Desireless Sex

[Netti-Netti]

Well, if you really examine it, the craving of power for the sake of power is not really conducive to freedom.

Archetypes and their influences can be seen in both the conscious light and in a Shadow form. The craving for power that takes the form of submission or turning power over to a dominant authority figure may actually be a attempt to to establish order. In other words, it would be a Shadow substitute for personal competence and self control. It can also be a Shadow substitute for personal authority.

Strivings for power may actually be unconscious Shadow strivings for competence and authority. In women this can sometimes take the form of trying to be desirable to a dominant male, but this is too risky. Even if it achieves a seemingly skillful result (i.e., a working practical arrangement), bargaining with patriarchy can mean the woman will sacrifice her own unique powers because the woman's position is essentially one of dependence. Consider the trophy wife to dominant male. She has no real power of her own and only gets to borrow a bit of legitimacy from her partner. But it's not true self-empowerment and it invariably tends to diminish the woman's freedom because it short-circuits freedom and actually destroys possibilities for real growth and progress.

When a woman identifies blindly with animus imagery of male power and authority, she may take on various features from that imagery without realizing how damaging this is to her self interest. We see that in the Koesterer/Hoffman study (see post #57), which showed that authoritarian women are likely to align themselves with a sexist world view that has no respect for women. This lack of self respect can't be natural. It would have to be a dystonic cultural image. At any rate, people who don't love themselves are not good to to themselves, which means they won't take steps to realize their potential and continue to collaborate with negative forces. See the Beggar archetype or the Victim.

Jung's model would probably attribute this to the Shadow of one or both individuals involved.

Conflicted relationships may reflect unresolved inner conflicts or developmental lags that are being projected and/or externalized. Some of these issues may actually be parents' incomplete developmental challenges that children take upon themselves and continue to work out behalf of their parents. Relationship problems might very well go away when one of both of the partners become more individuated.

Example: a man or a woman who is in touch with their own core of personal authority won't feel a need to assert authority by trying to control the spouse. To try to control other people is a Shadow version of actually taking control of one's own life and exercising creative autonomy.

 

[Vajradhara]

What is right sex?

Chris

Namaste Chris,

thank you for the OP.

within the traditional context of the Buddha Dharma this question has a different answer depending if a being is a monastic or a layperson. for the monastic the traditional rule is celebacy, no sex of any sort (leaving aside Tantric praxis for the nonce).

within the context of the laity "right sex" is sex that isn't sexual misconduct. sexual misconduct is pretty much right in line with what we moderns would call criminal; rape, sexual assault, bigamy, sex with underaged people and so forth.

recall.. desire isn't a problem.. it would be very difficult to be a Buddhist with desire on some levels the particular problem is Tanha, Craving. when our desires take on the aspect of obsessions which dominate our mindstream then we've got a problem... desire for ones spouse isn't a problem

metta,

~v

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste The Dude,

thank you for the post and welcome to the Buddhist forum.

For some strange reason. I don't believe you. LOL.

But if you are sincere and you want to take Buddhist approach to sex try tantric sex and loose yourself and all your "programming" in the act itself.

whilst that may well be a course of action for a being already engaged in esoteric aspects of Buddhist praxis it would not, in my view, be advisable to mimic the physical parts without the accompanying mental praxis. every single Tantric text that i have read has expressed this very point and it is one of the reasons why tantric praxis in general is couched in twilight language and taught directly to the student from the teacher.

metta,

~v

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

somewhat an aside to the discussion but Jung is wrong regarding archetypes however it really isn't his fault, per se. he had a corrupted translation of The Secret of the Golden Flower which led to his erroneous conclusions. whilst some degree of respect must be given to Willhelm, the translator of the Secret of The Golden Flower which Jung used, it is unfortunate that Jung was not able to read an accurate translation as we'll never know how his ideas would have changed.

interestingly enough, due his faulty translation, he came to the conclusion that the writers of the Secret of the Golden Flower and thus the society to which it was addressed, didn't know about archetypes and such perhaps that is nothing more than Western hubris but it does show the level to which his misunderstanding manifested.

metta,

~v

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Namaste Chris,

thank you for the OP.

within the traditional context of the Buddha Dharma this question has a different answer depending if a being is a monastic or a layperson. for the monastic the traditional rule is celebacy, no sex of any sort (leaving aside Tantric praxis for the nonce).

within the context of the laity "right sex" is sex that isn't sexual misconduct. sexual misconduct is pretty much right in line with what we moderns would call criminal; rape, sexual assault, bigamy, sex with underaged people and so forth.

recall.. desire isn't a problem.. it would be very difficult to be a Buddhist with desire on some levels the particular problem is Tanha, Craving. when our desires take on the aspect of obsessions which dominate our mindstream then we've got a problem... desire for ones spouse isn't a problem

metta,

~v

Thanks for this Vaj. I'll try to reply later.

Chris

 

[Netti-Netti]

the particular problem is Tanha, Craving. when our desires take on the aspect of obsessions which dominate our mindstream then we've got a problem... desire for ones spouse isn't a problem

Greetings Vaj,

It seems you are suggesting that desire for one's spouse can't become an obsession. If so, I would disagree. It seems to me that any attachment can become afflicted.

Consider someone who stalks his wife or kills her out of violent jealousy because he can't stand the idea of her being in a relationship with another man. O.J. Simpson/Nicole Brown??

What about sexual abuse within the marriage?

 

[Netti-Netti]

Hello again Vaj,

Jung is wrong regarding archetypes however it really isn't his fault, per se. he had a corrupted translation of The Secret of the Golden Flower which led to his erroneous conclusions.

In what way was he wrong?

The Collective Unconscious, which contains various archetypes, is central to Jung's theories. It seems Jung was already evolving ideas on it by the time he went on his "Psychological Expedition"/Safari to Africa in 1925. This was several years before he was introduced to Taoism ( by Richard Wilhelm).

How would his theory have been revised by exposure to Taoism if he felt it didn't add much to an understanding of archetypes?

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste netti-netti,

thank you for the post.

Greetings Vaj,

It seems you are suggesting that desire for one's spouse can't become an obsession. If so, I would disagree. It seems to me that any attachment can become afflicted.

i apologize for being unclear, i was not suggesting such. desire is not tanha though that does not mean that it cannot become so.

What about sexual abuse within the marriage?

what about it? are you meaning to ask if sexual abuse within a marriage would be an example of sexual misconduct? if so, the answer is yes though such abuse is sexual misconduct irrespective of the marriage status of the beings under consideration.

metta,

~v

 

[~estrella~]

Men supposedly become more relationship oriented as they get older. The reverse development obtains for women. Women first have an anima career (marriage and children), then switch gears and try to develop a tougher aspect in the second half of life, like working as a chimney sweep, being a bossy manager, or they go into politics.

Are these statistics? Well, there is no meaning in statistics.

I had been reading through this whole thread - I know it is dated, but there is something which sounds off the target in that thread - it seems to mix up relationship and sex? There are relationships (friendships) and there is sex; sex is a somewhat non-important addition... it seems in our society (society on earth) it is *always* connected to "roles" because of procreation... the "roles" are necessary in order to provide a healthy family to children.
Sex is only about physical emotions + physical sensations; if one does not really identify with the body, and realize that anyone of the same sex has similar physical emotions in this context, then it has really nothing more important than other physical pleasures (as one pointed out here).

A deep relationship/friendship has nothing to do with that. Whatever gender two friends have, has no importance then. And they need not share these kinds of physical sensations, as these are not particular to these two individuals.

Desireless sex may then be likened to other physical "needs" being met as the simple fact of eating without attachment to the aliments one is eating (even while one may like them and find pleasure in eating!)... sorry I know this sounds perverse for some. And it is not meant to liken the aliments to the partner, it is only about likening the one action to the other!!!

 

[Francis king]

"Right Sex" in a buddhist sense, I think, would be...

sex that you participate in which does not contravene buddhist ethics...

so, the sex you have should be-

something that you want,
something the others involved in want,
something which is not based on lies, or deception,
something which does not involve cohersion, or slaves,
something which does not harm you or another,
something which does does not involve those unable to consent or those unable to offer informed consent...

beyond that, there are no real "buddhist layperson" rules about what sex should be or what form it should take...

and if there is... then it's rubbish...

 

[Netti-Netti]

There are relationships (friendships) and there is sex; sex is a somewhat non-important addition...

I think it would depend on the person's values. For some, friendship might be a somewhat non-important addition to a sexual relationship.

Good distinctions but somewhat artitificial. In real life, people generally prefer to have sex with a partner they like/love - but obviously there are exceptions. Anyway, it's not at all uncommon for the sexual partner to be a best friend, and this is true in homosexual and hetero populations.

It appears that people are motivated to seek sexual relationships in part because they are associated with psychological intimacy. This juxtaposition of values might explain misguided attempts to deal with emotional loneliness through sexual relationships that end up creating bonds where there should be none.

People end up looking for love in the wrong places because they are misreading their emotions and motivations, which can get fairly complex. For example, an attraction to power may be misunderstood as a desire for psychological intimacy or may be experienced as emotional loneliness.

it seems in our society (society on earth) it is *always* connected to "roles" because of procreation... the "roles" are necessary in order to provide a healthy family to children.

I'd add that social complexity is a natural expression and not purely social/cultural construction. My impression was that animals have families too. At least the ones I've met in the wild did.

 

[~estrella~]

Good distinctions but somewhat artitificial. In real life, people generally prefer to have sex with a partner they like/love - but obviously there are exceptions.

I did not want to say that sex can "exist on its own".

Anyway, it's not at all uncommon for the sexual partner to be a best friend, and this is true in homosexual and hetero populations.

also I did not really speak about homosexual partners! Rather I wanted to state that real, deep friendships of partners of different genders would not always need sex in addition.

I'd add that social complexity is a natural expression and not purely social/cultural construction. My impression was that animals have families too. At least the ones I've met in the wild did.

yes, so one could add it is necessary in this manifestation.
I agree with all what you write but wanted to clear up what I wrote.

 

[greymare]

ok, just my take on things........
and this is just my opinion, ok
you (I) cant have sex unless there is desire.
at least some kind of desire, i would imagine? (criminal minds excluded)
men should be men and women should be women .
the male role shouldnt be pulled apart and dissected nor should the female role.
If you are in a relationship and there are times when one or the other needs assistance, well, thats what you are there for.....
If it feels like work to make a relatinship work..... something is wrong

"I dont mind living in a mans world, as long as i can be a woman in it.."
(someone famous said that once.)
like i said, that is my opinion.

 

[DrumR]

ok, just my take on things........
and this is just my opinion, ok

It is more than OK to have your own opinion, greymare.

Here I present my nasty thoughts that utilize your expressed opinions as an overlay or as a series of base points. Please do not consider this as a critique, greymare, rather look upon this exersize as an expose where your opinions and mine converge and diverge.

you (I) cant have sex unless there is desire.

Copulation, of some form, is one of the requirements for the propagation/preservation of poly-sexual species.
I define 'Sexual desire(s)' as those extra-social overlays that exceed the primary goals of nature.

men should be men and women should be women.
the male role shouldnt be pulled apart and dissected nor should the female role.

Males are males and females are females, few exceptions exist.
Those examinations of the individual/social roles/attributes needs to be applied to both sexes equally to reduce 'Heisenberg uncertainties' from skewing the results. .

If you are in a relationship and there are times when one or the other needs assistance, well, thats what you are there for.....
If it feels like work to make a relatinship work..... something is wrong

Assumption/presumptions need to be clearly stated for, otherwise, this lack of clarity may lead to error.
Example: A defender may require assistance from the defendant(s) to enhance the defender's chances of survival while preservation of the species may require otherwise.

Extra-natural sexual copulation/foreplay (Def: copulation beyond that required for the propagation/survival of the species) may be seen as a social bargaining chip, interesting examinations may proceed from this point.

"I dont mind living in a mans world, as long as i can be a woman in it.."

Subtracting 'sexual attributes' from both sides of the comma of the above social statement would then yield???

 

[Netti-Netti]

real, deep friendships of partners of different genders would not always need sex in addition.

In a sense, a sexual aspect makes a unique relationship more universal and somehow less interesting.

One of the reasons given for failed marriages is that the partners wear each other out by expecting the other person to be everything. Maybe a friend who is not also a lover is less of a strain.....

 

[Francis king]

sex is very rarely about desire, though... sex is often about other things- power, conformity, acquisition, deception...

sex is often desireless, not even about lust, something supposedly base, spoken of more nicely and called "attraction". Yet at least lust is honest. Sex is often something else- glue that holds the relationships together, or some bargaining chip, or something you do when you're bored watching TV, or some friday night ritual which you perform half-heartedly because you believe this is what people do on a Friday, and you're somehow abnormal if you're not doing it once a week...

perhaps prostitutes have desireless sex?

if they do, is this desireless sex a good thing?

For most people, sex, or more rightly, orgasm, is the nearest the majority get to real bliss, the closest most mortals will get to heaven without mental trickery or illicit substances... this is the best they will feel... ever...

you can, should you choose, "convert" this sensation into something "holy", but this is a kind of self-deception.

...I feel we all have a warped view of what sex is about and what form it should take... ultimately, it is about sensation and procreation. You have sex because you want to make humans or you have sex because it feels good and you want to do it and the people you do it with want that too. If you're having sex for some other reason then you're having sex you shouldn't be having.

There isn't one way to do it- the kama sutra, the perfumed garden, both list thousands of positions... there are no real rules- apart from a basic respect for the other. We can pretend it's holy magic if we like, and we can limit the field by imposing restrictions on other people's sexual practises, but to suggest that sex, for an average normal everyday person is somehow something wrong is I believe, sinful.

tantra isn't about sex- although Sting the popstar has written a few books about it. Tantra is a more subtle mental process, and I think that people misunderstand it.

tantra is supposedly something you do when you can manipulate your own inner winds at will and channel this energy into the visualisations, not before. It's got nothing to do with sex.

I personally think sex isn't just some "role-playing" game, and can be enjoyed simply for itself, so long as a person stays ethical while doing so, a person can have as much or as little sex as they like so long as everyone is honest and upfront about it.

To think anything else is foolish, I feel. To see sex as more than a good sensation or a way to further the species is overlaying something primitive and fundamentally joyous with the supposedly enlightened deceptions of a twisted morality.

 

[seattlegal]

perhaps prostitutes have desireless sex?

if they do, is this desireless sex a good thing?

Dang! That's good for some rep points!
(But I can't rep you right now--I'm done repped out! )

 

[citizenzen]

I try to engage in desireless sex.

I never... okay, rarely ask my wife to make love to me.

I wait for her to initiate it, and it's always interesting to see the subtle signs that indicate she'd like some romance.

We are very affectionate everyday in small ways: plenty of kisses, hugs, and "I love you", but I'm never grabby, leering or demanding.

Over 15 years together and we are still very much in love and when we do make love it is exciting, tender, adventurous and beautiful.

It kills me when I read a Dear Abbie and somebody complains because their husband demands sex every day or leers at every woman who passes by.

Sex is a beautiful moment of sharing oneself completely. It's a wasteful shame to turn it into a routine.

 

[Quahom1]

I try to engage in desireless sex.

I never... okay, rarely ask my wife to make love to me.

I wait for her to initiate it, and it's always interesting to see the subtle signs that indicate she'd like some romance.

We are very affectionate everyday in small ways: plenty of kisses, hugs, and "I love you", but I'm never grabby, leering or demanding.

Over 15 years together and we are still very much in love and when we do make love it is exciting, tender, adventurous and beautiful.

It kills me when I read a Dear Abbie and somebody complains because their husband demands sex every day or leers at every woman who passes by.

Sex is a beautiful moment of sharing oneself completely. It's a wasteful shame to turn it into a routine.

You have got to be kidding me?!!!

I say, "Baby, I need some loving". I don't mince words. And when she say's "Baby I need some loving", I don't deny her a damn thing.

What we forget, is that when we marry, we give our bodies to our spouse...

that means we are to take care of ourselves (for them at least), and we are to be ready for them (oh s h i t, that means we have to communicate with them at all times and at all levels). OMG! LOL.

If I were you, I'd ask for more, much more intimacey...you might be surprised at the response.

But be prepared to give her what she desires, in return...that is the key...

It works beyond your wildest dreams.

failure to do so, can cost you big time...

v/r

Q

 

[citizenzen]

If I were you, I'd ask for more, much more intimacey...you might be surprised at the response.

But be prepared to give her what she desires, in return...that is the key...

It works beyond your wildest dreams.

failure to do so, can cost you big time...

Thanks for advice. But my wildest dreams are already being fulfilled.