Enlightenment and the Erotic

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma5/sex.html

http://www.buddhanet.net/winton_s.htm

http://www.shambhalasun.com/sunspace/?p=9070

http://www.netplaces.com/buddhism/life-and-death-and-other-practical-matters/buddhism-and-sex.htm

Something I rarely talk about except specifically in relation to GLBT issues is the subject of sexuality overall and the ethical precepts people hold about it. Premarital sex is seen by many Christians as immoral, or at least taboo. Sex outside of marriage at all, even consensual, is evil, or at least wrong, for the same reason that Christians believe adultery is evil, since marriage is fundamentally believed to be the only good way to pair people off on an intimate level. Of course you also have the technicality in the Bible that, unless your partner dies or is unfaithful, you are not permitted to divorce them and remarry, since that’s cheating on them in God’s eyes. Homosexuality has been discussed many times in this blog and only a minority of Christians sees it as equal in the possibility of both good and bad use between consenting or non consenting adults. And then there’s masturbation, which is only confronted in the Bible in a nominal sense with the story of Onan, but is argued to be immoral because of the self stimulating and egocentric nature of the act instead of the unitive practice of sex between two consenting partners. Buddhism, on the other hand, has some agreement, but mostly dissonance, with Christian strictness on sexual ethics. This is not to say it condones rape, adultery, or any exploitation of humans as a means for sexual pleasure. Those would definitely be condemned for almost the same reasons: they violate another human being’s innate rights as a free agent. But homosexuality, premarital sex, masturbation and sexual desire are all seen in a different light from a Buddhist and nontheistic perspective by association. I won’t even get into the issues of gender in Buddhism, though I want to talk about it in the future, since Buddhism is often painted as very egalitarian, but is a bit ambivalent according to various texts in terms of that broad claim. Sex in Buddhism is the focus here, not gender.

Unlike Christianity, there are not commandments about sex so much as principles. Since there is not a creator in Buddhist cosmology, there is not a divine mandate about how sex should be handled. This is not to say there are not limits upon sexual behavior, but they are more implicit than explicit in that they fall under more general ethical restrictions on behavior. In Buddhism, you are expected to not be coercive, deceptive or abusive towards yourself or other human beings, and this could extend to sentient beings as well, since they feel pain in some sense as well. Sex is a mutually reciprocating act in many cases, excluding masturbation, which does not mean it is automatically deviant. Any sort of act involving sexual desire is not viewed as bad in and of itself, but instead is judged so based on the intent of the person performing the act. If I decide to have an open relationship with my future wife, we would have certain boundaries about our sexual liaisons. We use protection, we don’t coerce people into sex, and we certainly don’t rape people or have sex with people who are already involved in a monogamous relationship. And monogamous relationships are a good thing because of the similar virtue involved in all romantic pairings: fidelity. You are devoted to this person and will not betray their trust because you made a promise and commitment to that person; God isn’t necessary to make the partnership binding on both parties. And this extends to both homosexual and heterosexual couplings for reasons I’ll discuss shortly. In short, the act of sex and even desire for sex are not evil things in themselves at all. But there are differences in how we control our behavior depending on context and our own individual characters. If you are able to restrain yourself easier, then there is not so much of a bad thing in having a polyamorous sex life where you have multiple partners with no strings attached. You understand that you should not be attached to sex as an end in itself or a means to any greater end beyond pleasure unless you are willing to settle down and commit to a monogamous relationship or an open relationship with basic limits on your sexual life. Promiscuity and lust are not strictly evil, but they do tend towards excess, so there is advice in Buddhist texts to avoid such things as prostitutes or overly sexualized contexts. This is not to say laypeople cannot engage in such things as prostitutes or strip clubs, but they are expected to be responsible and prudent in their participation. I’ve brought up the Japanese monk Ikkyu Soujun before and he has a saying, “Those who keep the precepts become donkeys, those who break them become human,” Ikkyu was notorious for keeping company with ladies of the evening and wrote haiku that had very sexualized content about the male and female genitals and how they could lead one to enlightenment. It’s a paradoxical statement to claim that in embracing sex you can abandon it and no longer need it, but think of it like smoking. If you expose someone to a lot of negative reinforcement for smoking, like smoking a whole pack of cigarettes and getting horribly sick, then they will not want to smoke ever again because of the aversion they would feel at the resurfacing memories of that bad experience. Understanding the fleeting nature of sexual pleasure by directly experiencing it is the best way to start towards moderation of sexual behavior or in some people’s cases, retain their celibacy as is done in Buddhist monasteries as much as Christian ones. Sex is to be embraced, but not clung to.

There are various issues we could discuss about sexual ethics, but the most common ones include premarital sex and masturbation in terms of improper sexual acts and homosexuality as disordered sexual acts. The first two are bad for slightly different reasons than the third. Homosexuality is similar to premarital sex in the condemnation, since it is said to disrespect the marriage covenant more in not being able to bring forth children. Premarital sex is jumping the gun on marriage, homosexuality is spitting in its face, if we were to suggest a comparison and contrast. Masturbation is self directed and is considered dangerous to the development of intimacy between a couple. But Buddhists see all this in a different light and wouldn’t outright condone premarital sex, masturbation or homosexuality in all contexts, since they are not all the same.

Homosexuality has been condemned by Buddhists in particular contexts, including the Dalai Lama in certain interviews. But fundamentally, to say Buddhism believes homosexuality is disordered is missing the point of what the precept against sexual misconduct implies. It doesn’t explicitly list what acts are considered misconduct, but leaves this to discretion based on Buddhist ethics as a whole, which considers the individual as a free agent who is able to make choices with the knowledge of their karmic gravity upon themselves or others. Homosexuality as practiced in prison rape or irresponsible promiscuity are bad because they either violate a person’s consent or they risk invading into a person’s private life as they might be committed to someone else. But there are plenty of committed homosexual couples that show the value of fidelity in a romantic relationship is not something exclusive to heterosexual couples. This value of trust between two people that love each other is far more important than whether they can bring forth children or are considered normal in the eyes of a commonly heterosexual society.

Premarital sex has a similar sort of flavor that we can approach it with. Some premarital sex is bad because it is done without consideration of the risks involved, such as pregnancies that you are not able to confront as a responsible adult and future parent or STDs that are just as preventable. If you are not ready for such a result or do not wish to contract dangerous illnesses like AIDS, then using protection is a prudent practice for couples cohabitating. Marriage itself is technically a social institution, but one does not need to be married legally to act as if one is already married to the person. Making the commitment to each other in public is certainly a reflection of a communal relationship of the couple to the community as a whole, but if the couple merely makes those vows without getting a marriage license, why are they suddenly less married? I suppose there are Christians who have similar sorts of views, saying that making the commitment before God is more important than being legally bound together by civil magistrates, but if the couple behaves in such a way without even making much more than a basic announcement to friends and family that they are in a committed relationship, why should we see their eventual sexual consummation as less significant or even wrong if they behave responsibly?

Masturbation is probably the most contentious in a sense, since it is the most personal of these issues next to homosexuality. One’s personal self stimulation is not necessarily by any means wrong or misguided sexually speaking. Is it not natural to explore what makes us feel good? The difference between a hobby of reading comics and self pleasuring is that the addiction to one can be more damaging than the other. When one mindfully considers what pleasure masturbation gives one and some benefits that may result from it, such as stress relief in part and lower blood pressure by association, then the most basic boundary one can place upon oneself is self discipline about how much one does it. Excess or deficit can be damaging, but the simple act of self pleasuring oneself is not evil unless you exclude the future possibility and enjoyment of sharing the pleasure with another in an intimate partnership. In that case, it falls under the same issues of attachment to sex that I spoke about at the beginning of the article. Sex itself is not evil or wrong, it is misuse or misguided ideas about sexual behavior that are damaging.

I can’t say this article is representative of all Buddhists, especially with my secular background and general approach to Gautama’s teachings of skepticism, ethics and psychology, among other things. But even the Dalai Lama has said things to this effect, at least concerning homosexuality. The value of marriage in Buddhism may exist, but not to the exclusion of otherwise faithful relationships that don’t meet the strict requirements of marriage even by Asian standards of which I am not aware of. Sex is something we should appreciate, but neither be attached to nor take for granted as something that will always exist in a limited bubble of what we’re comfortable with. I might be more comfortable with much of this than my parents are, especially gay marriage. Interracial marriage was one hurdle, next will be this. This is not to say there aren’t instances where there is sexual behavior both Buddhists and Christians would find horrific. Rape in particular is where much agreement would exist, as well as adultery: having sex with someone who is already involved with someone else in a monogamous relationship. But since Buddhist sexual ethics are more focused on intent and the virtues of love that are connected with sex instead of the institution of marriage and childrearing as absolutely intertwined with it, there is more permissibility of things that are considered taboo or immoral to many others. But inclusiveness does not imply looseness of morality. It means flexibility with some rigidity of discipline without becoming overbearing. Sex should be a disciplined approach in some sense, but should also be open to consensual love between parties that we would otherwise not acknowledge. And even self love can be a precursor to love of others. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

Deepening Divorce In The Deep South

http://www.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/08/25/divorce.bible.belt/index.html

http://pewsocialtrends.org/2009/10/15/marriages-and-divorce-a-50-state-tour/

You hear about divorces on occasion in any area of the country, but a new study by the U.S. Census Bureau suggests that the South may have a higher rate of divorces than many other areas, especially the Northeast. A few factors seem to be strong indicators of why this is the case. The first is the predominance of fundamentalist or conservative Christian values concerning premarital sex. The other is minimal or lacking education on dating and sex.

In terms of people’s disapproval towards premarital sex, the South is notorious. I myself can vouch for this position that you should abstain until you get married, since we had the “True Love Waits” group featured at the church I went to up until college. I don’t think we had people come to our school, but there were instances of teenage pregnancy, which was excused on the grounds that the students were either taking responsibility or giving the child up for adoption. This idea of social conformity is a subset of the moralistic pressure from Christian parents and community members. I chose not to have sex before a certain point, but I don’t think I ever completely bought into the notion that you should wait until you’re married to have sex. Even back then I was thinking, “What if the two people are responsible and willing to take whatever the results of their intercourse may be? If they’re willing to raise the child and get married eventually, isn’t it still better for the child?” Part of the problem with this line of thought, though, is thinking that marriage will somehow make you happy over the period of time you’re married. People rush into marriage because of unexpected pregnancies; the so called “shotgun weddings” stereotyped in the South so much. Virginity is valued in the South only to the extent that you’re already put into some clique. If you happen to lose your virginity, it’s almost just not talked about unless the intercourse leads to pregnancy, in which case, fervent pro lifers will push the child into marriage or adoption without letting them even contemplate other options. The pressuring into marriage seems self destructive, especially if the parents presume that just because you have sex with someone that you also must love them enough to marry them. It seems like the focus is more on keeping up appearances and not looking as if your child is flawed in any sense. But children make mistakes and just because they own up to them doesn’t mean they need to feel like they must get married or their child won’t be worth as much as a child born in wedlock. People spread that kind of garbage of a bastard child being somehow cursed or otherwise some sort of trouble to the parent. A child of rape is one thing, but a child of consensual sex that resulted in an unexpected pregnancy is hardly on the same level and any person who says otherwise is missing the forest for the trees big time. Marriage shouldn’t be about social propriety, it should be about mutual love and respect between two people, regardless of if the parents approve of the person in question or not. As long as the couple is happy, shouldn’t you give them your blessing?

Education is a more contentious subject, since one can bring up plenty of decent people that didn’t get beyond high school education, for instance. But education doesn’t always have to be limited to academics. Just having basic education about how you should date and choose your future partner is something that is, again, on the parent’s shoulders to an extent they commonly want to defer to the child or other sources. I can understand if you want your child to learn things the hard way, but if you’re morally opposed to divorce, it’s obligatory that you educate your children as parents do within particular contexts. In being a parent, educating your child at an appropriate age about dating and how they should approach it, is key if you want some modicum of security with your future in-laws and grandchildren. Dating a few different people, perhaps even cohabitating when you are old enough; these are things that can solidify your standards for what you look for in a mate. If you just marry the first person you’re infatuated with, 9 times out of 10 you’ll be miserable after 5 years or so.

Sex education is pertinent here as well, since parents who leave it up to the school to educate children about things of that nature entirely will be sorely disappointed as well, since teenagers are rarely so self controlled or disciplined that, when left to their own devices, they will behave with restraint in the area of sex (especially with hormones at their highest levels, practically). Many in the South tend to view sex-ed as either just right in the basic idea of “scaring” kids into abstinence with threats of STDs and pregnancy (through the use of simulation dolls to demonstrate childcare) or too excessive in teaching kids about the use of protection. I wasn’t taught that myself, so in that sense I found my sex education lacking. The tendency appears to be either kids getting married early, not knowing better about dating options or discernment of a partner in order to have sex without condemnation or they have sex prior to marriage and are forced into it afterwards due to accidental pregnancy. It boils down to both a lack of education and, too often, a willingness to cow to one’s community instead of making your own decisions.

Both of these problems could be solved by education of one form or another. Educating children about being individuals, but also part of the human community would be one thing. I’m not suggesting we tell kids to always rebel against their parents, even though they’ll probably do it anyway. It’s just that kids shouldn’t be told they have to conform and maintain some status quo to keep their parents’ reputation or even their community’s in good standing. If they make a mistake, they should take responsibility for it, but how they do it should not be stratified into the best choice and then every other choice being selfish or immoral. Teens and young adults should also be advised strongly about dating and how it should progress into marriage. There shouldn’t be this desire to marry the first person you feel like you’re in love with, not only because that’s commonly infatuation and not genuine affection, but that in youth you are more prone to impulsive and emotion based decisions, not thinking ahead at all. This may be the strongest factor in the South with people marrying earlier and thinking they can handle it and either getting incredibly lucky with their first choice or suffering after a decade and eventually crumbling to the choice of divorce because they’ve grown apart from their spouse. The worst part is that children are often involved, so the separation can affect them in one way or another. And proper sex education is a solution to the issues of pregnancy leading to shotgun weddings due to suggesting children born out of wedlock are worth less and premarital sex as a social taboo that negatively reinforces the idea that you cannot ever have sex before you’re married. If children learned both how to have safe sex and also be responsible in general with their sexual behavior, the problems wouldn’t occur nearly as much. I’m not saying they’d disappear, but with education, there could be a conceivably higher incidence of marriages lasting instead of breaking apart after hasty decisions. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.