have ever known. One of the main things in Buddhism in regard to this is to be one's own master. No one can take that away from you, if you can attain self-mastery. Buddhism (and Hinduism, and any pure Christian) teaches this: not to try to master others, but to master oneself. 

And Dale, I don't know what facts you have, I am not sure exactly what you are precisely saying. As I said, causality is almost impossible to be certain of, and it is virtually never a "fact." All I can do is encourage you to spend time with some pure devotees, or Hindus, meet with some Indians and get to know them, discuss all of these things. 

As far as I can tell it's really about consciousness. As William James said, It's a fact that this life is worth living, because it's what you make it. Also, celibacy or chastity or the lack thereof is what you make of it. But since we are also brought up by our parents and our peers and society, not to mention television and other media, we have to watch what our influences are, because they will have their influence, for good or ill. Of course I may have some pride in that I feel I understand psychology and ontology very well. Happiness is the main goal, as Krishnamurti say. And the most important thing involved is perhaps to know oneself, one's motives, one's desires, limitations, needs, etc.

Buddhist monks, and Hindu brahmanas, are definitely living different lives from normal society in today's day and age. They undergo what we think of as austerity, such as no more Sitcoms (but also no more commercials!), no more soda, no more chewing gum, alcohol, and so on; further, they engage their whole lives in spiritual practice. But often they are manifesting all good qualities, and so they are the most warm, attractive people. They have Shakti. Shakti means power. So you will find these people imbued with warmth, love, and what might be called a spiritual aura.

----------


## Nietzsche

> Point taken about the slagging off. I was just afraid about people not getting my point of comparison... 
> 
> But I disagree. I refuse to believe that all celibate people end up mad because they have been deprived of sex. 
> 
> To me it is a question of mental strength. Not that I totally disagree with your point: someone who absolutely wants sex (has uncontrollable urges) and who does not see the personal need for celibacy should not be forced to be celibate. I can see how that makes one unhappy, brings one into a depression with all nasty consequences. (There are enough homosexuals who used to have that problem when gayness was not accepted yet: they were not allowed to express themselves). 
> 
> On the other hand, someone who chooses to be celibate and to keep that vow is objectively completely able to stay sane. 
> 
> 
> ...



Hm, First I would like to say that I am not a satanist and that I read the book out of curiosity. Many of the philosophical ideas are pretty good, and there are influences from many philosophers I consider great on the work. However I also disagree with some of the points of Satanism, But hey you don't have to accept an idea to entertain it. That being said, I found the article on sexuality in the Satanic Bible rather interesting and relevant to this topic.




> Satanism condones any type of sexual activity which properly satisfies your individual desires
> - be it heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or even asexual, if you choose. Satanism also sanctions Even the asexual has a deviation - his asexuality. It is far more abnormal to have a lack of sexual desire (unless illness or old-age, or another valid reason has caused the wane) than it is to be sexually promiscuous. However, if a Satanist chooses sexual sublimination above overt
> sexual expression, that is entirely his own affair. In many cases of sexual sublimination (or asexuality), any attempt to emancipate himself sexually would prove devastating to the asexual. Asexuals are invariably sexually sublimated by their jobs or hobbies. All the energy and driving interest which would normally be devoted to sexual activity is channeled into other pastimes or into their chosen occupations. If a person favors other interests over sexual activity, it is his right, and no one is justified in condemning him for it. However, the person should at least recognize the fact that this is a sexual sublimation...... The true Satanist is not mastered by sex any more than he is mastered by any of his other desires. As with all other pleasurable things, the Satanist is master of, rather than mastered by sex. He is not the perverted fiend who is just waiting for the opportunity to deflower every
> young virgin, nor is he the skulking degenerate who furtively hangs around in the "dirty" bookstores, slavering over the "nasty" pictures. If pornography fills his needs for the moment, he unashamedly buys some "choice items" and guiltlessly peruses them at his leisure.... The watchword of Satanism is INDULGENCE instead of "abstinence" . . . BUT - it is not
> “compulsion“.


I agree with with this. I believe whether or not you are asexual by nature, or live an asexual life by choice, your focuses that might otherwise be centered on sexuality would be focused elsewhere. It's unbelievable the amount of emphasis people put on dating, sex, and relationships. In the end, if you live a chaste & celibate life you will not have these distractions. That being said, I agree with the poster I quoted that, people who do not want to remain celibate and / or chaste should not be forced to be celibate.

As you will often see me do, I'd like to reference Nietzsche. In Thus Spoke Zarathustra in the first part there is a section called "On Chastity" which can be found at this link though it is a different translation from the book I am using. http://www.geocities.com/thenietzsch...rapt1.htm#chas




> Do I exhort to you chastity? Chastity is a virtue with some, but with many almost a vice. These people abstain, to be sure: but the bi*tch sensuality leers enviously out of all that they do.... And how nicely the bi*tch sensuality knows how to beg for a piece of spirit, when a piece of flesh is denied her! You love tragedies and all that breaks the heart? But I am distrustful of your bi*tch sensuality.

----------


## Griffith

> Hm, First I would like to say that I am not a satanist...





> Satanism condones any type of sexual activity which properly satisfies your individual desires
> - be it heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or even asexual, if you choose. Satanism also sanctions Even the asexual has a deviation - his asexuality. It is far more abnormal to have a lack of sexual desire (unless illness or old-age, or another valid reason has caused the wane) than it is to be sexually promiscuous. However, if a Satanist chooses sexual sublimination above overt
> sexual expression, that is entirely his own affair. In many cases of sexual sublimination (or asexuality), any attempt to emancipate himself sexually would prove devastating to the asexual. Asexuals are invariably sexually sublimated by their jobs or hobbies. All the energy and driving interest which would normally be devoted to sexual activity is channeled into other pastimes or into their chosen occupations. If a person favors other interests over sexual activity, it is his right, and no one is justified in condemning him for it. However, the person should at least recognize the fact that this is a sexual sublimation...... The true Satanist is not mastered by sex any more than he is mastered by any of his other desires. As with all other pleasurable things, the Satanist is master of, rather than mastered by sex. He is not the perverted fiend who is just waiting for the opportunity to deflower every
> young virgin, nor is he the skulking degenerate who furtively hangs around in the "dirty" bookstores, slavering over the "nasty" pictures. If pornography fills his needs for the moment, he unashamedly buys some "choice items" and guiltlessly peruses them at his leisure.... The watchword of Satanism is INDULGENCE instead of "abstinence" . . . BUT - it is not
> compulsion.



A non-sense that exhorts an abstract concept of freedom seeking to corrupt the society. Burn down this heretic.
 :FRlol:  :FRlol:

----------


## Pendragon

> Point taken about the slagging off. I was just afraid about people not getting my point of comparison... 
> 
> But I disagree. I refuse to believe that all celibate people end up mad because they have been deprived of sex. 
> 
> To me it is a question of mental strength. Not that I totally disagree with your point: someone who absolutely wants sex (has incontrollable urges) and who does not see the personal need for celibacy should not be forced to be celibate. I can see how that makes one unhappy, brings one into a depression with all nasty concequences. (There are enough homosexuals who used to have that problem when gayness was not accepted yet: they were not allowed to express themselves). 
> 
> On the other hand, someone who chooses to be celibate and to keep that vow is objectively completely able to stay sane. 
> 
> The problem with the priests is that at least a large portion of them was forced into it: because parents thought it was a nice idea, it was fashionable; because they were homosexual and did not want people to know (true at least in Europe); because it was a family tradition (second son becomes priest); they couldnot deal with women (afraid of them, so never dared to ask for a hand in marriage)... so all petty reasons, the same as why there were so many nuns about. 
> ...


You know, it wasn't always required for Christian priests to be celibate. Heck, Peter was said to be the First Pope, and the Bible records that he was married. For people who claim to be founded on Peter, they seem to have went with Paul, who was celibate, yet he encouraged marriage to avoid adultery. Go figure.

Many of the early Popes had families, and at least one Pope was the son of another. Read Peter Tremayne's historical novels of Ireland, circa 600, where he deals with Rome becoming the center of Christianity, and enforcing celibacy. 

God bless

Pen




> Causality is almost never a fact.


Well, they claim that the reason the people went off in the Salem Witch Trials were in mass hysteria, founded on the Puritan's lack of any sort of reason when it came to sex outside of marriage, and even during marriage.

The Shakers would often go off into what they termed some sort of glorification in which sex was involved despite the fact they their religion was based on a lack of sex. But what do I know, eh?

God bless

Pen.




> Buddhist monks, and Hindu brahmanas, are definitely living different lives from normal society in today's day and age. They undergo what we think of as austerity, such as no more Sitcoms (but also no more commercials!), no more soda, no more chewing gum, alcohol, and so on; further, they engage their whole lives in spiritual practice. But often they are manifesting all good qualities, and so they are the most warm, attractive people. They have Shakti. Shakti means power. So you will find these people imbued with warmth, love, and what might be called a spiritual aura.


 I certainly will agree with you here.




> Hm, First I would like to say that I am not a satanist and that I read the book out of curiosity. Many of the philosophical ideas are pretty good, and there are influences from many philosophers I consider great on the work. However I also disagree with some of the points of Satanism, But hey you don't have to accept an idea to entertain it. That being said, I found the article on sexuality in the Satanic Bible rather interesting and relevant to this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with with this. I believe whether or not you are asexual by nature, or live an asexual life by choice, your focuses that might otherwise be centered on sexuality would be focused elsewhere. It's unbelievable the amount of emphasis people put on dating, sex, and relationships. In the end, if you live a chaste & celibate life you will not have these distractions. That being said, I agree with the poster I quoted that, people who do not want to remain celibate and / or chaste should not be forced to be celibate.
> 
> As you will often see me do, I'd like to reference Nietzsche. In Thus Spoke Zarathustra in the first part there is a section called "On Chastity" which can be found at this link though it is a different translation from the book I am using. http://www.geocities.com/thenietzsch...rapt1.htm#chas


Or as Alestiar Crowley said, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

----------


## The Atheist

I mean no offence to anyone, but every time I've seen or heard this argument (lots of times) it's always people who aren't having sex who expound the joys of not having any. 

Sex is one of the greatest pleasures of humankind. There appear to only be a few species which are able to achieve similar joy levels to us from sex, and failing to enjoy that by thinking something can be gained by going without it is just plain silliness, in my opinion.

Damn, those preachers, bible-bangers, Buddhas, Yogis and Imams have something to be proud of - denying ecstasy to billions of people.

And for what point? Even in the extremely unlikely event that there really was some physical benefit from going without, it would have to be something pretty damned amazing to make up for not having any sex.

----------


## blazeofglory

In fact I do not subscribe to the fact one can be totally celeibate; and those who claim to have complete control over it are hypocrites. We cannot have complete control over humger, thirst and all the rest. In the same vein to think that we can have complete control over it and think that we can be celebrate we simply hypocrats.

----------


## NikolaiI

> I mean no offence to anyone, but every time I've seen or heard this argument (lots of times) it's always people who aren't having sex who expound the joys of not having any. 
> 
> Sex is one of the greatest pleasures of humankind. There appear to only be a few species which are able to achieve similar joy levels to us from sex, and failing to enjoy that by thinking something can be gained by going without it is just plain silliness, in my opinion.
> 
> Damn, those preachers, bible-bangers, Buddhas, Yogis and Imams have something to be proud of - denying ecstasy to billions of people.
> 
> And for what point? Even in the extremely unlikely event that there really was some physical benefit from going without, it would have to be something pretty damned amazing to make up for not having any sex.


It's not that being celibate gives joy. Spiritual life gives joy. But I know better than to "argue" that with an atheist.

And it's not just physical benefit, but also mental and spiritual - our physical health, well-being is not separate from our mental and spiritual well being. You know this. And it's not so much a benefit, again it's spiritual life which is necessary, and to practice some austerity is necessary for that. The alternative is to always seek one's pleasure and comfort. There must be balance in life.

And I am not against sex - just perhaps that it should be used for what it is obviously designed or evolved for - having children. 

It is not that sex is wrong, Atheist. I do not believe I ever said that it was. And again, and this is quite fundamental, it's not that being celibate in a vacuum, if one still lives a materialistic life in every other way, will do any good, nor even be possible. Spiritual life gives us strength, as well as bliss - which is possible. It's possible to attain the state of sac-cid-ananda, which is basically infinite bliss and peace, not based on the senses.

But here is the simple thing, Atheist. Temporary pleasures, including sex, alcohol, TV, even more substantial but still temporary things such as house, nice clothes, car, nice toys (or gadgets), they do not satisfy permanently. If you have not, you should really read _Siddhartha_. This is my recommendation.


...the term I gave, sac-cid-ananda, is from Hinduism. But in Buddhism it is called enlightenment, realization of one's buddha-nature. The purpose of human life is self-realization. We have this unique opportunity. Buddhists, as well as Advaitins, achieve non-duality, and this is infinitely beyond all temoprary pleasures. There is no comparison.




> Well, they claim that the reason the people went off in the Salem Witch Trials were in mass hysteria, founded on the Puritan's lack of any sort of reason when it came to sex outside of marriage, and even during marriage.


Yeah, that's exactly what I mean. That is very dubious and most certainly not factual. If you study philosophy a lot you'll learn that causality is nearly impossible to prove. We can have indications sometimes but even then it's not considered "proven." But in that particular case, that is very far-fetched to say that.

----------


## TurquoiseSunset

Instead of replying to anyone specific (so much has been said) I'd rather just give my opinion on the matter...
I think it all comes down to why people prefer to be celibate or sexually active. It doesn't have to be so complicated! If I choose to be celibate because I want to be, then that's okay. 

The priest debate: I think the priests who broke the vow were probably never that serious about it to begin with. Maybe they became priets because they thought it would 'heal' them, or not expose them to temptation as much, or they became preists (as was mentioned on this thread) because it was expected by their families. Or maybe they wanted to be priests, and celibacy came with the job...it wasn't so much a choice for them. It could be anything, so I wouldn't say the reason they broke their vows was because celibacy is wrong or unnatural. That would make it an excuse and people really can't blame their choices on nature, we were blessed with free will and reasoning. So just because you want to have sex doesn't mean you have to have it. 

I also don't agree that not having sex would be spiritually enhancing. If your sole focus in life is sex and anything related to it, I can see how that could hinder you spiritually. But then too much of anything could hinder you spiritually. So, the key is to live a balanced life...in my opinion that could include having sex or being celibate or chaste.

All of this is not about what we were taught or exposed to, or even what 'abilities' we were blessed with (I'm refering to kiki's statement), but on what we choose and why. 

Celibacy is like giving up smoking (although I'm not comparing smoking to having sex), some people can just throw away the ciggies, and they are done, and for some it takes more effort for whatever reason. Some convince themselves that they will never be able to give it up. So to repeat myself, it's about what we choose and why. Please don't try to nit-pick my 'giving up smoking' comparison...it was just a simple way to explain what I think about the topic.

----------


## Nietzsche

> I mean no offence to anyone, but every time I've seen or heard this argument (lots of times) it's always people who aren't having sex who expound the joys of not having any. 
> 
> Sex is one of the greatest pleasures of humankind. There appear to only be a few species which are able to achieve similar joy levels to us from sex, and failing to enjoy that by thinking something can be gained by going without it is just plain silliness, in my opinion.
> 
> Damn, those preachers, bible-bangers, Buddhas, Yogis and Imams have something to be proud of - denying ecstasy to billions of people.
> 
> And for what point? Even in the extremely unlikely event that there really was some physical benefit from going without, it would have to be something pretty damned amazing to make up for not having any sex.


And I find, it is always the people who are having sex who expound the joys of sex. Obviously, if you have chosen or experience a certain life style and it woks for you, you are going to advertise the joys of it. 

I too am an atheist, I have no religious creed per se nor do I believe in a God, but some people just don't care for sex or relationships. It is not denial of ecstasy, if you find these things just to be a distraction there is no sense in pressuring someone who is asexual or has chosen an asexual life into sexuality. Don't forget, my fellow non-believer, that in the absence of a God, there is no absolute moral convictions exist as there is no supreme deity to force them onto us. Thsly, all morality is man made. Morals are formed on personal perception of life, emotion, and right and wrong. Whether you want to see the world as Anton LaVey, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Hegel, Kant, Nietzsche, or whoever... it's irrelevant, the important thing is to have some sort of system on deciding what is right or wrong to you. For you, you like sex, and crave it. You obviously find it enjoyable and necessary. But don't forget, sexuality exists for one thing, and by proxy, love also exists for this, finding a suitable mate to raise children with. Purely based on that, there is no reason for sexuality if one does not desire children, or does not want to be married, why should that individual be pressured or be made to feel wrong for not pursuing such herd instincts? Sexuality is an important part in psychological development yes, but if one does not feel it necessary one should not be made to take part in it.

----------


## Scheherazade

Those who would like to reap the absolute benefits of celibacy should give married life a try!

I hear it is the sure path to "Celibate Town".

----------


## Virgil

> Those who would like to reap the absolute benefits of celibacy should give married life a try!
> 
> I hear it is the sure path to "Celibate Town".


 :FRlol:  :FRlol:  You are definitely spot on!!

----------


## Pendragon

> It's not that being celibate gives joy. Spiritual life gives joy. But I know better than to "argue" that with an atheist.


Probably a fair bet. I'm not an atheist, of course, and spiritual life can be found without denying natural impulse.






> Yeah, that's exactly what I mean. That is very dubious and most certainly not factual. If you study philosophy a lot you'll learn that causality is nearly impossible to prove. We can have indications sometimes but even then it's not considered "proven." But in that particular case, that is very far-fetched to say that.


Don't you think I would have researched this BEFORE I posted it? Facts are what is left after people can no longer deny the truth. Perhaps you are still in denial...

----------


## Nietzsche

> Those who would like to reap the absolute benefits of celibacy should give married life a try!
> 
> I hear it is the sure path to "Celibate Town".




Haha, funny.

----------


## The Atheist

> And I find, it is always the people who are having sex who expound the joys of sex.


Stands to reason, doesn't it? Celibate people clearly aren't going to know.





> Obviously, if you have chosen or experience a certain life style and it woks for you, you are going to advertise the joys of it.


I don't think that works in this case. I've never seen anyone expounding the joys of sex in effort to make others partake, but I do see celibates advertising and promoting their life choice.




> I too am an atheist, I have no religious creed per se nor do I believe in a God, but some people just don't care for sex or relationships. It is not denial of ecstasy, if you find these things just to be a distraction there is no sense in pressuring someone who is asexual or has chosen an asexual life into sexuality. Don't forget, my fellow non-believer, that in the absence of a God, there is no absolute moral convictions exist as there is no supreme deity to force them onto us. Thsly, all morality is man made. Morals are formed on personal perception of life, emotion, and right and wrong. Whether you want to see the world as Anton LaVey, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Hegel, Kant, Nietzsche, or whoever... it's irrelevant, the important thing is to have some sort of system on deciding what is right or wrong to you. For you, you like sex, and crave it. You obviously find it enjoyable and necessary. But don't forget, sexuality exists for one thing, and by proxy, love also exists for this, finding a suitable mate to raise children with. Purely based on that, there is no reason for sexuality if one does not desire children, or does not want to be married, why should that individual be pressured or be made to feel wrong for not pursuing such herd instincts? Sexuality is an important part in psychological development yes, but if one does not feel it necessary one should not be made to take part in it.


I'm not sure what this is all about as I see no connection between sex and morality and even less between sex and child bearing.

Sex is about enjoyment.

I certainly wouldn't try to force someone to break their vows; I just think it's a bit cutting off one's nose to spite their face.

----------


## grotto

Deprivation never works and to justify a deprivation with a yet unknown or understood goal sets one on the never ending question of Am I truly doing what is best for me while trying to get justification for ones actions by others opinions or putting together a list of data, (one sided I may add) to justify that position, espousing it and then looking for support to strengthen what one is unsure of but wants to believe while ignoring or closing ones mind to a counter position because it once again goes against ones ideal that hasnt truly been tested. If one is truly convinced in their decision of celibacy as a way of life in a spiritual quest and they knew it in their soul of souls, they wouldnt be here asking, they wouldnt need our opinion. 

There is a value in celibacy, that value being compared to not being celibate by the individual and while true, one could argue the fact that I dont have to know how to murder someone to know its not for me, there is certain amount of freedom in being able to choose because one has experienced both sides. To pit spirituality against sexuality automatically sets up a dualism, this is good and that is bad, one is keeping me from the other and that is not seeing the inherent value of either. 

Sex is far from the banal bump and grind, lust filled social representation portrayed in our current society and the majority never get past that image, The amount of people in their later years who continually try and recapture the loss of that image can attest to, they have never gotten beyond the idea either, and, consumerism loves portraying an image that can be profited from. For those of you who havent yet experienced a true connection with another person that goes beyond the basic and banal lustful drive, I would ask, why? before I throw the baby out with the bath water and assume its all not for me. Not to sound like an old codger but, if your in your early 20s trying to decide if its worth it, you havent yet reached a point where you can make a life long decision yet, you are still to attached to others ideas.

Best of luck to those who hard-line celibacy as a way to spiritual enlightenment and to those who argue sex is the only way, you are both missing the point. There is value in both as a whole and as an individual experience, for we are nothing more than our experiences up and above anatomy.

----------


## TurquoiseSunset

> Deprivation never works...


Not everybody will see it as deprivation...




> ...(one sided I may add)...


Are you saying that everyone who chooses celibacy are still virgins? That's not necessarily the case. They could've been sexually active for years and years, before becoming celibate. Celibacy and chastity do not necessarily go hand in hand.




> ...closing ones mind...


You can't say everyone who chooses celibacy or chastity are closed minded (unless I misunderstood what you were saying), because you don't know their reasons for choosing what they did. 




> Not to sound like an old codger but, if your in your early 20s trying to decide if its worth it, you havent yet reached a point where you can make a life long decision yet, you are still to attached to others ideas.


I think this is unfair. For many people this decision involves a lot consideration for various reasons. That doesn't make them incapable of making "life long decisions" or attached to other's ideas.

----------


## grotto

TurquoiseSunset; Of course everyone will see things differently and this is a forum to expound on different opinions. Is it not?

I never assumed that everyone who chooses celibacy is a virgin nor did I state that and I know not everyone sees it at depravation, but, and this is the big but, some do and thats what I was pointing to. 

You misunderstood or I didnt say it right. Every one has the right to choose his own path, I dont think that being celibate is closed minded, I have been celibate in the past and will most likely be in the future would be guess and the reason (which is my choice), is not from a doctrine or verbiage promising something that I follow blindly while I latch onto anothers opinion, I come to my decisions in time and with information that I have gleaned over time, be it spiritual, factual or personal.

As far as your last comment; Its not unfair, its been my experience and Im voicing that opinion, I was in my early 20s once and I thought I knew it all only to look back and realize that I didnt know jack sh!t, along with a lot of my current pears and those older than I, we do have some experience and I also know about rebellion during my earlier years. My point is that one should think long and hard before making any life long decision, unlike a tattoo, celibacy is easy to revert. Question everything!

----------


## Nietzsche

> Stands to reason, doesn't it? Celibate people clearly aren't going to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that works in this case. I've never seen anyone expounding the joys of sex in effort to make others partake, but I do see celibates advertising and promoting their life choice.


Ah, in public high school people often boast about having sex and scorn those who are not active. That being said, I live in the upstate of south carolina, it's no secret the stupidity that comes from the state I live in haha. I'm not in high school anymore, though. Anyway, sex is in everything in almost every form of media and entertainment, so it seems far more thrown in peoples faces. You don't see many movies, saying "DONT HAVE SEX!". Most monks that live a monastic lifestyle stay in their little place. As far as religion preaching celibacy, I don't go to church so I don't hear that, but I know Christianity tends to portray sex as an evil act at times , which it is not.







> I'm not sure what this is all about as I see no connection between sex and morality and even less between sex and child bearing.
> 
> Sex is about enjoyment.


You don't see the connection between sex and child bearing? I direct you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_reproduction  :FRlol:  :FRlol: 

Though of course if protection is taken, pregnancy is not a concern. And as far as morality, I don't believe in an absolute morality but every person has their own moral codes they live by, and if someone has chosen certain ways of life pertaining to sex there is nothing wrong with it. If there is no absolute morality, doing something is in the end no less or more preferable than not doing something. "I have my way, you have your way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way : It does not exist. " - Nietzsche.




> I certainly wouldn't try to force someone to break their vows; I just think it's a bit cutting off one's nose to spite their face.


I can't argue with that, it's true.

Keep in mind, I am not saying celibacy is how everyone should be. I'm just saying, if someone wants to not have sex, they have a right that life style as the reasons behind it are fairly legit, no less legit than having sex. To each their own, I say. 


There are some, who for reasons not at all related to religion, do not wish to engage in it. I just am defending people who have chosen to do that, or do not feel comfortable with it, wish to wait until marriage, nor not be married at all... Celibacy and Chastity are separate, you can remain a celibate bachelor and still be sexual, and technically you could be married and never consummate the marriage, thusly remaining chaste. 

I'm again not advocating celibacy or chastity, just pointing out the irrelevancy of ones choice of life style as they all have advantage and disadvantages ; do what thou willt as someone earlier said.

----------


## Pendragon

Well the point is that they have put a block into their minds, that vow of celibacy, and it acts the same as a dam on a river. You get backed up thoughts and desires, unless you claim to be more than human, in which case, I'll make you an exception to the rule.

Ever notice how dams have holes in them, even if they are not for generation of electricity? It allows for release of pressure. A spillway allows for times of too much rain, etc.

But they come to that block and fail to have release for it, and if they do they are ashamed of their weakness. Welcome to the human race, folks!

----------


## Nietzsche

> Well the point is that they have put a block into their minds, that vow of celibacy, and it acts the same as a dam on a river. You get backed up thoughts and desires, unless you claim to be more than human, in which case, I'll make you an exception to the rule.
> 
> Ever notice how dams have holes in them, even if they are not for generation of electricity? It allows for release of pressure. A spillway allows for times of too much rain, etc.
> 
> But they come to that block and fail to have release for it, and if they do they are ashamed of their weakness. Welcome to the human race, folks!



That is a very good way of putting it.

----------


## The Atheist

> Best of luck to those who hard-line celibacy as a way to spiritual enlightenment and to those who argue sex is the only way, you are both missing the point. There is value in both as a whole and as an individual experience, for we are nothing more than our experiences up and above anatomy.


Bloody well said.




> Ah, in public high school people often boast about having sex and scorn those who are not active.


I'd like to think discussions here are a long way removed from that. Often turns out in those situations that the biggest scorners are the biggest losers anyway.




> Anyway, sex is in everything in almost every form of media and entertainment, so it seems far more thrown in peoples faces. You don't see many movies, saying "DONT HAVE SEX!". Most monks that live a monastic lifestyle stay in their little place. As far as religion preaching celibacy, I don't go to church so I don't hear that, but I know Christianity tends to portray sex as an evil act at times , which it is not.


That's more about making money from sex rather than a philosophical view.

As you note, religion on the other hand, makes quite a big deal about it. 




> You don't see the connection between sex and child bearing?


Well, I have four kids, but I've had a sex lot more than four times.

 :Wink: 




> Keep in mind, I am not saying celibacy is how everyone should be. I'm just saying, if someone wants to not have sex, they have a right that life style as the reasons behind it are fairly legit, no less legit than having sex. To each their own, I say.


I'll go along with that. Just interests me that many of them try to promote it as a lifestyle.




> Well the point is that they have put a block into their minds, that vow of celibacy, and it acts the same as a dam on a river. You get backed up thoughts and desires, unless you claim to be more than human, in which case, I'll make you an exception to the rule.
> 
> Ever notice how dams have holes in them, even if they are not for generation of electricity? It allows for release of pressure. A spillway allows for times of too much rain, etc.
> 
> But they come to that block and fail to have release for it, and if they do they are ashamed of their weakness. Welcome to the human race, folks!


Usual top-class comment from Pen!

 :Smile:

----------


## NikolaiI

I have to disagree with you Atheist. It is over-simplifying, rather baseless, and untrue, as well as unnecessarily pessimistic. Or not pessisimistic rather, but one-sided. Very limited. In India it is not like this. Don't be restricted in your view. Don't think that everyone has uncontrollable urges. Or that if you don't satisfy those urges you will have uncontrollable desires. This is only a conditioned mode of thinking. 

What can I possibly say? I have been living in a Vaisnava temple for two months and what you say is absolutely untrue. My life has never been better. I am completely blissful when I sleep, and during the day, I am peaceful even though engaged in so many activities. The bottom line, and I say this to you as well as to Blaze, is do not become so linear in your thinking. Absolutely anything is possible. Remember that or try to learn it. As Henry Ford said, if you think you can, or you think you can't, you're right. 

The simple thing is that you can be completely pure from desire if you so choose, and if you find the right association and the right practice. I would say, yes, probably it is necessary to be in the company of Buddhists or Hindus. Not to speak of attempting such a thing if you eat meat... but that is a side-topic and I know it will only rile emotions.

The fact is, I cannot speak of this separately from my own aspiration of enilghtenment. 

Non-duality, the peace of knowing that one is one with nature, equally at peace as the stars in the sky and all of this earth, and everything, as at peace as the Infinite, the Absolute, the Om - that peace of non-duality is infinitely greater than any desire. Further, no satisfaction of desires will ever satisfy one permanently. And yet it is possible to attain that satisfaction, but only by some work, some practice, some discipline, and yes, some renunciation.

There is an idea in Hinduism which is this: whatever you think of, you will become. The worm in the tree is always thinking of the wood-pecker trying to get it, and even though it is thinking this in enmity, at the end of its life it becomes a wood-pecker. If you meditate on something peaceful, let us say some trees, then you will become peaceful. Try meditation, it works. And for heaven's sake, don't say there are no tangible results from meditation, or that those who say they have found peace are hypocrites!

----------


## The Atheist

> I have to disagree with you Atheist. It is over-simplifying, rather baseless, and untrue, as well as unnecessarily pessimistic. Or not pessisimistic rather, but one-sided. Very limited. In India it is not like this. Don't be restricted in your view. Don't think that everyone has uncontrollable urges. Or that if you don't satisfy those urges you will have uncontrollable desires. This is only a conditioned mode of thinking.


You're getting me mixed up with someone else - I haven't made any comments along that line.

----------


## Pendragon

> I have to disagree with you Atheist. It is over-simplifying, rather baseless, and untrue, as well as unnecessarily pessimistic. Or not pessisimistic rather, but one-sided. Very limited. In India it is not like this. Don't be restricted in your view. Don't think that everyone has uncontrollable urges. Or that if you don't satisfy those urges you will have uncontrollable desires. This is only a conditioned mode of thinking.


I believe I was the one speaking of "uncontrollable desires." If you are able to live as a truly celibate person, that is to your credit, and may God richly bless you.

Now I'm not trying to start trouble, but I note that most practitioners of enforced celibacy tend to withdraw from society, and live apart from the world. We cannot judge what they do or do not, as what goes on behind closed doors does, and should, stay there. 

Blessed are they that can live such a life, but don't take your vows if you cannot keep them. The Bible says Qoh.5
[4] When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.

Qoh.5
[6] Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands?

In other words, if you take a vow, take it seriously, don't break it! And if you feel you might break that vow, don't start on that pathway.

God bless

Pen

----------


## billl

Nobody has to make a vow about celibacy just because they want to do it, right?

----------


## kiki1982

> You know, it wasn't always required for Christian priests to be celibate. Heck, Peter was said to be the First Pope, and the Bible records that he was married. For people who claim to be founded on Peter, they seem to have went with Paul, who was celibate, yet he encouraged marriage to avoid adultery. Go figure.
> 
> Many of the early Popes had families, and at least one Pope was the son of another. Read Peter Tremayne's historical novels of Ireland, circa 600, where he deals with Rome becoming the center of Christianity, and enforcing celibacy. 
> 
> God bless
> 
> Pen


Yes, at a certain time they imposed it. According to Wikipedia (referenced) celibacy for priests became only mandatory in the 12th century. Around the time that the Cardinal Sins were defined and everything became more centralised in an attempt to present a united front towards Islam. But it also says (referenced) that another reason for it might have been that the church did not want offspring from priests demanding church-property. Now, that would be a more worldly and cunning reason to demand celibacy. 
I suppose it made things easier for the church? 

That said, though, maybe the distractions of daily life with a sexual partner bcome less persistant when celibate, but whether that is scientifically provable is another matter. I don't think it is measurable... On the other hand, Anglican priests also can be married, so it does not really add up...

----------


## NikolaiI

> I believe I was the one speaking of "uncontrollable desires." If you are able to live as a truly celibate person, that is to your credit, and may God richly bless you.
> 
> Now I'm not trying to start trouble, but I note that most practitioners of enforced celibacy tend to withdraw from society, and live apart from the world. We cannot judge what they do or do not, as what goes on behind closed doors does, and should, stay there. 
> 
> Blessed are they that can live such a life, but don't take your vows if you cannot keep them. The Bible says Qoh.5
> [4] When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.
> 
> Qoh.5
> [6] Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands?
> ...


Well, I never mentioned forced celibacy, or vows of celibacy. I am just speaking of it as a natural way of life, and unfortunately one which is covered up in our Western society. Why make any vow at all? That wasn't at all part of what I was thinking of. 

As far as I can tell, mainly it is about what we believe. In spiritual life in India for example, it is fairly universal, a high ideal is to be satisfied, to be without desires, to live a peaceful and spiritually striving life. And in America, you get so much junk mail, advertising, everything, which is saying exactly the opposite. "Don't be happy unless you have THIS product." And so it has its effect.

Ah, this is an incomplete post, but it is already way too late, so forgive me for leaving it so.



Well, I also wanted to say two things addressing this philosophically. One is this. It is not an ontological proof. It comes from Vedanta, from Taoism (Tao Te Ching) and so forth. The idea is that peace is attained when non-duality is realized, and further, that that peace is infinite. I don't know what I can say about this. But it is real. The Self that you really are is infinite.

The second thing is from your religion. Christ said, be perfect as God is perfect. And yet perfection seems to be abhorrent to Christians - the reason I say this is that nothing is reacted to as negatively as someone saying "I am perfect." This is not just true for Christians but also Buddhists, etc. They think it is antagonistic and so many other things. 

But would Christ say be perfect if it were not possible? Here's the thing: it is possible. There are at least millions of humans living perfected lives today, this very day.

Perfection is not something you attain. See, here is the thing. We are complete. Whole. Ourselves, as we are. Whether we are physically fit or even a cripple - this is not a physical perfection but an ontological truth. Everything in the universe is whole and complete. The parts are whole and complete. So this is what we are searching for, what we need - wholeness, completeness, perfection. 

Everything and everyone is whole. So it is the greatest disservice to preach the opposite, to preach that we are weak, that we are sinners, that we are incomplete. If you say these things, then they will become true. 

So this is a pervasive idea in our society, that we are lacking something. That we need a, b, c, infinite _things_, we must _have_ them, to be satisfied. We must be rich. Attractive. Adored. Intelligent. And if you take any of them away, ah, then you are inferior. No one is perfect. You hear it all the time. No one is complete. 

So it is the opposite of reality. Everyone is complete. This is a distinction that really must be understood. We don't _need_ all those things, not really. Srila Prabhupada called sex an "unnecessary necessity."

Maybe it is a high ideal. Of course balance is good and necessary. Only, someone who is very pure, you cannot call them imbalanced. If you doubt me, all I can say is _find out for yourself_. Go to a monastery! You will find people imbued with good qualities and warmth. Go to a Hindu temple! These are people who have in their culture very high ideals, and ones very beneficial for harmonious society.

As far as the philosophy goes; that is the main thing, that the highest enlightenment (or also, really, many stages along the way, as well) is that one is at peace. The philosophy is that we are complete, whole. Perfect. That is why it is self-realization. Perfection is not impossible. We are not incomplete by nature, that is a great lie. It becomes true, however, when it is believed. Likewise the truth that we are whole by nature, complete in our essence, that also becomes true when it is believed. 

I know there is nothing I can say to describe the fact that in relation to the knowledge of infinite peace, everything, including this entire life, is merely nothing. But yet it is true. But that is a slightly different realm of topic. The thing is though - we are not lacking anything. This can be realized, it can be known. 

But philosophically - that is my position. That we are whole, complete. If we realize this, then we do not need anything. Desire, actually, nothing else means anything in relation to enilghtenment, to self-realization. And no this is not something that can be argued or forced. Nor is it meant to.

----------


## NikolaiI

> Nobody has to make a vow about celibacy just because they want to do it, right?


Right. Exactly. Vows and forced celibacy are, albeit related, side topics to the one of this thread.

----------


## blazeofglory

Nikolai, 
You have a very positive attitude in life and take everything positively and spiritually. The world is different than you sublimely and sentimentally take it to be. Of course in Hindu temples and monasteries there are people seemingly maintaining but in reality they are not and they are indulging in things of luxuries and even in sexual perversions. They live with lives of double standards, one to keep to themselves and the other public. 
Life is really different than we perceive and if we can see privacies or something people do in hiding and even so called religiously minded saints priests, popes and the like they are simply hypocrites.

----------


## kiki1982

Unless you can come with real hard facts, BlazeofGlory, I find it utterly low to accuse ALL of those who are celibate of keeping double standards.

Sure, there must be some who don't keep up, should never have become a monk (should never have chosen or should never have been forced), but there are definitely loads wohave chosen that and who keep their celibacy. 

They do not all live in luxury and hypocrisy. Some might do, but it does not take away the honour of the rest.

----------


## grotto

> As far as I can tell, mainly it is about what we believe. In spiritual life in India for example, it is fairly universal, a high ideal is to be satisfied, to be without desires, to live a peaceful and spiritually striving life. And in America, you get so much junk mail, advertising, everything, which is saying exactly the opposite. "Don't be happy unless you have THIS product." And so it has its effect.
> 
> Well, I also wanted to say two things addressing this philosophically. One is this. It is not an ontological proof. It comes from Vedanta, from Taoism (Tao Te Ching) and so forth. The idea is that peace is attained when non-duality is realized, and further, that that peace is infinite. I don't know what I can say about this. But it is real. The Self that you really are is infinite.
> 
> But would Christ say be perfect if it were not possible? Here's the thing: it is possible. There are at least millions of humans living perfected lives today, this very day.
> 
> Perfection is not something you attain. See, here is the thing. We are complete. Whole. Ourselves, as we are. Whether we are physically fit or even a cripple - this is not a physical perfection but an ontological truth. Everything in the universe is whole and complete. The parts are whole and complete. So this is what we are searching for, what we need - wholeness, completeness, perfection. 
> 
> Everything and everyone is whole. So it is the greatest disservice to preach the opposite, to preach that we are weak, that we are sinners, that we are incomplete. If you say these things, then they will become true. 
> ...


There is not much I could argue with nor do I care to pick any of what you said apart, a lot of what you have stated is very fundamental but, and here is my only point. Is not seeking enlightenment a form of desire? Is not setting one way or philosophy against another a dualism? Is not assuming that sex is a banal level desire as you seem to described no different than someone accusing all spiritual schools of thought banal because a few leaders of those schools of thought have abused their power? If everything is as it truly needs to be, then everything is as it should be, so to go against by picking a better way is in rebellion against what is. Is not all seeking desire?

Im not arguing against anyones wish to be celibate, if they decide for themselves that they choose that path, best of luck to them, its only when they point to their reason for doing so as a defense against what they see as mere carnal desiring that I will point out that they may be missing a bigger piece of the pie. There are those who will never get beyond a base level, those who do and those who choose to ignore, like enlightenment, sex is the same for all. We make our choices and in making a choice we automatically negate the other, there is no way around it unless, unless we truly open our eyes!

----------


## NikolaiI

> There is not much I could argue with nor do I care to pick any of what you said apart, a lot of what you have stated is very fundamental but, and here is my only point. Is not seeking enlightenment a form of desire? Is not setting one way or philosophy against another a dualism? Is not assuming that sex is a banal level desire as you seem to described no different than someone accusing all spiritual schools of thought banal because a few leaders of those schools of thought have abused their power? If everything is as it truly needs to be, then everything is as it should be, so to go against by picking a better way is in rebellion against what is. Is not all seeking desire?
> 
> Im not arguing against anyones wish to be celibate, if they decide for themselves that they choose that path, best of luck to them, its only when they point to their reason for doing so as a defense against what they see as mere carnal desiring that I will point out that they may be missing a bigger piece of the pie. There are those who will never get beyond a base level, those who do and those who choose to ignore, like enlightenment, sex is the same for all. We make our choices and in making a choice we automatically negate the other, there is no way around it unless, unless we truly open our eyes!


Ah, thank you for all your nice questions. I am sorry I don't have time to reply much in depth at the moment.




> Is not seeking enlightenment a form of desire?


Yes.




> Is not setting one way or philosophy against another a dualism?


Kind of. Sort of. Perhaps. But then on one level there is distinction while on another level there is not. There are numerless paths, and also there is one best path, I think, which the poem by Seng Ts'an, Hsin Hsin Ming, describes quite beautifully. The opening words, "The Great Way requires nothing difficult, only to refrain from picking and choosing." 

Sex is definitely part of life, and just as I never mentioned vows of celibacy or forced celibacy, I also never intended to sound as though I thought it was banal; nor that some celibacy means necessarily life-long celibacy.

I was recently reading some quotes of William James. Part of his philosophy seems to be, perhaps crudely or over-simply stated, character building. This is also inherent in Buddhism, as you know. We should not live only for our own comfort and desire. Buddhists sometimes say, we should try to find out who we really are, or begin that spiritual path of seeking truth, even if there is some suffering along the way. We shouldn't avoid suffering like it is the plague. And I think it is also in the Hsin Hsin Ming, or the Inscription on Trust in the Mind, where he says, he doesn't distinguish between coarse or fine...

I would write more and reply to some more of your questions but I have to go.

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

I'm curious, Nik: where do masturbation and oral sex figure into your views on celibacy and chastity?

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

I'm going to respond to your scientific claims as well. 

I'm really curious to know what book this was that you read, Nik, as well upon what research it is based. 




> A couple weeks ago I was reading a book, about the benefits of celibacy and chastity, and it was really remarkable and enlightening. I never knew how beneficial it was for health and well-being, physically, mentally and spiritually. This book was actually mainly centered on celibacy in males, and I don't know much about it with women. 
> 
> * But anyway, being celibate much improves how much energy one has, and one's ability to think well and creatively.*


False! An hour of sex burns roughly 400 calories, which is significant enough to constitute exercise, but not more than a good trip to the gym. It's also good for promoting good cardiac health. Besides that, it releases lots of good endorphins, which decrease depression and generally put people in a better mood, which I'll go so far as to say makes for better thinking!





> The evidence is fairly persuasive for this. *Sex depletes vital fluids,*


False! Firstly, you'll want to be more specific about what you mean by "vital fluids". If you're speaking in terms of sweat and electrolytes, again, that loss is equivalent to that lost during a trip to the gym which is in most cases not harmful to one's health. If you're speaking in terms of the ejaculate fluid, there's nothing especially vital to a man's health in that fluid. What's there is meant to be there specifically for the purpose of helping move along the little swimmers. Also, the actual volume of the ejaculate in not anywhere close to being dangerous in terms of, say, dehydrating the man, were there anything in that fluid that would cause dehydration.




> which if not depleted get reabsorbed into the body, to be precise, reabsorbed into the spine, which is where the nervous center is. Thus to be celibate retains the vital fluids which are very helpful for brain development and so forth.


False! Your spine does not absorb fluid. It contains fluids, but those fluids don't come and go. Also, the fluid contained within the spinal cord does not influence brain development. 




> *Semen consists of almost the exact same chemical constituion as the brain. It is mostly lechitin, and the grey matter in the brain is composed of 20% lechitin.*


False! Not even close. Grey matter is composed of a whole pile of different types of bundles of nerve cells. There is no part of semen that compares to the composition of nerve fibres or nervous tissues. They simply are not comparable. 




> As a disclaimer, I am not a scientist and I could be wrong about the wording of some of this. It's also been a couple of weeks since I read from the book, so forgive my imperfect knowledge. But it's my understanding that the vital fluids, when conserved, are reabsorbed into the spine, and that the nervous center is also around the same area. 
> 
> If anyone knows more than I do and would like to share, please do!  And of course I am very interested to know all your opinions.
> 
> Lastly, the list of scientists, philosophers, artists, mathematicians, and so forth, and geniuses from all fields, who lived continent lives is very great. I'll just list a few which are a little more well known to people, especially from the Western countries.
> 
> Pythagoras, Hippocrates, Democritus, Aristotle, Celsus, Prophets Elijah and Elisha, John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, Apollonius of Tyana, Plotinus, Porphyry, Fra Angelico, Michelangelo, Pascal, Spinoza, Newton, Leibniz, Handel, Kant, Beethoven, Schopenhauer, Thoreau, Spencer, Nietzsche, Tesla, Sidis...
> 
> Have any of you studied about the physiological and other benefits of celibacy and chastity? For me it is also connected with vegetarianism and avoidance of intoxication, which have somewhat similar benefits..


Sorry Nik! This is definitely not directed at you, just at whoever wrote that book. The claims made by the author are simply not true. All my information is based on my own university education, and some info from a friend who's university degree program includes a lot of courses on sex haha.

----------


## Pendragon

> Everything and everyone is whole. So it is the greatest disservice to preach the opposite, to preach that we are weak, that we are sinners, that we are incomplete. If you say these things, then they will become true.


I wasn't aware that I was preaching the opposite. I merely believe that perfection can be obtained without extreme measures, such as forbidding natural sexual desires.



> So it is the opposite of reality. Everyone is complete. This is a distinction that really must be understood. We don't _need_ all those things, not really. Srila Prabhupada called sex an "unnecessary necessity."


Not to cast stones at this revered person, but something is either necessary or unnecessary, but it cannot be both. It may be something that one chooses to react or not react to, but not empirical in any way. Thus your choice rules you, to, as Yoda says, "Do or do not. There is no try."

God bless you on your chose pathway to eternal peace, and may you be perfect in all of your ways. I enjoy talking with you, as I find you most polite, and defending your points without personal rancor. So few manage to do that.

Again. God bless and keep you, my friend.

Pen

----------


## Pendragon

> Unless you can come with real hard facts, BlazeofGlory, I find it utterly low to accuse ALL of those who are celibate of keeping double standards.
> 
> Sure, there must be some who don't keep up, should never have become a monk (should never have chosen or should never have been forced), but there are definitely loads wohave chosen that and who keep their celibacy. 
> 
> They do not all live in luxury and hypocrisy. Some might do, but it does not take away the honour of the rest.


 Exactly. The ones that can keep themselves pure are not to be judged by the ones who fail. I agree with you that some should have never taken vows or become a monk, as they have yet to exorcise their personal demons. 

God bless,

Pen.

----------


## kiki1982

Now that is a right statement.

----------


## NikolaiI

> I wasn't aware that I was preaching the opposite. I merely believe that perfection can be obtained without extreme measures, such as forbidding natural sexual desires.


Yes, but as I was saying, a perfect being has no desire. Desire is indication of incompleteness, imperfection. Desire means that someone is not fully satisfied. Perfection means satisfaction not based on anything external.

Please don't think that I am saying sex is wrong. On an absolute level, there is no right or wrong. But on another level, there is long term benefit versus short term gratifaction.




> Not to cast stones at this revered person, but something is either necessary or unnecessary, but it cannot be both. It may be something that one chooses to react or not react to, but not empirical in any way. Thus your choice rules you, to, as Yoda says, "Do or do not. There is no try."


You missed the point entirely. What he meant was that it is a perceived necessity that is really unnecessary at all.




> God bless you on your chose pathway to eternal peace, and may you be perfect in all of your ways. I enjoy talking with you, as I find you most polite, and defending your points without personal rancor. So few manage to do that.


Hm, thanks  :Smile:

----------


## NikolaiI

Classic, I wouldn't take everything those people say without question.

The book is called _Brain Gain_, subtitled The Wisdom of Celibacy and Chastity by His Holiness Danavir Goswami. The first chapter is inspired and discusses the writings of Dr. R. W. Bernard... I put a link to his work earlier, on page 2 or post 23, that link is here: http://www.ktk.ru/~cm/contin.htm

I haven't read all of it. I don't really expect anyone here to read it, nor will I challenge them to. Who wants to read about something they are not interested in, and which goes against what they've been taught? 

Dr. Bernard was not the only person besides myself to advocate the benefits of celibacy, and that it does not do harm. Besides spiritual teachers, there are hundreds if not thousands of acclaimed scientists who have come to similar conclusions. 

Yes, there are a similar number of those who say the opposite, who say exactly what you said - it is good because of the reasons you mentioned. So, do some research, and come to your own conclusions. Again, I wouldn't take everything your university professors tell you without question, in fact I would say probably the majority of it is very wrong. If you take what they say without question, then you are limited by their limitations (in their thinking, which isn't separated by a void from their actions and lives, and inner hopes or depressions).

----------


## Pendragon

> You missed the point entirely. What he meant was that it is a perceived necessity that is really unnecessary at all.


Well. again, no discredit to the worthy Srila Prabhupada, but the point (which I did not miss), is that I cannot comment on what he _meant_, but rather on *what you reported that he said.* So I stand by my former post, without any hard feelings on my part,
God bless, 

Pen

----------


## NikolaiI

> Well. again, no discredit to the worthy Srila Prabhupada, but the point (which I did not miss), is that I cannot comment on what he _meant_, but rather on *what you reported that he said.* So I stand by my former post, without any hard feelings on my part,
> God bless, 
> 
> Pen


I understand what you mean. But you did not understand what he meant by what he said. What he meant was, it's a so-called necessity, a perceived necessity, which is not really necessary. 

Of course with no hard feelings, just a tedium.

----------


## NikolaiI

> If everything is as it truly needs to be, then everything is as it should be, so to go against by picking a “better” way is in rebellion against what is. Is not all seeking desire?


The goal is to generally increase happiness and reduce misery or suffering. There is a Buddhist monk who once wrote, "If one could learn to make their mouth as silent as their nose, they would avoid a great deal of suffering." So the goal is happiness, and yet - another way to reduce misery is to accept squarely when we do feel discomfort or pain. Seeking is a desire, and yet it is also possible to be without desire, to be at peace. It is my position, as well as my direct experience, that there is the difference of night and day between everything we know, and what is true peace. I experienced that peace once, several times actually, and it shaped my understanding. I will never forget it or de-emphasize its importance. Nothing else is important in comparison to self-knowledge or enlightenment - though, of course, other things are necessary for it. Everything must be in order.  :Smile:

----------


## billl

Nikolai, were you aware of some of the things that Dr. Bernard appears to believe, such as the existence of cities within the Earth (which he believes is hollow)? 

http://www.greatdreams.com/hollow1.htm
http://www.ourhollowearth.com/Bernard/WorksList.htm

He also claims that a truly healthy woman would not menstruate, in another book.

Perhaps these two websites and the list of book descriptions are the work of someone intent on character assasination, or maybe I am simply too quick to judge. But I don't think he will count as an acclaimed scientist to many people.


Really, I do not find this sort of denigration of our individual animal selves to be a particularly warm and loving vision. To me, it has as many pros and cons as desire and suffering do. Perhaps it is a matter of taste. I know that you are mostly trying to share experiences that you are having and want others to have similar experiences, and that is great, in my opinion. I just think the scientific angle is a weak angle on why to take this path.

Regarding a person's limitations, and taking an expert's opinions without question: I think it might be worth considering why this Dr. Bernard's writing might get attention in English-speaking Hindi circles. One of his books that seems to get more attention than some of his others is called _From Chrishna to Christ_, in which he presents historical evidence for a seminal Christian Gospel called the Gospel of Chrishna. I doubt that it is his unimpeachable objectivity in itself that has brought him to the attention of some Hindus, regarding scientific and spiritual matters.

I get the ugly feeling that people just end up taking sides on things when we get extremely convinced about the universal rightness of debatable religious prescriptions and proscriptions. I don't know why science would be necessary support for something that people have been drawn to and developed themselves with for thousands of years. I guess it is an effort to reach out, and capture a certain kind of mind. But in this case, I think it works better without it.

----------


## Pendragon

> Of course with no hard feelings, just a tedium.


Well, I wouldn't want to be tedious, so I withdraw from this discussion without rancor.

God bless

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> Classic, I wouldn't take everything those people say without question.
> 
> The book is called _Brain Gain_, subtitled The Wisdom of Celibacy and Chastity by His Holiness Danavir Goswami. The first chapter is inspired and discusses the writings of Dr. R. W. Bernard... I put a link to his work earlier, on page 2 or post 23, that link is here: http://www.ktk.ru/~cm/contin.htm
> 
> I haven't read all of it. I don't really expect anyone here to read it, nor will I challenge them to. *Who wants to read about something*  they are not interested in, and *which goes against what they've been taught?*


I'm more than happy to read something that goes against what I've been taught. I think that's the only way to refrain from becoming closed-minded. I think everyone should, though this is not at issue here. 




> Dr. Bernard was not the only person besides myself to advocate the benefits of celibacy, and that it does not do harm. Besides spiritual teachers, there are hundreds if not thousands of acclaimed scientists who have come to similar conclusions. 
> 
> Yes, there are a similar number of those who say the opposite, who say exactly what you said - * it is good because of the reasons you mentioned.*  So, do some research, and come to your own conclusions.


I'm not here to advocate "sex is good for your health", I'm just pointing out that the scientific evidence provided which you have restated as the basis for your argument is incorrect. Physiological issues such as whether or not the spine reabsorbs fluid and whether or not seminal fluid is the same chemical composition as the brain is not up for debate. Either it is, or is not and there is no room for interpretation. 




> Again, I wouldn't take everything your university professors tell you without question, in fact* I would say probably the majority of it is very wrong.* If you take what they say without question, then you are limited by their limitations (in their thinking, which isn't separated by a void from their actions and lives, and inner hopes or depressions).


Haha I'm a science major, Nik. I take NOTHING without proof.  :Wink: 

Don't you think it's a touch presumptuous to say that the majority of what university professors say is wrong? Especially when you aren't even aware of the subject matter? I don't walk into a lecture and have a prof tell me "Have sex. It will keep you healthy." I'm not trying to argue for that point. I'm not saying that celibacy is bad for your health, either. All I'm saying is that the evidence provided in your original post is false. Physiologically false. And accepting a scientific proof such as the chemical composition of grey matter is not being limited by the limitations of another person. 

Also- you still haven't answered my other question! Where do masturbation and oral sex fit into your view?

----------


## NikolaiI

Bill, did you read anything of his writing on continence?

Classic, I apologize but I must discontinue the debate. Actually it is debatable, as there are thousands of scientists and others who debate it and the facts. I may have stated some things wrong, termed grey matter when it was another part of the brain and so forth. I am only presenting, inadequately, that other scientists also say that semen is resorbed, etc. This comes from scientists but everything is debatable, as is proven by the fact that they are being debated. If you are interested or if you have time, read some of Bernard's writing which I linked. I am sorry but I am not able to continue the debate with you. I have learned about myself that I find it very unenjoyable, and that trying to establish dominance, really, in any form, is not what I should be doing with my life.

----------


## billl

Nikolai, no I haven't read any of his stuff beyond maybe a couple paragraphs from diffierent texts online, maybe a couple of skimmed pages. I have encountered the writings of some Yogis (if that's an accurate term) that addressed the issue, but the two or three times I encountered it the stress was not so much against sex per se as it was against ejaculation--perhaps those writers were more asana-based? And even those writers didn't seem to be suggesting too strongly that there should be absolute, ever-lasting adherence to such "retention", only that there were benefits to it. I was more into doing the asanas at the time, so maybe that affected my exposure to yogic writings.

I must say that, all along, I have understood how an intense focus on meditation and "pure" consciousness expansion might be helped by sexual abstinence, and so I wouldn't be surprised if it helped one make progress in that direction.

Self-control requires discipline, but I think that discipline can also be a path to a loss of control over one's self. But that's just a simple, general observation about something very complex in its particulars, and it is maybe propaganda for a viewpoint that is important to me. 

Anyhow, thanks for sharing your thoughts and feelings, and your experiences on a path many of us are unfamiliar with. There is an optimism, empathy, and a generosity that is typical to your writings, and I think it does this site a good service.

----------


## soundofmusic

:


> The benefits of celibacy are very overrated. But less overrated than the supposed benefits of intoxication.


 :Idea: Yet, if one is not able to enjoy the benefits of celibacy; the benefits of intoxication may get him/her through the night :Ladysman:  :As Sleep:  On a serious note, though, I have found that when I am not "in love", I have a bit more energy; If I'm not depressed because I'm not "in love". And, of course, I tend to be more focused on my own goals, if I am not focused on a lover. Whether or not the act itself causes any great loss of stregnth, I will have to leave to the gentlemen on the forum. I am told that athletes are told to not make love before an important event; What do the gentlemen on the forum have to say?

----------


## isidro

You know, I have post traumatic stress from sexual abuse and have been celibate for a couple of years at this point while trying to recover. It surely gives you more personal strength, makes you a calmer person and forces more critical thinking about life and the whole romance concept in general. But I can also attest that without romantic love in your life you really do end up feeling like half of your soul is missing, or I do, anyway. 

Another good effect, however, is that it teaches you how to love a person's soul rather than lusting over the body, which means a stronger love, hopefully, when you finally get to that point.

----------


## soundofmusic

> But I can also attest that without romantic love in your life you really do end up feeling like half of your soul is missing, or I do, anyway. 
> 
> Another good effect, however, is that it teaches you how to love a person's soul rather than lusting over the body, which means a stronger love, hopefully, when you finally get to that point.


 :Smile: You seem very strong and wise to give yourself time to heal. After many years of marriage and widowhood; I look back (and forward) and believe I have created a concept of romantic love from novels, poetry and television. One which, for the most part, is unattainable. I am content; I enjoy my hobbies, friends and family. If I were to have another relationship, however; I would want my love to be all encompassing...ecstacy!  :Blush:   :Brow:   :Redface:

----------


## isidro

Thank you so much. I am still attempting to figure out how I define romance. My memory was knocked out entirely and I am attempting to rebuild it.

Bravo Griffith.

My dear Athiest, this was the tenor of the original thread and we followed it. I am chaste at the moment, but I assure you that does not at all mean that I wish to stay this way forever. Believe me when I tell you that although I have had quite a bit of trauma in regard to the sexual question I am still a perfectly healthy Latin female. Just limited at the moment. I fully agree that sex is the most blissful moment a human being can have, but there are also good aspects in taking that blissful moment in moderation. As discussed by Fowles in his novels, when you are chaste for the most part you enjoy sex all the more when you have it. (The sexual trauma to which I alluded came because a man decided that forced quantity was more important than quality and also dabbled in beastiality etc.) The limits are often good and quite necessary; otherwise you end up like that fella.

----------


## The Atheist

> My dear Athiest, this was the tenor of the original thread and we followed it. I am chaste at the moment, but I assure you that does not at all mean that I wish to stay this way forever. Believe me when I tell you that although I have had quite a bit of trauma in regard to the sexual question I am still a perfectly healthy Latin female. Just limited at the moment. I fully agree that sex is the most blissful moment a human being can have, but there are also good aspects in taking that blissful moment in moderation. As discussed by Fowles in his novels, when you are chaste for the most part you enjoy sex all the more when you have it. (The sexual trauma to which I alluded came because a man decided that forced quantity was more important than quality and also dabbled in beastiality etc.) The limits are often good and quite necessary; otherwise you end up like that fella.


I think you're just drawing conclusions on the basis of your own experience here.

I'm sure chastity has helped in your and other situations, but that does not make chastity a good thing because it helped you. I don't see anything inherently wrong in chastity, but as a goal for its own sake, it's just silly. 

As to less sex making it better, I'd disagree with that entirely. Sex isn't golf, but like golf, the more you do it, the better you'll get at doing it, and the more enjoyable it becomes. 

As far as your abuser goes, he was clearly a pervert, but thinking that he became a pervert through desensitising from too much sex is wrong. Lots and lots of men are complete sex addicts, but most of them never stray outside the bounds of decency and consent. Your abuser was a sicko because he was a sicko, not because he had too much sex.

I applaud your ability to discuss a painful subject in such a way, although I am intrigued by your statement that your memory was "knocked out entirely". Are you saying the abuse damaged your mind or that your mind had suppressed the memory, which has now been recovered in some way?

----------


## isidro

I was chaste by choice before my marriage anyway actually, though I can certainly see how my comments may have brought you to the idea that I am speaking strictly out of trauma, which to some degree, you may be right. I have no problem with sex within marriage, with one person. Knock yourself out. But some people tend to take it to the opposite extreme with no regard for loyalty or love and as DH Lawrence discusses to be taken with the same kind of importance as one would attribute to a mild mannered conversation between two people. That it certainly is not and I believe that if we valued our own masculinity, femininity, and merit as a human being we would not be so quick to give ourselves away to more than one person, with of course the exception being death or much merited divorce. 

My mind? You ready for this? I was hit by a semi while 5 months pregnant with my second child on the freeway and after that was pulled into extreme sexual abuse, the culmination of which led to over 850 panic induced seizures which stopped my heart twice and led to nearly complete amnesia. I had to relearn to read and write to a great degree, relearn to do a great many things, hold a decent conversation without going into a panic attack, relearn to be in the same room with a man, even my own brother, etc. I had an MRI which turned out clear, so all this was due to psychological trauma. I would blame the semi but the man continued in his abuse even while I was in the grip of seizure, so I cannot blame that. And to bring us back to the point, this man began this trip of insanity bit by bit, piece by piece, starting with mild porn and masturbation and over the space of twenty years went down from there. This is another reason why I so strongly advocate placing limits on what people do with the blessed gift of human sexuality. He didn't mean for it to get that far. Most people who start crossing the line in giving sexuality a less than paramount seriousness don't expect to go that far. But when he was put to the test, when the stakes were up for him he realized he was fully addicted to sex and could not pull away. By that time, it was too late to have a philosophical conversation. He was trapped. I have acted as his therapist rather than sending him to prison. He has pulled a complete 180 and has chosen to be celibate for about two years now to ensure that he will not do such a thing to anyone else again. 

There are actually more traumatic events than that in my life but they hardly pertain to the subject at hand. I am writing an autobiography at the request of a doctor of psychology.

I fear that was a long response, but heck, you asked.

----------


## stlukesguild

I mean no offence to anyone, but every time I've seen or heard this argument (lots of times) it's always people who aren't having sex who expound the joys of not having any.

Sex is one of the greatest pleasures of humankind. There appear to only be a few species which are able to achieve similar joy levels to us from sex, and failing to enjoy that by thinking something can be gained by going without it is just plain silliness, in my opinion.

Damn, those preachers, bible-bangers, Buddhas, Yogis and Imams have something to be proud of - denying ecstasy to billions of people.

And for what point? Even in the extremely unlikely event that there really was some physical benefit from going without, it would have to be something pretty damned amazing to make up for not having any sex.

For once I actually agree wholeheartedly with the Atheist. :Nod:  I somehow doubt that there is little if any evidence of a medical benefit of abstinence from sex. The suggestion of an intellectual or creative worth is completely undermined by the facts. For every single artist or composer or scientist of philosopher that we might call celibate with any degree of certainty, there are dozens if not hundreds or thousands of creative individuals of even greater achievements who were anything but celibate. Among the most obvious (if not to say prolific) we have Picasso, Rodin, Fra Filipo Lippi (surely the "amorous priest" makes for a perfect foil to Fra Angelico, eh?), Gustav Klimt, Baudelaire, Rimbaud, John Donne, Pablo Neruda, D.H. Lawrence, Goethe, Rousseau, Victor Hugo, J.S. Bach, Richard Wagner, Petrarch, Dante, Shakespeare, Raphael, Schubert, Schumann, Napoleon, Thomas Jefferson, Rubens, Titian, etc... etc... If anything, I think the relationship between sex and creativity is closer to that which W.B. Yeats suggested when he declared "Sex and death are the only things that can interest a serious mind." Indeed, sexuality and all the accompanying emotions and experiences seem to be at the core of a vast percentage of all art. If we look to a figure like Michelangelo we find that it is the frustration accompanied by sex (in his case the frustration of his "illicit" desires versus his deeply held religious beliefs) that serve as a source of inspiration. As for the relationship between celibacy and spirituality... I am still somewhat suspect in that I cannot imagine the spiritual separate from the physical and I wonder about the ability of any religious figure to relate or empathize with humanity while rejecting an experience that is so central to our very existence.

----------


## soundofmusic

> As to less sex making it better, I'd disagree with that entirely. Sex isn't golf, but like golf, the more you do it, the better you'll get at doing it, and the more enjoyable it becomes


 :Brow:  All of my male friends have said exactly the same thing!  :Nod:  To this, I will only add: If one frequently sleeps with someone who is merely missionary; they become bored  :As Sleep:  and lack agility (Or perhaps they'll think of old boyfriends). If you always sleep with acrobats  :Banana:  You may fail to appreciate the qualities of a corpulant, sedentary lover  :Angel:  A young lover brings many gifts to the bed  :Santasmile: ; but few to conversation. An older lover takes a while to warm up  :Flare:  (I know many older wives with carpel tunnel syndrome)  :FRlol:  Gentlemen often think that the longer the act of sex lasts, the more satisfied their lovers will be; but this is only true if their lovers are insensitve or have callouses; I would stay away from both  :Goof:  With every lover, we start a clean slate: Some like ice, some ben-gay: :Flare: 
Some like to fight first  :Argue:  Some are sweet and cuddly :Angel:  I've always stayed away from the ones who like it with a friend :Ladysman:

----------


## isidro

stlukesguild, I have heard that argument several times, but I have to put this one to you. You obviously do not adhere to what these preachers and pedagogues are saying, so obviously their moral standards, as they call them, have not been forced upon you. You are very intelligent person it seems, and other intelligent people also have their agency in whether or not they choose to listen to or believe such preachers. If they believe what they hear, and choose to abide by what they hear, then the preacher is not the one doing the denying. The person themselves choose it. In certain societies, yes, social correctness would essentially force a person to behave well (Puritan societies - think the Scarlet Letter) but you and I have the ability to choose whether or not we want to adhere to such teachings. If a person chooses to adhere, there is no one to blame but the person who made the decision and if they are at peace with their decision, then no harm done. It's their choice and they may do what they like with their own body. 

Soundofmusic, I appreciate your commentary, as always. You have a wonderful mind. Here's an idea for ya. Sex isn't about learning from a textbook or porn mag or anything else what to do or how to do it. In its purest form it is about being yourself, wholly and entirely. And if you have that in both parties who needs to practice anything? When you add actual love into the equation (what a crazy concept!) you cherish the other person wholly and completely, and isn't that the best sex anyway? I am not one to tell any poor insecure person not to "practice" or get ideas from magazines, but I can't help feeling that if one patterns their sexual habits out of what they see others do and not how they honestly feel within themselves and out of love for the other person, what's the point? Might as well go do something else that inspires you for an evening.

Just a thought.

----------


## The Atheist

> I was chaste by choice before my marriage anyway actually, though I can certainly see how my comments may have brought you to the idea that I am speaking strictly out of trauma, which to some degree, you may be right. I have no problem with sex within marriage, with one person. Knock yourself out. But some people tend to take it to the opposite extreme with no regard for loyalty or love and as DH Lawrence discusses to be taken with the same kind of importance as one would attribute to a mild mannered conversation between two people. That it certainly is not and I believe that if we valued our own masculinity, femininity, and merit as a human being we would not be so quick to give ourselves away to more than one person, with of course the exception being death or much merited divorce.


For me, the trouble is that if safe sex is practiced, there doesn't really seem to be a valid downside in number of acts or partners. All of the troubles appear to stem from abuse or upbringings which cause sexual repression. Societies with open attitudes to sex appear to be the most well-adjusted ones. We can't say for certain that relationship is causal, but it looks a lot like it.




> And to bring us back to the point, this man began this trip of insanity bit by bit, piece by piece, starting with mild porn and masturbation and over the space of twenty years went down from there.


I just don't see that as typical, and we have pretty strong evidence that the rise of porn has actually led to a reduction in sex crime, so it goes against a wealth of hard data to believe that porn exposure is a gateway to perversion.




> There are actually more traumatic events than that in my life but they hardly pertain to the subject at hand. I am writing an autobiography at the request of a doctor of psychology.
> 
> I fear that was a long response, but heck, you asked.


Thanks.

I'm blown away by it. No doubt you're a survivor, though!




> For once I actually agree wholeheartedly with the Atheist.


Woohoo!

We break new ground every day.

 :Smile: 




> I somehow doubt that there is little if any evidence of a medical benefit of abstinence from sex. The suggestion of an intellectual or creative worth is completely undermined by the facts.


Well said!

(You didn't mention Salvador Dali, but he was a wanker.)




> (I know many older wives with carpel tunnel syndrome)


Brilliant!

----------


## soundofmusic

I remain a great advocate of romantic love; I just haven't found that being with "the love of ones life" or "the lust of ones life" insures an orgasmic relationship. No matter how much some one loves you, the bedroom becomes a "black hole" of memories of bad relationships, religious fanaticism, passive-aggressive behavior, and some people just don't really like sex. I remember, when I was a young girl; my mother constantly warned, "all men want a woman for is one thing" and I often replied, "Show me one". Apparently, while my mother and sister had men who constantly wanted to take them to bed; all of my male friends wanted to take me home to meet their mothers (even my gay male friends).  :Alien:

----------


## Zee.

we're meant to have sex.



denying "nature" because society may think you're a whore is the dumbest thing i've ever heard.


seriously - if you're not get any, you're probably in the top 10% of people trying to reassure themselves that sex isn't beneficial.

----------


## isidro

I do agree with Limajean and always love soundofmusic commentary. LImajean, I have to add, just out of humor really, that I was getting far more sex than I ever wanted and it drove me to celibacy.  :Smile:  That would be a joke.

Thank you, dear Atheist, for the compliment of being a survivor. I try. 

The safe sex versus multiple partners question I would have to say that you are right provided that human beings have no emotions. If we are robots, you are dead on. 

To some people, yes, I am sure the cold wrinkled pages of a Playboy can bring ecstasy and thus less desire for rape. However, being quite well versed in the subject of sex offenders for obvious reasons, there is not a criminal of that line behind bars that didn't start with something smaller. Keep it in line with honestly felt romantic love and there are much fewer obstacles.

----------


## The Atheist

> I do agree with Limajean and always love soundofmusic commentary. LImajean, I have to add, just out of humor really, that I was getting far more sex than I ever wanted and it drove me to celibacy.  That would be a joke.


*^%^###

Words fail me.

I can't describe how humble I feel to even be conversing with someone so amazingly together to be able to make that joke, and I know a few abuse survivors.

I salute you.




> The safe sex versus multiple partners question I would have to say that you are right provided that human beings have no emotions. If we are robots, you are dead on.


I dunno, and I speak as an ex-hedonist of quite major reputation!

Lust is a powerful emotion, and given full rein, can be amazingly satisfying for its own sake.

Eating fillet steak is a good analogy. (this is Orwell's argument, of course.  :Smile:  )

I eat steak for the pure pleasure of eating it. Sex needn't be any different.




> To some people, yes, I am sure the cold wrinkled pages of a Playboy can bring ecstasy and thus less desire for rape. However, being quite well versed in the subject of sex offenders for obvious reasons, there is not a criminal of that line behind bars that didn't start with something smaller. Keep it in line with honestly felt romantic love and there are much fewer obstacles.


I don't doubt you at all, but the porn they sought didn't make them that way.

Most men have seen or view pornographic images, but it doesn't make them want to view ever-more-deviant images. If that were the case, the world would be an entire race of sexual perverts already. Perverts are attracted to print/electronic porn, and the rash of paedophile porn and video/photo sales brought about by the internet is a classic example. The porn is an outlet for paedophiles, but the porn itself doesn't _create_ paedophiles. 

I gather your abuse wasn't as a child, but the premise is the same - the perverts seek out what's available, they aren't created by it. Abuse creates abusers, but porno doesn't appear to.

That presumes that people viewing are of legal age, etc. I believe viewing porno as a kid would be so akin to sexual abuse that that's how I'd refer to it anyway.

----------


## MarkBastable

> To some people, yes, I am sure the cold wrinkled pages of a Playboy can bring ecstasy and thus less desire for rape. However, being quite well versed in the subject of sex offenders for obvious reasons, there is not a criminal of that line behind bars that didn't start with something smaller.


I agree with Atheist. This is a false corollary. Most rapists use porn - but that's because most men use porn. It's not the porn that characterises or creates the rapist.

Similarly, most bank robbers use cars. But that doesn't mean that the using a car tends to make you a bank robber.

Fred West - who abused, murdered and mutilated many children - maintained a considerable collection of videos that contained no porn at all, but was well-stocked with Disney classics. Much as I hate Disney, I don't think it was _Snow White_ that made Fred what he was.

----------


## soundofmusic

Thank you, Atheist, you are always brilliant! Why are you an ex-hedonist? Isn't it sad that we adults have to be plagued with the concept of safe sex? I just can't quite decide where the whole thing ends. Do we wait the 2 or 3 weeks for a golden-haired youth to get tested before engaging in the experience of ecstacy? And just where do we stop with the prophylactics: do we place them on every erect and inverted surface? 
Porn, I don't know, Ted Bundy claimed it turned him into a sex/killer. I tend to agree with MarkBastable; such things only facilitate an already depraved mind. My only difficulty with porn is that it is a bit limited. My neighbor suggested that I "expand my world" by looking at some of his videos; they all had people playing with vegetables (I guess he was a veganophile). I saw some with lone males, they were all starving, or short, or very hairy, sometimes I think their appendages were photoshopped (they didn't quite match the hand/foot ratio). I suppose the only way porn would have assisted my experiences is with someone I didn't want to have sex with; or if I was trying to turn a tickle into an itch.

----------


## isidro

What I mean by that is that it is often a natural tendency that people do not realize they have until it is too late and that they feed it by porn. Personally, I just don't dig the whole porn thing in general, and would rather be single than with a guy who did. It tends to give people unrealistic ideas about what a woman's body should look like. While I am a gym rat and have not much to fear on that account I do realize that it destroys female self esteem. A dear friend of mine was an exotic dancer for several years to support her kids and husband, so again, I am a bit well versed in that. And I see family members starting with porn and going into affairs that destroy their marriages and their children. I suppose that is why I am so dead against it. And for goodness sake, why take the risk of that kind of outcome if you can get a loving relationship?

Yes, I agree, Atheist is quite intelligent. Actually, after being smashed on the freeway one of my favorite jokes when I don't want to do something is "I'd rather be hit by a semi." It's rather hilarious to watch people go pallid at that comment. Ha! 

The accident was Valentines Day 2007 and I was about 24-25 when the abuse was taking place. It had been going on from before but didn't hit seizure until then.

----------


## Pendragon

> Classic, I apologize but I must discontinue the debate. Actually it is debatable, as there are thousands of scientists and others who debate it and the facts. I may have stated some things wrong, termed grey matter when it was another part of the brain and so forth. I am only presenting, inadequately, that other scientists also say that semen is resorbed, etc. This comes from scientists but everything is debatable, as is proven by the fact that they are being debated. If you are interested or if you have time, read some of Bernard's writing which I linked. I am sorry but I am not able to continue the debate with you. I have learned about myself that I find it very unenjoyable, and that trying to establish dominance, really, in any form, is not what I should be doing with my life.


You know, not to be tedious, but you did never answer the rather easy to comprehend questions put to you by Classic. This shows either a "We aren't going to discuss that" attitude, or perhaps guilt is bothering you. 

Mayhap you could at least answer the question put to you so clearly?

----------


## Three Sparrows

What happened to this discussion?!!!!! Its supposed to be thread about the 'Benefits of Celibacy and Chastity' not some chat about body parts and private life. Haven't you people any pride, or at the very least decency? I check out this thread out of curiosity as to what people think on a certain subject, only to find this disgusting conversation going on. If you want to broadcast the condition of your love life, please, please! Don't do it on the Religion section of a literature website! If you are so desperate, talk to your spouse, not the world.
I can't believe this...

----------


## Scheherazade

*From the OP:*


> Have any of you studied about the physiological and other benefits of celibacy and chastity? For me it is also connected with vegetarianism and avoidance of intoxication, which have somewhat similar benefits..


 *Let us return to the discussion of the topic at hand and save the off-topic posts for the Live Chat thread.*

----------


## MANICHAEAN

Damm Right Scheherazade. Lets get this back on track.

In Hermann Hesse's "Demian", Sinclair gets no sexual pleasure as a result of his discipleship with Demian (the barely concealed allusion to the Prince of Cherubim). His abstinence from the pleasures of the flesh. Was this a major factor in his path to perdition?

Contributions from the Lit Net College of Cardinals welcomed!

----------


## isidro

I was attempting to defend chastity here!

----------


## Silas Thorne

Indian wrestlers and some internal Chinese martial artists believe that there are some unique benefits gained by a long period without sex of any kind (which includes masturbation). I think they believe there is some loss of masculine energy, which can be stored up by a long period without it. I remember once reading a book on Indian wrestlers, called 'The Wrestler's Body' way back when about this. 

I don't really believe in this, but anyway, too much of a good thing can be very draining.  :Wink:

----------


## soundofmusic

> Indian wrestlers and some internal Chinese martial artists believe that there are some unique benefits gained by a long period without sex of any kind (which includes masturbation). I think they believe there is some loss of masculine energy, which can be stored up by a long period without it.


It is a common thought that men gain strength by avoiding all sexual stimulation; but, as we all know, nocturnal emissions occur regardless.

----------


## MANICHAEAN

Nocturnal?
In time to the church bells on a Sunday?
On your birthday?
Be careful at your age?
Mind your heart?

Just go for it.
It beats working out in a gym

----------


## soundofmusic

> Nocturnal?
> In time to the church bells on a Sunday?
> On your birthday?
> Be careful at your age?
> Mind your heart?
> 
> Just go for it.
> It beats working out in a gym


 :FRlol:  Absolutely, my friend, man's seed was never meant to be spilled during sleep on the bed sheets. And the act itself awakens the mind, gives one a feeling of well being and is good for the heart! 
I, personally, only enjoy the act with someone whom I am in love and have some chemistry with; but the world would have never been peopled if that were the rule of thumb!

----------


## MANICHAEAN

This whole thing about retaining your bodily fluids reminds me a bit of the American Air Force Commander in Dr Strangelove with Peter Sellers who suspected those Ruskies of interfering with them (the juices), through contaminating the water system. Thus, all things being equal it was justifiable to nuke them!
Any young man with snap in his celery will soon replenish that which is lost (If lost is the right word).

----------


## The Atheist

> What happened to this discussion?!!!!! Its supposed to be thread about the 'Benefits of Celibacy and Chastity' not some chat about body parts and private life. Haven't you people any pride, or at the very least decency? I check out this thread out of curiosity as to what people think on a certain subject, only to find this disgusting conversation going on. If you want to broadcast the condition of your love life, please, please! Don't do it on the Religion section of a literature website! If you are so desperate, talk to your spouse, not the world.
> I can't believe this...


Wow. I trust that was written with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

Given that the thread had pretty much died and was being had a little fun with, the alternative - that you really were offended - is too bizarre to contemplate. This is a discussion forum, not the United Nations General Assembly, and common courtesy would dictate that a simple, "Hey guys, let's get back to the topic" as Scher actually said, would be a hell of lot more sensible than having a fit of rage about a tiny bit of innocent innuendo.

After, it's hard to discuss sex without innuendo; even by keeping to the subject in hand, I've snuck a couple of tiny ones in.

What you have shown is that some people can't see anything to do with sex as other than a dealy serious subject.

I'd rather consider it fun.




> This whole thing about retaining your bodily fluids reminds me a bit of the American Air Force Commander in Dr Strangelove with Peter Sellers who suspected those Ruskies of interfering with them (the juices), through contaminating the water system. Thus, all things being equal it was justifiable to nuke them!
> Any young man with snap in his celery will soon replenish that which is lost (If lost is the right word).


Well, given that the idea is scientifically preposterous, you're right to mention Peter Sellers. I'm pretty sure that all scientific information will merely show that the buildup is removed naturally at night.

Quite how that is supposed to be an improvement on not allowing the emissions to be released during sexual activity remains unknown.

----------


## soundofmusic

> Wow. I trust that was written with tongue firmly planted in cheek.
> 
> Given that the thread had pretty much died and was being had a little fun with, the alternative - that you really were offended - is too bizarre to contemplate. This is a discussion forum, not the United Nations General Assembly, and common courtesy would dictate that a simple, "Hey guys, let's get back to the topic" as Scher actually said, would be a hell of lot more sensible than having a fit of rage about a tiny bit of innocent innuendo.
> 
> After, it's hard to discuss sex without innuendo;


 :Bawling:  You're just always SO RIGHT, Atheist,  :Thumbs Up:  What can I say, We love ya, man  :Bawling: 




> This whole thing about retaining your bodily fluids reminds me a bit of the American Air Force Commander in Dr Strangelove with Peter Sellers who suspected those Ruskies of interfering with them (the juices), through contaminating the water system.


 :FRlol:  I really don't know about our boys in blue; but I've noticed that the fellows that come out of our American prison system look, indeed, in better shape than our Marines; and they've been exposed to tons of "contaminated water"

----------


## isidro

Yes, it is immeasurably difficult to discuss sexual content without innuendos. That, I presume, is why the tenor of the religious thread was geared toward chastity and the benefits thereof. I think it is quite obvious by this digression that chastity allows people also to exercise and practice willpower, thus aiding toward a more classy and intelligent appearance in company. It also frees up the time to pursue other pursuits and thus opens the mind to other things of a nonsexual nature, thus allowing the person to think more logically and reasonably. And surely we have just seen unarguable evidence to that conclusion in this very thread. 

No?

----------


## soundofmusic

:Angel:  So glad to see you back, Isidro.  :Confused:  I'm still confused, though; have I surpassed the "classy ceiling" yet? 
I think it is necessary, when examining the benefits of Chastity and Celibacy; to also examine the benifits of "being fruitful; if for only our pleasure rather than the purpose of multiplying" You may note that when God blessed Solomon, David and Job; he did so by providing them with riches and women. The first thing he did in the garden and on the ark was give everyone a mate; I'm sure it wasn't for intellectual conversation. 
As to the conversation drifting away from Chastity; I believe it took on a new and quite interesting life of it's own. Perhaps, in hind sight, we should have started it as a different thread. We began with the stregnth it gives one to remain chaste; and we progressed to whether the mere proximity to Sodom, makes one evil. I believe that Abraham could have lived within the city of Sodom and remain faithful to his wife and Gods servant. We were also fortunate enough to have the opportunity to help a much loved friend emote; we were glad to do it and it gave us a chance to consider the evils which perhaps we have only seen in the paper or television. 
Sometimes, when examining such intense matters; people must "leave the grave topic and be rowdy for a while" I've seen it often in my work; It is the way we remain mentally balanced.

----------


## Scheherazade

*An interjection:* 


> This is a discussion forum, not the United Nations General Assembly, and common courtesy would dictate that a simple, "Hey guys, let's get back to the topic" as Scher actually said, would be a hell of lot more sensible than having a fit of rage about a tiny bit of innocent innuendo.


*Actually, Three Sparrow's outburst was timely and well-justified because there were too many off-topic, personal posts in the thread at the time - as SoundofMusic herself will also remember, no doubt. 

I had to move some of those posts to the Live Chat thread to put the discussion back on track.

Now, let's carry on with the discussion. 

Further off-topic posts will be removed from the thread.*

----------


## isidro

I well perceive that my dear soundofmusic, though I also suggest we might start a separate discussion about that. Let me know when you post one, since the original thought was about chastity. Let us then begin a separate one and let me know since I don't always check Lit Net as often as I should.

Obviously.

----------


## Three Sparrows

> Wow. I trust that was written with tongue firmly planted in cheek.


Um, no, I was dead serious. And angry. Anyway, I hope the discussion will be revived again; the question is something I find interesting.

Thanks Schehazerade, I think should have waited to post until I wasn't so angry, though. Calm and cool usually is my motto, but I guess this thread just got to me. :Frown:

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

I suppose the reason the thread did in the first place was because the OP was no longer interested in participating. Not only did I offer evidence to counter the theory being presented as the basis for the argument, I asked the OP questions relating to his interpretation of celibacy and chastity which weren't answered. 

If there's actaully anyone around to argue for celibacy, I'll happily take up the argument!

----------


## billl

The thread might be done, but if anybody does want to add something or read through it, it's probably best for them and the website's image that there isn't a half-page or so of what it had eventually become used for (friends joking around, I guess, in a pretty out-of-place manner)--especially at the end of the thread, which it looked like it was maybe gonna be.

----------


## MANICHAEAN

Dans le disco Romeo!

----------


## soundofmusic

:Wave:  Well gentlemen and Ladies; shall we attempt to discuss Celibacy and Chastity; without discussing sex, per se...Let's give it a shot: 

Without sounding biased, I believe that Celibacy and Chastity are particularly well geared toward women. I believe, with women, that sexual intamacy has a great deal to do with the desire to create a desirable home, bear children and feel secure. I meet women every day who are financially secure; yet they feel the need to set up housing with a man
Men, on the other hand, while liking a Chaste woman, Do they like a woman who has never been with a man. Does a man desire a Chaste woman only for his home, to raise his children...Are men comfortable living with a Chaste woman.
We have all heard the attage: A man wants a lady in the kitchen and a ...in the bedroom.

Let us know your thoughts!

----------


## blazeofglory

Celibacy and chastity are more valued in the east but people are mostly hypocrites and they want to prove what they cannot do. These are highly valued human characteristics but people cannot be so strong to be celibate as they have to be as their religions and books of ethics demand of them.

I do not want to argue that celibacy is really a good virtue, and many people become celibates to show off but in reality they are not.

----------


## Psycheinaboat

> Semen consists of almost the exact same chemical constituion as the brain. It is mostly lechitin, and the grey matter in the brain is composed of 20% lechitin.


This thread is fascinating! The above is my favorite quote, though.




> Celibacy and chastity are more valued in the east but people are mostly hypocrites and they want to prove what they cannot do. These are highly valued human characteristics but people cannot be so strong to be celibate as they have to be as their religions and books of ethics demand of them.
> 
> I do not want to argue that celibacy is really a good virtue, and many people become celibates to show off but in reality they are not.


You bring up a good point. Fasting is best done, in my opinion, privately. I believe my Christian religion supports that we are not to be like the hypocrites who pray and fast very publically for man's praise. Celibacy is really just a form of fasting.

----------


## blazeofglory

I have come across packs of Gurus, Pundits, sages who preach and draw attention to the significance of celibacy in life. The innocent and the gullible can be indoctrinated into their ideologies, the ideologies of the ones who preach what they do not keep to in point of fact. I do not really choose to be a celibate and to be so is to go against nature and to go against nature means to be what you are not and to be what you are not is likened to be a hypocrite. You have stomachs; stuff it with foods and water or die; you have sexual glands that secrete hormones that regenerate and the world keeps ongoing or species will be extinct. I agree balance is a better word than celibacy. Only hypocrites argue for it. I apologize if it hurts anyone here. But this is not meant to do so.

----------


## soundofmusic

> I have come across packs of Gurus, Pundits, sages who preach and draw attention to the significance of celibacy in life. The innocent and the gullible can be indoctrinated into their ideologies, the ideologies of the ones who preach what they do not keep to in point of fact. I do not really choose to be a celibate and to be so is to go against nature and to go against nature means to be what you are not and to be what you are not is likened to be a hypocrite. You have stomachs; stuff it with foods and water or die; you have sexual glands that secrete hormones that regenerate and the world keeps ongoing or species will be extinct. I agree balance is a better word than celibacy. Only hypocrites argue for it. I apologize if it hurts anyone here. But this is not meant to do so.


 :Wave:  What do you suppose it means when one only has sex with people they are physically and intellectually attracted to; and that occurs so seldom together; that several years of celibacy may take place in the interim :Idea:

----------


## Rozzy

Celibacy is neither natural nor healthy, it is a form of stasis that is at the root of neurosis in otherwise healthy people. Religion has used it to control people and hit them over the head with the biggy "SIN" and to put people at a psychological disadvantage of shame and not being able to overcome the flesh. This form of stasis is harmful to physical, mental and spiritual health.
Forget the quackery and be normal, sex is quite normal and healthy too!

----------


## blazeofglory

> What do you suppose it means when one only has sex with people they are physically and intellectually attracted to; and that occurs so seldom together; that several years of celibacy may take place in the interim


You failed to comprehend the idea I jotted down. All I meant therein was celibacy is something people or particularly the people of religions advocate but the preacher or the advocate themselves do not go along with their own teachings.

----------


## soundofmusic

> Those who would like to reap the absolute benefits of celibacy should give married life a try!
> 
> I hear it is the sure path to "Celibate Town".


 :FRlol:  Brilliant  :Cool:  I'm afraid you're right; but I took up alot of hobbies like: 
pastries, and midnight crime movies, and chocolate...




> You failed to comprehend the idea I jotted down. All I meant therein was celibacy is something people or particularly the people of religions advocate but the preacher or the advocate themselves do not go along with their own teachings.


Yes, I do see your point and I am afraid I look upon many ideas suspiciously because of the hypocrisy of the advocates. Giving it a second thought, however, who would know the benefits of celibacy better than someone who cannot be celibate?

----------


## glover7

I have to disagree with everything the first post of this thread espouses. I understand that you read this in a book, but the idea is still ridiculous. A lack of orgasm accounts, in the long term, for hormonal imbalance and thus a generally unhealthy physical reaction.

Beyond the physiological response to celibacy, which is negative in case I wasn't explicit, the whole idea that it promotes creativity and intellect...what?? Unless there's some sort of suddenly renowned gauge of creativity that I'm unaware of, I don't think you can say that. And the "case studies" of various celibate thinkers through the ages, I reiterate...what??

My boyfriend is one of the most creative people I know, and we masturbate one to two times daily. Just sayin'. 

With that, I leave you with the perfect emoticon to embody my post: The dancing banana. 

 :Banana:

----------


## The Atheist

> With that, I leave you with the perfect emoticon to embody my post: The dancing banana.


I drop lines and read stuff around a few forums on the internet, and I quite often wonder why I bother, when I see the levels of ignorance, plain stupidity and bloody-mindedness about. (not much of any of that in this forum, fortunately)

Then, every now and then, I find a post which is original, entertaining, honest, and just brilliant from every perspective.

Yours is one of those.

Magnificent.

(and if there were an emoticon which embodied how much I laughed at your last sentence, I'd use it)

----------


## OrphanPip

> I have to disagree with everything the first post of this thread espouses. I understand that you read this in a book, but the idea is still ridiculous. A lack of orgasm accounts, in the long term, for hormonal imbalance and thus a generally unhealthy physical reaction.


Haha, I doubt the validity of this though. Even without sex or masturbation, ejaculation will happen spontaneously eventually (usually during a dream). There are also people with medical conditions that prevent them from ejaculating and they don't become hormonally imbalanced.

----------


## soundofmusic

> I have to disagree with everything the first post of this thread espouses. I understand that you read this in a book, but the idea is still ridiculous. A lack of orgasm accounts, in the long term, for hormonal imbalance and thus a generally unhealthy physical reaction.
> 
> My boyfriend is one of the most creative people I know, and we masturbate one to two times daily. Just sayin'. 
> 
> With that, I leave you with the perfect emoticon to embody my post: The dancing banana.


 :FRlol:  Yes, I agree with Atheist, you have incredible style and wit and leave the stage with a bang  :Wink: 

 :Idea:  Is there really evidence that a hormonal imbalance can be caused by a lack of orgasms :Confused: 

 :Blush:  Intercourse or masturbation do not always insure orgasm; well, at least with a female...This is also true with a man, isn't it :Sick: 

 :Thumbs Up:  Youth is wonderful, isn't it. Two orgasms every day and I would squelch my ability to be creative; I'd be in bed for 24 hours afterwards exhausted with a grin from ear to ear :Tongue:

----------


## glover7

About the evidence of hormonal imbalance thing, I ripped this off of a post in my bodybuilding forum (a place that is very interested in testosterone production for all the expected reasons). Insert [sic] where appropriate:

_After sex/masturbation, there can be a cycle of both lowered and raised testosterone output compared to baseline without sex.
One factor to consider is the effect of ejaculation on the body's call for renewed sperm production. This results in a raise in testosterone.
However, in a period of hours, the testosterone output can actually drop to baseline or even slightly below.

I don't remember the study claiming to have studied this, but the theory is that if one ejaculates every four hours or less, the overall testosterone output will be raised above average for the entire day.
yikes....

There are many other factors in sexual behavior that affect testosterone.

If someone goes several days without ejaculation, overall testosterone levels generally increase, with some emphasis during specific times in the day. The theory I seem to remember for this was the anthropological perspective that a male primate that goes many days without sex needs the test boost to encourage more agressive mating behavior.
If the male does not ejaculate after a built up number of days, the testosterone levels could very likely trigger nocturnal emission (wet dream). This is a normal result of the body needing to cycle sperm through the system in order to function properly. It is the cumulative effect of raised testosterone during REM sleep.

But, don't go thinking that abstinence will raise testosterone either. Overall long term pattern of this behavior may actually lower the baseline production._

While I recognize that this deals only with male physiological response to orgasm, the original post concerns itself primarily with males. Plus, I'm a gay male, and so female exclusion is practically my birthright. That's irony, by the way. Go, reified idea of feminism. You rock.

Oh, and thanks for the props.

----------


## Hurricane

> Haha, I doubt the validity of this though. Even without sex or masturbation, ejaculation will happen spontaneously eventually (usually during a dream). There are also people with medical conditions that prevent them from ejaculating and they don't become hormonally imbalanced.




Sorry, I came across that while doing research today and I had to.

In all seriousness though, is there any hard science going either way? Personally I don't understand why someone would choose to be celibate, but is there any evidence that celibacy is better/worse for you?

----------


## OrphanPip

Frequent ejaculation in your 20s and 30s apparently lowers the probability of getting prostate cancer later in life, but that's the only one I can think of.

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> In all seriousness though, is there any hard science going either way? Personally I don't understand why someone would choose to be celibate, but is there any evidence that celibacy is better/worse for you?


It's not so much evidence that celibacy is bad for your health, but that sex is good for it. Sex is very good for the health of your heart, and releases endorphins (hormones that generally put you in a good mood- the same ones you get from exercise and enjoying food). There have not really been studies on celibacy because there is nothing to study. Celibacy is just a lack of sex, and unlike, for example, a component of our diet, there is no way to measure a state of deficiency because what is lost in sex does not in any way affect one's health (see my earlier responses to the OP) and is quickly regenerated anyway.

----------


## soundofmusic

> About the evidence of hormonal imbalance thing, I ripped this off of a post in my bodybuilding forum (a place that is very interested in testosterone production for all the expected reasons). Insert [sic] where appropriate:
> 
> _After sex/masturbation, there can be a cycle of both lowered and raised testosterone output compared to baseline without sex.
> One factor to consider is the effect of ejaculation on the body's call for renewed sperm production. This results in a raise in testosterone.
> However, in a period of hours, the testosterone output can actually drop to baseline or even slightly below.
> 
> I don't remember the study claiming to have studied this, but the theory is that if one ejaculates every four hours or less, the overall testosterone output will be raised above average for the entire day.
> yikes....
> 
> ...


 :Idea:  Great article and very informative! :Thumbs Up: 
What, do you feel, are the advantages of increased testosterone production?
I believe it does help increase muscle definition and size with body building ; but it also increases acne, skin rashes, and hair loss (from your head, it increases everywhere else). 

 :Wink:  Thank you for answering the questions that were floating in mid-air, unasked, with humor and honesty :Smile:

----------


## The Atheist

> Frequent ejaculation in your 20s and 30s apparently lowers the probability of getting prostate cancer later in life, but that's the only one I can think of.


Not only that, ejaculation relieves [somewhat] the symptoms of hyper-prostatism (benign enlarged prostate), an uncomfortable and annoying chronic complaint in men over 50.

----------


## soundofmusic

> Not only that, ejaculation relieves [somewhat] the symptoms of hyper-prostatism (benign enlarged prostate), an uncomfortable and annoying chronic complaint in men over 50.


 :Eek:  Thank you for your insight Atheist; I had always wondered why the gentlemen didn't just "pack up the magic kit" and retire, watch David Lettermen, when suffering from such chronic problems. 
By the way, are we dicussing ejaculation of a residual? :Confused:

----------


## blazeofglory

So many arguments for and against celibacy and chastity here, but the point under discussion is extremity at both ends in point of fact and all I want to however raise to the attention of all is something different than this one-sided notion of it and all I want to do herein is strike the middle path between these two extremities. For man lives a very imbalanced life compared with his fellow animal beings and sex is not the issue with animals and sex is as important as food and sleep and nothing more and it is seasonal activity for them. Whereas man is too much engrossed in sex things and he kind of gives too much attachment to it and that is why there is so much violence and rape in society. 

Nikolai is right in part and we need to attain a state of celibacy to a certain extent. As a student one has to be celibate and if one is engrossed in sex in his student life he is likely to part with education. 

Sex is a vital force and it can elevate our lives if we use it properly and the western outlook on this is rather abusive and the eastern outlook is balanced.

----------


## isidro

Bravo, Blazeofglory! Excellent!

----------


## soundofmusic

> For man lives a very imbalanced life compared with his fellow animal beings and sex is not the issue with animals and sex is as important as food and sleep and nothing more and it is seasonal activity for them. Whereas man is too much engrossed in sex things and he kind of gives too much attachment to it and that is why there is so much violence and rape in society. 
> 
> Sex is a vital force and it can elevate our lives if we use it properly and the western outlook on this is rather abusive and the eastern outlook is balanced.


Blaze, I always appreciate your very thoughtful and insightful responses. I would, however, like to add my thoughts to your comment. 

People talk a great deal about the nature of animals; yet seldom observe them. Like man, in a balanced environment, where there is plenty of territory for the weak and the strong, there is plenty of food, and a number of healthy females to males; animals expend very little energy with sexual activities. However, when there is limited territory and limited healthy females, the males group together and go after the few healthy females. The stronger will get to the females first, the weaker will take them while they are down. 

I don't agree that the eastern outlook is balanced. If, they give less importance to sexual activity; they only become inbalanced in other areas. 
We cannot look at the history of the East and say they are balanced; if fact, perhaps they would stop the incessant fighting if they had a few more orgasms!

----------


## The Atheist

> Thank you for your insight Atheist; I had always wondered why the gentlemen didn't just "pack up the magic kit" and retire, watch David Lettermen, when suffering from such chronic problems. 
> By the way, are we dicussing ejaculation of a residual?


The funny thing is, it doesn't lessen sex drive (thank god!) and only affects urination, and stopping ejaculations will definitely make it worse. It's about the amount of semen in the prostate itself.

There is a "cure", which is to have an operation which drills a new hole through the urethra.

Quite unpleasant, so I hear.




> So many arguments for and against celibacy and chastity here, but the point under discussion is extremity at both ends in point of fact and all I want to however raise to the attention of all is something different than this one-sided notion of it and all I want to do herein is strike the middle path between these two extremities. For man lives a very imbalanced life compared with his fellow animal beings and sex is not the issue with animals and sex is as important as food and sleep and nothing more and it is seasonal activity for them.


This is completely incorrect.

Animal studies show that most species of higher intelligence have as much, and maybe more, sex than humans. Bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) are highly sexed and indulge in all kinds of heter- and homosexual activity. Dolphins are also highly sexed, but a little harder to study.

The seasonal nature of most animalian sexual activity is more to do with evolutionary advantages due to prevailing seasons and weather than any benefit to the animals.




> Whereas man is too much engrossed in sex things and he kind of gives too much attachment to it and that is why there is so much violence and rape in society.


Unfortunately, the exact opposite is the true picture, as evinced by studies over the past decade which show sexual crimes dropping in conert with the availability of internet porn. 




> Nikolai is right in part and we need to attain a state of celibacy to a certain extent. As a student one has to be celibate and if one is engrossed in sex in his student life he is likely to part with education.


I'd certainly dispute that, although I don't know of any proper studies on the subject. Most under-graduates act like rabbits, yet most of 'em pass.




> Sex is a vital force and it can elevate our lives if we use it properly and the western outlook on this is rather abusive and the eastern outlook is balanced.


I'm not even sure what you mean here, because not all eastern people treat celibacy as ideal and nowhere near all westerners are sex addicts.

----------


## soundofmusic

To add your views to this discussion, please visit us in: "Celibacy: Pros and Cons" on the general chat line. Thank You.

----------

