Pre marital Sex - Why or Why not?

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by aaqucnaona, Dec 24, 2011.

?

Read OP first! Pre-Marital Sex, yes or no? [Explain Below]

  1. Yes

    72.2%
  2. No

    27.8%
  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,646
    Superior to who? You? Me? A woman for whom sex is painful, and who has serious emotional problems, may be better off pursuing other things to make her happy. A couple who enjoys sex and finds it brings them closer together might choose sex over many other things.

    So which stance is the superior one? The one that says "do what makes you happy."
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    No.
    The one that says "Do that which makes you and others happy in the long run."
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,646
    Agreed! And for some people, that means having sex for pleasure.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Still doesn't mean that they are the most advanced that a human can be.

    :shrug:
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,646
    Agreed. You can be having sex for pleasure - or you can be celibate - and in either case not be as "advanced as a human can be."
     
  9. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Sure.
     
  10. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,256
    "Superior" is a value judgment, not a factual observation.

    Again - books that were written a long time ago do not and could not be specific about technology that had not yet been created at the time they were written.

    The Kama Sutra was written before Sid was even born. R.A.A.
     
  11. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    And dependent co-arising isn't today what it was back then, eh?
     
  12. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,256
    :shrug: Could you be a bit more straightforward in your question?
     
  13. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Thank you, your reply is straightforward enough.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    But just out of curiosity: Do you really believe that if at the time of the Buddha the kind of contraceptive methods would be available as they are nowadays in the West, the Buddha (and possibly other teachers of that time) would have taught differently, and wouldn't teach that refraining from all sexual activity as one of the prerequisites for spiritual advancement?
     
  14. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,256
    While some believe the Buddha taught that kind of self denial, he did not. You appear to desire to complicate something that is simple, why is that?

    Buddhism is about being here, now, in the moment. It is not about becoming perfect, it is about knowing and accepting yourself. Meditation is simply sitting, breathing, being where you are at the time you are there.

    Attachment to the past, the future, or idly speculating about what someone who has been dead for thousands of years may or may not have thought about things in the here and now is too abstract and esoteric to be of value to us now.
     

Share This Page