Conference hydra::dejavu

    All bodily functions that are necessary for you to survive tend to be
    pleasurable. Eating when you are hungry, voiding your bowels or bladder
    when you are desperate and even breathing if you have been holding your
    breath are all very satisfying acts. The sexual act continues the
    species and as such is the most important one of all, therefore it is
    the most pleasurable. Any animal that did not receive the reward of
    pleasure from sex would quickly die out. Take away the pleasure and all
    you are left with is about 3 minutes of squishing noises.

    Now humans being humans we can't leave well alone. We must embroider on
    it. Religions nearly always have rules about who may do what, to where
    and to whom as far as sex is concerned. (I have noticed a certain trend
    that those who deny themselves sex are the most likely to consider it
    their duty to tell those who actually do have sex how it should be
    done.)

    Personally I think that a healthy and active sex life improves your
    whole being. While repressing your sexual urges can turn you into a
    very miserable and mixed up person.
    
    Jamie.

	

	Wouldn't love play a major part in this????

	like sex with love is probably very spiritual
	and sex without love is probably draining???

	just a thought    
    
	Mikki

    There's a time to embrace and a time to refrain.
    
    I agree with .3 sex can be a beautiful thing or very destructive and
    damaging. If your friend doesn't have the right partner she's better
    off going celibate.
    
    It can make you soar and feel wonderful or it can make you cry and feel
    dirty and cheap.
    
    It's one of the universal laws...
    

    
    Re.3
    
    That's what I feel too, Mikki. 
    
    Cindy

    I've never been expert in telling people other than myself what to do
    about sexuality.  I have no idea what is best for you.
    
    Richard B

    RE .3
    >>Wouldn't love play a major part in this????

    Why would love (whatever that means in this context) have anything to
    do with whether or not sex is a spiritual drain?  Now, I could
    understand that if someone has a rule in their belief system that says
    "I must love my sexual partner(s)" then it could be a drain because of
    guilt.

    My friend thinks that it actually takes away from her reservoir of
    spiritual energy.  She thinks that if she engages in sexual activity
    with anyone that she will have less psychic ability, less ability to
    connect with a higher plane of consciousness.  It doesn't matter to
    her whether or not she is in love.  It's all the same to her.

    A lot of spiritual seekers must agree with this because there are so
    many celibate religious sects out there.  

    So, are the celibate closer to god/goddess/self-awareness?

>    A lot of spiritual seekers must agree with this because there are so
>    many celibate religious sects out there.  
    
    On the other hand, there have also quite a few spiritual sects
    that emphasize sexual eroticism, so I'm not sure that answers
    the base question (!)
    						todd

>    My friend thinks that it actually takes away from her reservoir of
>    spiritual energy.  She thinks that if she engages in sexual activity
>    with anyone that she will have less psychic ability, less ability to
>    connect with a higher plane of consciousness.  

This is not an uncommon thought. In many books on magick, it is suggested
that you should not have sex for several days before you actually perform
the magick. I cannot remember whether they were more specific as to the
reasons, and I don't have the books handy to check this out.

>                         -< But do the angels do it? >-

Yes.
:-)

Arie

    It sounds like she is using this as an excuse for not engaging in sex.  
    Maybe she should look closer at her reasoning.  Nothing at drains yours
    ability to be physic.
    
    M
    

>>    Why would love (whatever that means in this context) have anything to
>>    do with whether or not sex is a spiritual drain?  

	It appears that I am mixing apples and oranges here.
Because in my life, spirituality *is* the purest form of love
and the energy of it.  Sorry, continue the conversation

	&-) Mikki

    Interesting topic, what I have learned from an Eastern based
    meditation movement is that sex in its right place is a normal
    part of ones existence. In nature sex plays a natural role in
    procreation, however human being have made of a sex a 'mind game'.
    When one attention is continually diverted to sex, to the 
    opposite sex, then sex for the individual can spoil the attention
    and make a spiritual path more difficult. I suppose we must
    define what we mean by spirituality. One definition is when
    one attention is focused on the undifferentiated nature of the
    universe. The oneness of your own divine nature, with the all-pervading
    nature of the Divine pervading this universe. Given the quest to
    realise this unity any obsessive behavior, be it sex, drugs whatever
    can leads one attention in other directions.

    	
    Also in Indian tradition there is a term for one  the highest souls,
    the one who has conquered himself, and all desire the 'Yogeswara.
    
    
    
    			Chris 

It all depends on what is the ultimate aim. An orgasm or a sexual release?

An orgasm should energise one. A sexual release won't.  I have some definite
spiritual thoughts about this.  If anyone is interested please mail.

girish

    The whole purpose of sex in my eyes is to express your love of self and
    of the other person plus God. I'm sorry but I don't understand what
    the problem is...isn't our whole purpose here on earth is to express
    our love of self and others to every human we come in contact with.
    
    There is a pray and one part states....Lord let me seek to comfort than
    be comforted, to understand rather than be understood and to loved
    rather than be loved.....etc..
    
    The act of sex is one of those ways we show our love to another person. 
    Just having sex for our own pleasure is wrong and very selfish...I
    think it would put a strain on you spirituality because you are not
    being true to yourself.
    
    Just my opinion........................
    
    
    Mindy
    

    RE: .14
    
    I cannot agree with this at all. The purpose of sex is the continuation
    of the species. No more, no less.
    
    Laurie.

    For me, sex raises power and puts me at spiritual levels that I do not
    attain with abstinence.
    
    Janet

    
    I agree with Laurie, sex is for procreation primarily, its
    importance in modern society is more an experience of the human
    ego more than anything else. In my opinion sex has nothing to
    do with spirituality and those who attempt to approach their
    inner spirituality by sexual practices are playing with  fire.

    If sex lead to any spiritual heights then various species in nature
    would have reached them before human beings because they have been doing 
    this over a longer period than we, with no noticeable results. It is
    surely more than a coincidence that nearly all the major Religions,
    Avatars, Saints and Prophets have not promoted sex as vehicle 
    with which to approach the Divine. This is because many spoke of
    the attainment of higher goals through the individual rising above
    and absorbing their human desires as apposed to repressing, denying
    or fighting them, and realising the Self, their inner nature which is
    beyond human ego, desire and sex.

    					Chris 


                                         

                                                                       
    My guru has said that no matter how much sleep you get, or sex you
    have, you'll never get enlightened.  (Rats!  On the 'sleep' part. (;^)
    He has also said that if one is in tune with the energy within, then 
    biological sex becomes a divine sex - an expression of the energy 
    which happens by itself and not as a result of external stimuli.
    
    Ditto what Chris said about approaching inner spirituality by
    sexual practices...playing with fire.  
    
    To approach it from a higher perspective, sex can be used as a
    celebration of the God/Goddess within each other, provided each
    person has realized inwardly their divine identity at some level.
    That's why angels have sex.  0(;^)  To borrow from an earlier note.
    
    Cindy

    I am sorry but I think you are all missing the point ....sex is sex -
    lustful and animalistic but making love is the expression of love to
    one another...How on earth could the expression your love for one another
    drain your spirituality??
    
    By the catholic churches standards Laurie is right the purpose is to
    make children but isn't that why it is so important to truly love the
    person you are with.
    
    You may believe whatever you like but I honestly believe that making
    love is an act of total union between man, women and God to show
    unconditional love.

Mindy,
    
<<    You may believe whatever you like but I honestly believe that making
<<    love is an act of total union between man, women and God to show
<<    unconditional love.                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I agree with you, except I would modify it to say between two people and God.

Ro

    re last -1 Unconditional love. Yes there is such a thing. One sees it
    in trusting children and pets. Most adults do not have it except in the
    abstract. It's one of the things we strive for. I feel it is one of
    things we have to develop to begin to have union with the
    God/Goddess/ATI.
    
    PJ

                                                                         
The following writing might be of interest here.  The book is quite good.
    
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Journey Of The Heart", by John Welwood, Ph.D., p.201-203

Conscious Love

People generally consider an intimate relationship successful if it
provides basic fulfillment in such areas as companionship, security,
sex, and self-esteem.  Describing such an arrangement, one of the
characters in Woody Allen's film 'Manhattan' provided what 'Time'
magazine called a "reasonable definition of modern love": "We have
our laughs together.  I care about you.  Your concerns are my
concerns. We have great sex."  Yet regarding relationship as path,
especially as a sacred path, we hold a larger vision, one that
includes these needs, but is not limited to them.  Our central
concern is with cultivating a conscious love, which can inspire the
development of greater awareness and the evolution of two people's
beings. 

Yet we should not be too idealistic about this, for intimate
relationships never function on an entirely conscious level.  We live
on many levels simutaneously, all with different needs.  The tender 
child, the adventurous youth, the seasoned adult, and the spiritual 
seeker are all simultaneously present in us.  Intimate relationships 
reflect this multilevel quality of our existence and therefore never 
involve just one single kind of relatedness.  To clarify the part 
that conscious love can play in a relationship, it helps to consider 
it in the context of many different levels of connection that can 
exist between two people.


Levels of Connection

Fusion

The most primitive bond that may form between intimate partners is the 
urge for symbiotic 'fusion', born out of a desire to obtain emotional 
nurturance that was lacking in childhood.  Of course, it is common for 
many couples, when they first get together, to go through a temporary 
symbiotic phase, when they cut out other activities or friends and 
spend most of their free time together.  This stage in a relationship 
may help two people establish close emotional bonding.  Yet if 
symbiosis becomes the primary dynamic in a relationship or goes on for 
too long, it will become increasingly confining.  It sets up a parent- 
child dynamic that limits two people's range of expression and 
interaction, undermining the male-female charge between them and 
creating addictive patterns.

Companionship

Beyond the primitive need for symbiotic fusion, the most basic desire 
in an intimate relationship is for companionship.  This can take more 
or less sophisticated forms.  On a crude level, we might just want 
another body around, almost like a pet, to share our bed or keep us 
company.  On a more sophisticated level, the child in us wants a 
playmate, someone we can laugh and romp with, and the adult in us 
enjoys sharing activities such as cooking or attending cultural events 
together.  Basic companionship plays a part in all relationships, 
although some people do not seem to want anything more than this from 
an intimate partner.

Community

A further level of connectedness can happen when two people share not 
only activities and each other's company, but also common interests, 
goals, or values.  We could call this level, where a couple begins to 
create a shared world, community.  Like companionship, community is a 
concrete, earthy form of relatedness.

Communication

Beyond sharing values and interests lies communication.  On this 
level, we share what is going on inside us - our thoughts, visions, 
experiences, and feelings.  Establishing good communication is much 
more arduous than simply creating companionship and community.  it 
requires that a couple be honest and courageous enough to expose what 
is going on inside them, and be willing to work on the inevitable 
obstacles in the way of sharing their different truths with each 
other.  Good communication is probably the most important ingredient 
in the everyday health of a relationship.

Communion

A further extension of communication is communion.  Beyond just sharing 
thoughts and feelings, this is a deep recognition of another person's 
being.  This often takes place in silence - perhaps while looking into 
our partner's eyes, making love, walking in the woods, or listening to 
music together.  Suddenly we feel touched and seen, not as a 
personality, but in the depth of our being.  We are fully ourselves 
and fully in touch with our partner at the same time.  This kind of 
connection is so rare and striking that it is usually unmistakable 
when it comes along.  While two people can work on communication, 
communion is more spontaneous, beyond the will.  Communication and 
communion are deeper, more subtle forms of intimacy than companionship 
and community, taking place at the level of mind and heart.

Union

The deeper intimacy of communion may stir up a longing to overcome our 
separateness altogether, a longing for total union with someone we 
love.  Yet though this longing expresses a genuine human need, it is 
more appropriately directed to the divine, the absolute, the infinite. 

When attached to an intimate relationship, it often creates problems. 
Putting our whole longing for spiritual realization into a finite 
relationship can lead to idealization, inflation, addiction, and death 
(as discussed earlier in Chapter 6.)

The most appropriate way to address our longing for union is through a 
genuine spiritual practice, such as meditation, that teaches us how to 
go beyond the oppositional mind altogether, in every area of our life.  
By pointing us in this direction, intimate relationship may inspire this 
kind of practice, but it can never be a complete substitute for it. 


Reflections on the above

Every relationship will have different areas of strength along this 
continuum of connectedness.  Some couples may share companionship and 
common interests, but have little real communication or communion; and 
some may have occasional moments of communion, but still find their 
strongest link at more basic levels.  Others may share a deep 
soul-communion, yet have little in common on the earthly plane of 
community and companionship.  Such couples might have a hard time 
creating a life together because they would lack simpler forms of 
relatedness to fall back on when the intensity of their communion 
wanes.  Couples who share a deep being-connection, good communication, 
common interests and values, and a simple enjoyment of each other's 
company will have an ideal balance of heaven and earth connectedness.  

Sexuality can operate at any of these levels - as a form of symbiotic 
fusion, as a body-companionship, as a shared sport, as a form of 
communication, or as a deeper communion.

    There seems to be some confusion between sex and love.
    
    Laurie.

.24  thank you, Condy_roo...;')
	As usuall your love, and gentlesness comes shining through

.25  confusion ?? for whom..?

    re. 1821.
    
    Sorry, you are right between two people.
    
    re. 24 thank you.
    
    re 25 Laurie didn't your parents ever explain the difference between
          sex and love??
    
    

	Hello all, some thoughts on the topic....

	All of the world's spritual traditions (or their mystical affiliations)
place emphasis or focus on the experience of "forgetting of the self", or
achieving a state of being totally focused on the present moment. For many of
these traditions, this is considered a very high state of attainment. This is a
goal in Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam (sufi), Judiasm (kaballah), Christianity (St.
Francis, Meister Eckert, St. John, and others), and many other traditions, both
"primal" and "civilized". Modern psychology describes such moments as "peak 
experiences", and places similarly high value on them.

  For most people on the planet, sexuality is their one and only easily
attainable experience of "ecstasy", or ex-stasis, temporarily
losing/forgetting the bodily self in merging with another. For however long the 
experience lasts (5 seconds or 5 hours :^), it is possible to be completely
focused on the present moment (even those who are internally reciting the
multiplication tables lose the struggle eventually :^). Indeed, it's a struggle
to NOT be completely in the present moment. For many people in this 
notesfile, these experiences are also available via meditation, prayer,
drugs, chanting, or other methods. But many people haven't been exposed to
these other methods, and sex is their only experience of "the divine".

	To quote from "The world's religions", by Houston Smith (An excellent
book; it's an updated version of his "religions of man"); In the section on
Tibetan Buddhism, Smith first laments the West's focus on the sexual aspects 
of Tantra, indicating that this obscures the larger world of Tantra. He then
observes:

	"Within that world Tantra's teachings about sex are neither titilating
nor bizarre; they are universal. Sex is so important- after all, it keeps life
going- that it must be linked quite directly with God. It is the divine Eros of
Hesiod, celebrated in Plato's Phaedrus and in some way by every people. Even
this, though, is too mild. Sex *is* the divine in its most available epiphany.
But with this proviso; It is such when it is joined to love."

  Of course, sex can always be a rudimentary affair, a crude release of
physical tension, as opposed to a "bliss-out" all-encompassing mystical
experience. And sometimes such as purely physical release is beneficial &
necessary. But it can also be a means of losing the self, existing in a
timeless state of being completely in the present moment, which is the goal of
many spiritual paths.

  I have a difficult time believing that such a potentially wonderful
experience which is easily available to (almost) all people, could inherently
be "detrimental"; any moralizing organized religion which indicates thusly is
not focused on individual attainment, only social dogma. I will never believe
that we are incarnated in these wonderful bodies, capable of so many sensations
and emotions, strictly as a test; to see how well we can do at denying these
sensations & emotions. 

  The important thing is where one puts one's focus; becoming obsessed/fixated 
solely upon things sexual, to the exclusion of all else, is as stifling to 
growth as complete denial of sexuality. 

  As to the "draining" .vs. "energizing", I'm in partial agreement with those
who say that intent, or love for the other (unless you're flying solo :^), is
an important factor. If it's purely a physical release, I think that one is
missing out not only on the potential wonderful emotional & spiritual
feelings/experiences, but (yes, it must be said) also wonderful physical 
aspects of it as well. Many of us are familiar with various Indian Mythologies,
which traditionally believe that sperm (bindu) is converted to
spiritual/psychic energies (ojas), and only through continence can "ojas" be
preserved or increased. This is believed to such an extent that (per a book I
read recently) Indian doctors report that up to 25% of their male patients are
being treated for "spermatorreah" (sp?), or involuntary emission. In the
western culture, this is an almost unheard of malady. We find other things to
make ourselves neurotic over..... :^)

  In Margo Anand's recent book (Spiritual Sexuality? Enlightened Sexuality? I 
can't remember the title) she discusses how sexual energy can be channeled, and
instead of culminating in a physical release via traditional orgasm, directed
up the sushumna channels to free blockages in different "chakras". The end
result of unblocking all of the "chakras", according to Anand, is the Kundalini
experience reported by many traditional Yogic philosphies of "white light
exploding inside the head", when the "energy is channeled to the highest, or
thousand-petaled lotus chakra". Quotations are rough, based on my memory.

  	Finally, although I usually find myself in agreement with the "rational
skeptics" in this notesfile, I don't believe that procreation is the *sole*
purpose/reason for sex. If this were the case, birth control would not be
necessary... Obviously, anyone utilizing any method of birth control must be
getting *something* out of it other than continuation of the species :^).
    
        			Peace,
    
					Chuck 

    I agree with you, Chuck.

    re: .28,
    	Thanks for that interesting entry, Chuck.
    
    	One small thing I'm not sure I buy though is that 'peak
    	experiences' (re: the Humanistic psychologists) and 'mystical 
    	experiences' are the same thing, as seemed to me to be implied 
    	in your first paragraph.  I think there's likely some overlap, but 
    	that the ideas are not synonymous.  It's hard to compare from
    	verbal descriptions, but I'm not even sure that all of the
    	mystical schools neccessarily emphasize 'forgetting the self'
    	either.  There might be a tendency with this to lump some
    	somewhat distinct states of consciousness together because
    	of similarities, or in some cases maybe even because of
    	'ineffability.'
    
    	After all, how many people actually experience
    	that kind of range of such experiences in so many different
    	traditions ?  Mostly, we have people who have experience in
    	one or two, and then generalize to the others based on assumed
    	similarities, or possibly who might re-experience one type
    	and learn to re-experience it thorugh various practices.
    
    	I can't help thinking back to the various traditions that seem to
    	use different drugs and different rituals to produce different
    	states of consciousness, all or many of them 'ecstatic' in some
    	way.  
    
    	There have been some attempts to quantify such things as
    	states of consciousness, but I think the bulk of work on that
    	is yet to be done.
    
    					kind regards,
    
    					todd

    
    Re.26  Mikki, *you* said it first!  (;^)  Good to see you again, btw!
    
    In addition to that excellent book by Margo Anand (Art of Sexual Ecstasy), 
    also recommended is "Nature, Man and Woman", by Alan Watts. 
    
    Watts wrote something really interesting about sexual yoga in a
    footnote on p.191:
    
    "The notion that sexual yoga is involved with "black magic" is one of
    the many distortions of Asian philosophy circulated by Theosophy - a
    Westernized version of Hindu-Buddhist teachings carrying over
    essentially Christian notions of evil.  The Theosophists were in the
    first place misled by the fact that practitioners of sexual yoga
    adhered to the "left-hand path," a nomenclature to which they attached
    the purely Western associations of "sinister".  But in Indian symbolism
    the right- and left-hand paths do not depart in opposite directions:
    they converge upon the same point like two halves of a circle.  The
    right-hand path seeks liberation by detachment from the world, and the
    left-hand path by total acceptance of the world; the right is the -
    symbolically - male way, and the left the female, so that in the left
    man finds liberation through nature and through women. ..."
    
    What I feel sexuality is about, and everything else as well, is about
    becoming conscious.  To consciously choose not to engage in sex or
    anything else for a time to see what happens....that's actually a good
    thing.  Then after a while, this allows one to choose to more 'consciously'
    to engage in whatever the activity is.  There's a lot of power in making 
    a conscious choice - whether it be to, or not to, do something.  I feel 
    that this, more than anything else, is what the spiritual masters were/are 
    trying to convey to us.
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.28
    
    Especially enjoyed your last paragraph, Chuck.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    	Re: 30, Todd,
    
    I had typed in an incredibly clever and witty :^) and lengthy reply, making 
    reference to Biochemistry, Neurology, mind-brain relationship, LSD,
    PCP, heroin, Sufi Dancing, Tantric Lovemaking, Zen, many paths up
    mountain -> same destination, reunion with the Godhead, etc, all to
    point out a purely subjective viewpoint on my part that the *intent* of
    these different methods have more in common, and is more important than,
    the 1000's of ways in which they manifest differently. 
    
    	I had, unfortunately, also borrowed from Alan Watts the phrase "trying 
    to eff the ineffable". So of course, for today's lesson for trying to
    mess with ineffable stuff, my logical link went down before I could enter 
    the reply, and all was lost. Kwatz! 
    
    	Also, a minor correction to .28 .. it's Meister Eckhart, not
    Eckert... I always get that wrong...
    
    					Peace,
    
    						chuck
                                                     

    Re .33

    Not attempting a rathole, just a minor technical point.

    >So of course, for today's lesson for trying to mess with ineffable
    >stuff, my logical link went down before I could enter  the reply, and
    >all was lost. Kwatz! 
     
    Do not leave Notes, re-establish the link and re-read the note that you
    were replying to. Type REPLY/LAST and you will be back where you were
    when the link went walkies.

    Should the node not be accessible then chose any other conference,
    NOTES$SAMPLE on your own node will do, and again type REPLY/LAST. Once
    you are in the editor press the DO key and type WRITE NOTE.LOST. Then
    press f10 and reply no to the question do you want to enter this note
    and leave the conference. When the node that the conference is on
    becomes available access it again and re-read the note that you were
    replying to. Type REPLY NOTE.LOST and once more you will be back where
    you were.

    Jamie.                                                

    My comment regarding confusion seems to have caused some confusion! To
    clarify, I was the one who said "The sole purpose of sex is
    procreation". I am not in the least bit confused between love and sex:
    My comment was aimed at those in the topic who clearly are.
    
    Laurie.

    re: .33, Chuck,
    	Drat, sounds like something I would have enjoyed.
    
    	That'll teach us to eff with the ineffable, eh ?
    
    						todd

    Laurie your replies are so typical of you.........I don't think I am
    confused as to what the difference is....I also don't believe that the 
    whole purpose is just for procreation.  I can't understand why your ideas
    are so rigid and I would like to know where you are coming from?  Are
    you a born again Christian....that question is not to imply that there
    is something wrong with being a Christian...I would like to get a
    handle on where you are coming from.
    
    
    
                                                      

    
    Laurie a BAC????
    
    (;^)  What a thought that conjures up!
    
    Cindy

    Re .1816

    >Laurie your replies are so typical of you.........I don't think I am
    >confused as to what the difference is....I also don't believe that the 
    >whole purpose is just for procreation.  

    Working on the assumption that the sexual act is being discussed here,
    then a most emphatic yes, it is solely for procreation. Now man may
    well have glorified it, perverted it or forbidden it, but this makes
    absolutely no difference whatsoever to the real purpose of sex.

    While we may have weird and wonderful delusions on this subject, animals
    however do not, they just get on with it and enjoy it.

    As to your assumption that Laurie is a BAC. You are seriously off base.
    I rather suspect that Laurie thinks that even being a Christian is not
    necessarily a good thing.

    Jamie.
                                                    

    Jamie and Cindy are spot on regarding my religious beliefs. Me, a BAC?
    HAHAHAHAAAA! No chance.
    
    Jamie says it for me. Sex is for procreation. Any baggage you care to
    hang on to it, such as love, or "oneness", or social functions, are the
    invention of man, for mans' sake. Hence my comments that some here are
    confusing sex and love.
    
    Laurie.

        
    Re.41
    
    Wal,
    
    >if sex is killed, will not love be killed, also?
    
    Absolutely not.  Real Love is not to be found through sex.  Sex, 
    however, can be an expression of love between two people, and when it
    takes place in this order and context, it is a very beautiful thing.  
    But absolutely not necessary.
    
    I think Laurie and I agree on this.
    
    >if one gives up sex, won't that person also give up on finding love,
    >or being able to give love?
    
    Speaking from my direct experience on this (a conscious choice on my
    part to practice brahmacharya/celibacy for an extended period of time), 
    not at all.  In fact, because of this choice, what I've experienced is 
    a far deeper and greater Love than can ever be found on the physical 
    plane through sex exclusively.   
    
    Cindy

    re. 1816.40
    
    WHY??? Why do you think the only reason for sex is procreation??? Have
    you ever in you life made love to someone who you truly loved??
    It sounds like you haven't.
    

    	re: 39, Jamie,
    
    >Working on the assumption that the sexual act is being discussed here,
    >then a most emphatic yes, it is solely for procreation. Now man
    
    	Hmmmm, *solely* is a very restrictive word, as I understand it. Meaning
    "has *no* other purpose". Solely. No other possibilities. Hmmmmm.
    
    >While we may have weird and wonderful delusions on this subject, animals
    >however do not, they just get on with it and enjoy it.
    
    	Aha! Enjoyment occurs! Could it not be said then, that sex serves
    another purpose than *solely* procreation? It provides enjoyment! And
    if even animals can find another use for sex, i.e., enjoyment or
    recreation, is it not possible that humans could use it for other
    purposes? Are we that limited in ingenuity? Could it not be used,
    perhaps, as a form of meditation? Can one see the divine in one's
    partner, and make love to God?
    
        Sex is an *ideal* method of procreation; but not the only one
    (artificial insemination, etc). A wrench is the ideal method of turning
    bolts.... But pliers or fingers can sometimes be used. And the wrench
    can also be used as a lever, or a hammer, or a weapon..... turning
    bolts nay be the wrench's *ideal* usage, but I'm not about to deny that
    the other uses exist, no matter how personally repugnant and revolting I 
    may find them (using a wrench as a hammer... I shudder with disgust :^).
    
    	But perhaps for Laurie and yourself, the word *sole* has different
    connotations than in my lexicon.... I'm sure your imaginations are as
    powerful, if not more so, than my own... :^).
    
    				Peace,
    
    						chuck
    
    

        re: 42, Cindy,
    
     I'm in complete agreement with you re: necessity .vs. possibility. Of
    all of history's figures, I feel the most love for Mahatma Gandhi. He
    was human, he had failings, but for me, he was love. And he was
    celibate/brahmacharya (eventually, after much struggle and
    "back-sliding" :^). 
    
     To everything a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.
    
    					Peace,
    
    						chuck
    

    Folks are welcome to whatever religious or philosophical beliefs that
    they wish -- including one shared by a number of Christian religious
    groups, that "the purpose of sex is procreation."  I can't help but
    feel, however, that at least some of the people making this statement
    think that they are stating some solid scientific truth -- and that is
    wildly incorrect.

    First off, I'm going to assume that "sex" is intended to mean "sexual
    intercourse", rather than either what is now generally referred to
    in sociology, psychology and biology (despite Fowler and their ilk) as
    "gender" nor what is properly referred to as sex in technical
    discussions (essentially synonymous with "procreation" -- which would
    make the statement rather tautological).

    Secondly, a nit, but an important one I think.  "Purpose" has no
    meaning in biology -- only in religion, psychology and (in reference to
    institutions) sociology.  As I said, you are welcome to whatever
    religious beliefs you wish in regards to the purpose of sex.  I do not
    know of any social purpose of sex -- it tends to be one of the purposes
    of institutions such as maraige and clubs rather than having a social
    purpose itself.  Psychologically, I think it pretty clear that it has
    other purposes -- for example "to feel good" -- than procreation or
    contraceptive sales wouldn't be what they are.

    OK, so I'll assume that "function" rather than "purpose" was meant.  Is
    the revamped statement "the function of sexual intercourse is
    procreation" scientifically accurate?  Nope -- it's way off base.

    Clearly the adpative advantage that lead to the developement of sexual
    intercourse (in bacteria -- gender is a much later evolutionary
    development than sex) was for procreation.  But evolution has a habit
    of finding multiple functions (some of which may supercede entirely the
    original purpose, which may disappear) for things once developed.  An
    evolutionary "invention" serves as an opportunity for further
    evolutionary development.

    Very clearly in social mammals, sexual intercourse serves other
    functions than procreation -- this is illustrated, for example, by the
    widespread occurance of "homosexual intercourse" in many species.  The
    primary additional function of intercourse is social -- it forms, with
    various forms of grooming behavior, an important part of the social
    language of bonding and dominance.

    The social functioning of sexual intercourse is very clearly evident in
    the higher primates, where it seems to also have become adapted to some
    extent to serve psychological functions.  The unique adaptations of the
    human species (well, not quite unique, they are shared to some extent
    with the pygmy chimpanzee) -- constant receptivity of both genders,
    face-to-face copulation, and adolescence -- give a strong indication
    (if it weren't obvious already) that these non-procreative functions
    have become even more important in homo sapien (and perhaps -- a matter
    of active research -- some or all of our extinct hominid relatives.

    In people, sexual intercourse serves many other functions -- quite
    naturally -- than procreation.  These include social and psychological
    functions.  I would also say that it very clearly serves spiritual
    functions as well (that can be said even if your religion happens to be
    atheism and you actively deny the existence of "spirit".  Spirituality
    than becomes an important category of psychological phenomenon which
    would make as much sense to deny existence to as to deny the existence
    of trees or rocks).

    "The purpose of sex is procreation," what a quaint, unscientific
    statement.

					Topher

    :-) 

    re: .47, Topher,
    
    	Thanks, I enjoyed that.
    
>    But evolution has a habit
>    of finding multiple functions (some of which may supercede entirely the
>    original purpose, which may disappear) for things once developed.  An
>    evolutionary "invention" serves as an opportunity for further
>    evolutionary development.
    
    Yes, this is a very central idea in biology today.  I think it's almost
    impossible to grasp a lot of the theory without fully appreciating
    just how non-obviously _opportunistic_ this process truly is.  Things that 
    serve one function are borrowed in the most remarkable ways to serve other
    functions.  The result appears to a surface analysis as an ingeniously
    elegant work of divine engineering, yet may have bizarre flaws resulting
    from apparent excessive complexity at the same time.  
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd
    
    

    RE:50 WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN THAT ENTRY?????????
    

&-)  hee, hee    

    I suspect either :
    
    	(1) the Walster is channeling Spuds MacKenzie,
    
    	(2) he's holding the cellular phone too close to his
    		right temporal lobe, and experiencing 
    		an electromagnetic resonance with a local
    		beer commercial,
    	or 
    
    	(3) it means something most of us will never understand.
    
    						:-)
    
    						todd

    Re .45
    >	Hmmmm, *solely* is a very restrictive word, as I understand it. Meaning
    >"has *no* other purpose". Solely. No other possibilities. Hmmmmm.
    
    Yes and it was deliberately chosen. 
    
    >	Aha! Enjoyment occurs! Could it not be said then, that sex serves
    >another purpose than *solely* procreation? It provides enjoyment!
    
    The reason that is causes us so much pleasure is to make us do it. If
    it did not cause pleasure then we, as a race would die out. So you have
    it the wrong way round. The sole purpose of sex is to reproduce the
    species.                        

    Jamie.

Thank you, Wal, for a most eloquent explanation. Now perhaps Ms Seifert
would care to tell us just what was on her mind when she wrote the
apparently indignant reply .53.

RE:                     <<< Note 1816.44 by AIMHI::SEIFERT >>>
    
�    WHY??? Why do you think the only reason for sex is procreation??? Have
�    you ever in you life made love to someone who you truly loved??
�    It sounds like you haven't.
    
    Now I'm sure you're confused about the difference between sex and love.
    They are entirely different things. It is perfectly possible to have
    sex without love, for instance when a man visits a prostitute. It is
    also perfectly possible to have love without sex.
    
    The sole purpose of sex is the procreation of our species. We, over the
    millenia, have heaped a whole pile of social and psychological baggage
    on to sex. We have developed morals and religion, and sex and the
    circumstances surrounding it have been a central part of them.
    
    Making love is a euphemism for the sexual act, some more baggage. Sex
    with a partner with whom one is deeply committed is indeed a truly
    pleasureable thing, and yes, I've done it. However, it's all part of
    the natural urge to procreate. Love and sex are entirely different the
    former being of the mind, and the latter being of the flesh.
    
    Laurie.

    Laurie and Jamie

    You can keep saying it over and over -- this is sometimes called "Proof
    By Repeated Assertion" a.k.a. "The Big Lie" technique -- but that does
    not make it any less of a naive, simplistic, mostly meaningless, and
    clearly refuted to the extent it does mean anything.  I fail to see how
    this is any less "garbage" than many of the statements you feel
    compelled to deride (actually quite a bit more than most, since they do
    not make any pretense of science).  Can you give a single shred of
    evidence that all the biologists since Darwin who have disagreed with
    this statement are incorrect?  Certainly you do not think that this
    statement is implied by evolutionary theory, do you?  (It's hard to
    believe that professed rationalists would so thoroughly misunderstand
    such an important part of modern scientific thought).  Is this one of
    your silly I-don't-believe-in-smiley-faces jokes, Jamie, where you
    say excruciatingly stupid things and feel superiour to anyone who
    thought you might have meant them?

					Topher

    re .61

    >>there must be more to life than sex and death; (supposedly we get
    >>them confused because these two charkas are very close to each other).

    So is this accidental?

    I've noticed that thread running through many sex mythologies.  Sexual
    intercourse has been referred to as "the little death."  I've always
    wondered if this could be the death of the individual ego as 2 people
    body/mind meld.

    Is the orgasmic experience an initiation into death of the ego?
    
    -- Ruth

From: "Hua Hu Ching - the Teachings of Lao Tzu", translated by Brian Walker

Sixty-Five

The interplay of yin and yang within the womb of the Mysterious Mother
    creates the expansion and contraction of nature.
Although the entire universe is created out of this reproductive dance,
    it is but a tiny portion of her being.
Her heart is the Universal Heart, and her mind the Universal Mind.

The reproductive function is also a part of human beings.
Because yin and yang are not complete within us as individuals, we
    pair up to integrate them and bring forth new life.
Although most people spend their entire lives following this biological
    impulse, it is only a tiny portion of our beings as well.
If we remain obsessed with seeds and eggs, we are married to the 
    fertile reproductive valley of the Mysterious Mother but not to
    her immeasurable heart and all-knowing mind.

If you wish to unite with her heart and mind, you must integrate yin
    and yang within and refine their fire upward.
Then you have the power to merge with the whole being of the Mysterious
    Mother.

This is what is known as true evolution.


Sixty-Six

The first integration of yin and yang is the union of seed and egg
    within the womb.
The second integration of yin and yang is the sexual union of the
    mature male and female.
Both of these are concerned with flesh and blood, and all that is 
    conceived in this realm must one day disintegrate and pass away.

It is only the third integration which gives birth to something
    immortal.
In this integration, a highly evolved individual joins the subtle 
    inner energies of yin and yang under the light of spiritual
    understanding.
Through the practices of the Integral Way he refines his gross, heavy
    energy into something ethereal and light.
This divine light has the capability of penetrating into the mighty
    ocean of spiritual energy and complete wisdom that is the Tao.

The new life created by the final integration is self-aware yet
    without ego, capable of inhabiting a body yet not attached to it,
    and guided by wisdom rather than emotion.
Whole and virtuous, it can never die.


Sixty-Seven

To achieve the highest levels of life, one must continually combine
    new levels of yin and yang.
In nature, the male energy can be found in such sources as the sun 
    and the mountains, and the female in such sources as the earth,
    the moon, and the lakes.
These who study these things, which are only hinted at here, will 
    benefit immeasurably.

Because higher and higher unions of yin and yang are necessary for
    the conception of higher life, some students may be instructed 
    in the art of dual cultivation, in which yin and yang are
    directly integrated in the tai chi of sexual intercourse.
If the student is not genuinely virtuous and the instruction not
    that of a true master, dual cultivation can only have a
    destructive effect.
If genuine virtue and true mastery come together, however, the
    practice can bring about a profound balancing of the student's
    gross and subtle energies.
The result of this is improved health, harmonized emotions, the
    cessation of desires and impulses, and, at the highest level,
    the transcendent integration of the entire energy body.


Sixty-Eight

In angelic dual cultivation, one learns to follow the Tao.
To approach the Tao, you will need all your sincerity, for it is
    elusive, first revealing itself in form and image, then
    dissolving into subtle, indefinable essense.

Though it is uncreated itself, it creates all things.
Because it has no substance, it can enter into where there is no
    space.
Exercising by returning to itself, winning victories by remaining
    gentle and yielding, it is softer than anything, and therefore
    overcomes everything hard.

What does this tell you about the benefit of non-action and silence?


Sixty-Nine

A person's approach to sexuality is a sign of his level of
    evolution.
Unevolved persons practice ordinary sexual intercourse.
Placing all emphasis upon the sexual organs, they neglect the body's
    other organs and systems.
Whatever physical energy is accumulated is summarily discharged, 
    and the subtle energies are similarly dissipated and disordered.
It is a great backward leap.

For those who aspire to the higher realms of living, there is angelic
    dual cultivation.
Because every portion of the body, mind, and spirit yearns for the 
    integration of the yin and yang, angelic intercourse is led by
    the spirit rather than the sexual organs.

Where ordinary intercourse is effortful, angelic cultivation is calm,
    relaxed, quiet, and natural.
Where ordinary intercourse unites sex organs with sex organs, it 
    [angelic cultivation] unites spirit with spirit, mind with mind, 
    and every cell of one body with every cell of the other body.
Culmnating not in dissolution but in integration, it is an
    opportunity for a man and woman to mutually transform and uplift
    each other into the realm of bliss and wholeness.

The sacred ways of angelic intercourse are taught only by one who
    has himself achieved total energy integration, and taught only
    to students who follow the Integral Way with profound devotion,
    seeking to purify and pacify the entire world along with their
    own being.
If one's virtue is especially radiant, it can be possible to open
    a pathway to the subtle realm and receive these celestial teachings
    directly from the immortals.


Seventy

The cords of passion and desire weave a binding net around you.
Worldly confrontation makes you stiff and inflexible.
The trap of duality is tenacious.
Bound, rigid, and trapped, you cannot experience liberation.

Through dual cultivation it is possible to unravel the net, soften
    the rigidity, dismantle the trap.
Dissolving your yin energy into the source of universal life, 
    attracting the yang energy from that same source, you leave
    behind individuality and your life becomes pure nature.
Free of ego, living naturally, working virtuously, you become
    filled with inexhaustible vitality and are liberated forever
    from the cycle of death and rebirth.

Understand this if nothing else:  spiritual freedom and oneness
    with the Tao are not randomly bestowed gifts, but rewards of
    conscious self-transformation and self-evolution.


Seventy-One

The transformation toward eternal life is gradual.
The heavy, gross energy of body, mind, and spirit must first 
    be purified and uplifted.
When the energy ascends to the subtle level, then self-mastery
    can be sought.

A wise instructor teaches the powerful principles of self-integration
    only to those who have already achieved a high level of self- 
    purification and self-mastery.
In addition, all proper teaching follows the law of energy response:
    the most effective method is always that to which the student's
    natural energy most harmoniously responds.
For one, celibacy and self-cultivation will be appropriate; for 
    another, properly guided dual cultivation will derive the 
    greatest benefit.
A discerning teacher will determine the proper balance of practices
    for each individual.

In any case, know that all teachers and techniques are only
    transitional:  true realization comes from the direct merger of
    one's own being with the divine energy of the Tao.

    Topher, the purpose of sex is to reproduce the species. The reward for
    undertaking this, sometimes dangerous task, is pleasure. All necessary
    bodily functions are rewarded with some form of pleasurable reaction.

    Now when you go and void your bowels it causes a mild pleasurable
    reaction. I do not think that the action of voiding my bowels is done
    solely for pleasure, the same applies to sex. 

    Now you may wrap it up in as much emotional garbage as you wish but
    when you get right down to basics and face the facts, reproduction of
    the species is the name of the game.          

    Jamie.

    re: .64, Jamie,
    
    I'm assuming, as Topher did, that this argument is based on biological
    science in some way, Jamie, because of your apparent interest
    in medicine and because of your use of terms consistent with
    that interpretation.  I'm also assuming that you're not just
    being cute, and that some further information might help somehow ...
    
>    Topher, the purpose of sex is to reproduce the species. The reward for
>    undertaking this, sometimes dangerous task, is pleasure. All necessary
>    bodily functions are rewarded with some form of pleasurable reaction.
...
>    Now you may wrap it up in as much emotional garbage as you wish but
>    when you get right down to basics and face the facts, reproduction of
>    the species is the name of the game.          
    
    Now, while this view certainly isn't *entirely* wrong, (i.e. reward
    mechanisms _are_ evidently is an important principle in evolutionary
    biology), it doesn't exactly represent the full picture, either.
    
    Pleasure and displeasure mechanisms found in other mammals
    are discovered to be greatly modified in human beings, and to 
    a lesser extent, the larger primates.  This is not 'emotional
    garbage,' it is biological evolution.  In every case where
    a behavior (like nesting or aspects of sexual behavior) can be 
    consistently influenced by a hormone or neurotransmitter, or
    stimulation of a pleasure area in a small mammal, there is a far more 
    complex cross-functional response in larger mammals and more
    so in human beings.   This is particularly true in the case
    of sexual behavior.  
    
    One of the most notable things about humans vs. other animals is the 
    degree of adaptability provided by their different central nervous system.
    Human sexual behavior is extremely varied among the known organisms,
    having been adapted for many purposes in addition to reproduction.
    
    Some of this adaptation has obviously been cultural, but more to the
    point, some has been also been physical and structural.  In human beings, 
    the social and sexual functions have evolved to be uniquely connected 
    together, even down to the neuroanatomical and neurochemical level.
    To the extent that it cannot be meaningfully said that sex serves
    only the biological function of reproduction.
    
    Possibly the most basic example of this, though by no means
    the best or only example, is found in Paul MacLean's
    1970+ revision of Papez' older limbic system theory (just to let 
    you know that this theory is fairly well established, not
    particularly controversial).
    
    MacLean discovered three fundamental circuits to function in the limbic 
    system of human beings; one for self-preservation involving various 
    nuclei of the amygdala; one largely connected to self-grooming in 
    animals and apparently linked to preparations for sex and sexual pleasure,
    around the cingulate gyrus of the cortex and the septum and other
    structures; and one which interestingly overlaps the sexual and
    social functions and is uniquely developed in human beings
    in parts of the hypothalamus and anterior thalamus.  
    
    Obviously not conclusive evidence of anything, 
    this linking of social behavior and sexual behavior at such a 
    gross biological level should at least seem suugestive to you (?) of
    something about evolutionary theory and how functions like sex become
    recruited even in structural ways (and many more subtle ones as well)
    for other 'purposes.'  
    
    ref:
    	If you're interested in more on this aspect, see particularly	
    	P.D. MacLean, 'An evolutionary approach to brain research
    	on prosematic (nonverbal) behavior,' in J.S. Rosenblatt
    	and B.R. Komisaruk (Eds.), _Reproductive_Behavior_and_evolution_,
    	1977, pp. 137-164, N.Y., Plenum Press.

'cause the rest of this string is like the beer commercial.  It is a charge 
for some and a drain for others and YOUR mileage may vary considerably.

Sex in the animal kingdom takes on every aspect, nuance and experssion you 
can imagine and more.  Rape occurs.  Sex for pleasure occurs.  Homosexual
sex occurs.  Oral sex occurs.  You name it, some animal besides a human is
doing it.

Sex is the means of procreation.  It is often an integral part of romantic
love among humans.  

Your's truly, Dr. Science
(I'm not a real Dr., I have a Masters degree in science)

80)

    re .63
    
    Cindy,  Thanks for posting this.  I must now get the book.
    
    -- Ruth
    

    Cindy... where can I get that book?
    
    Do you have an ISBN number for it?
    
    And thank you for entering that note.
    
    Mary

    
    Mary,
    
    It's the same one that Gloria handed to me in Cambridge the 
    other night.  It was at Wordsworth.  Not sure of the number
    offhand.
    
    Good book...*Great* book...(;^)
    
    Cindy

>    do butterflies copulate?
    
    I don't know, but a good part of their romance seems to involve 
    a mechanism whereby pheromones from one butterfly
    are picked up by the antenna of another, and trigger
    the process of following the pheromonal scent to the
    object of their affection.  The antenna of butterfly
    are actually an extension of part of their brain, so
    this seems to be a fairly direct process.  
    
    Unlike the usual need to do more coaxing with human mates
    to attract them.   Or maybe we simply don't smell as nice as
    butterflies ?
    
    						todd

    Not sure I'd call an ingrown toenail a neccessary bodily
    function ;-> and giving Jamie the benefit of the doubt,
    I would think he meant something like 'bioloogically important elective 
    behaviors are accompanied by pleasure, which functions to ensure that they 
    will be done.'
    
    It's not all _that_ bizarre an idea, ya know, it just isn't
    the whole story.

RE: .64 (Jamie)

>    Topher, the purpose of sex is to reproduce the species.

    Hold everything folks!  Jamie, has repeated himself!  What more proof
    is needed!  We now have a respite from the energy crisis for the next
    few years: we may burn all the articles, monographs (for example,
    Origin of The Species, by that quaint Darwin chap), textbooks, etc.,
    which waste time on a contrary assumption.  All the biologists and
    animal behaviorists who have been mislead by the previous absence of
    the weight of Jamie's repetition may now find useful work. :-)

>   All necessary bodily functions are rewarded with some form of
    pleasurable reaction.

    Actually, there are three options, plus (most commonly, a combination):

	1) Positive feedback ("if feels good")
	2) Compulsive or reflexive action ("it 'just happens'")
	3) Cessasion of aversive feedback ("it hurts until I do it")

    Few people void there bowels because it feels good, they void their
    bowels because it feels bad not to.  If they wait too long it becomes
    compulsive.  Certainly the cessation of pain or discomfort can always
    be said to "feel good" but the motivator is not normally the sense of
    relief but the pain that precedes it (grammar school joke: Q: "Why are
    you banging yourself on the head?"  A:"Because it feels so good when
    I stop!").  For most things there is a mixture of these three.

    I do not dispute that the pleasure of sexual intercourse evolved in
    order to encourage the organism to ingage in it.  I don't think anyone
    else here is arguing with that either.

    The first problem is you use of the term "purpose", which implies
    "intent" and "goal" all of which is very inappropriate to a modern
    (i.e., post-Darwinian) bioligical discussion.  The first question that
    must be answered before one can answer "What is the purpose of that" is
    "To whom?".  The purpose of sexual intercourse to the participant is
    frequently pleasure.  That is exactly why sexual pleasure evolved to
    encourage intercourse -- it works.

    The second problem is that you simply assume that since the probable
    original biological function of sexual intercourse was for procreation
    that it is necessarily the only biological function.  I think that we
    can agree that the original biological function of urination was to
    eliminate waste products from the body.  Yet last night, an unfixed
    male cat urinated on my front door in order to mark his territory.  An
    additional function -- specifically a social one -- had been added to
    the basic mechanism.

    In evolutionary biology, the function of any feature in an organism is
    *whatever* that feature is currently used for which increases the
    fitness of that organism.  It doesn't matter that the articulation of
    our joints in our hands, arms and shoulders originally developed (from
    similar structures in other primates) for knuckle-walking locomotion.
    That does not make the function (and certainly not the "purpose") of
    our hands to do knuckle-walking.  The primary function of our hands
    is to allow manipulation of tools.  It is the ability to manipulate
    tools which currently increases the fitness of humans.

    Let us imagine a man who happens to be sterile (perhaps through
    choice).  He is sexually very attractive and manages to get ahead in
    his particular field of business by sleeping with the right people.  He
    becomes very wealthy, which is fortunate when his nephew or niece
    becomes ill, because he is able to afford to buy them the critical
    medical care needed for them to survive.  He has, in modern
    evolutionary terms, increased his fitness (increased the longevity of
    his genetic heritage -- or at least the 1/4 of it shared by his
    sibling's child -- this type of collatoral fitness is an important part
    of modern theory, and explains many aspects of biology, such as the
    development of herds, the supportive behavior of sterile worker bees,
    and the way that one vampire bat will allow another to feed off it). 
    In quite strict biological terms the function of his sexual intercourse
    was *not* procreation, but it was never-the-less very successful, and
    very real.

    I do not think that you have the basis for believing that you know all
    the functions that sexual intercourse plays in the modern human
    organism.  There are clearly social functions, and that there are
    psychological ones seems very likely.  Your claim that only one
    function is served -- however much you repeat it -- is simply untrue.

    Your categorical rejection of what you refer to as "emotional garbage"
    is pure faith in the completeness of your conceptual picture of the
    world (whose incompleteness even in "rationalist" terms is evident in
    this discussion).  It has no justification in logic or science.

				Topher

    Pleasure is the reward for the sexual act, and as far as my experience
    goes it appears to give more pleasure than any other act. Now we may
    well have concentrated on this pleasure and obscured its purpose. But
    it is there to make us have sex and by having sex we (as a species)
    will, in the long run, reproduce the species. The fact that we misuse
    sex in no way detracts form its original purpose.

    Now we may flatter ourselves and think that we have evolved and are
    above the rest on the animals in this world, but when it comes to sex,
    you will find that we have evolved very very little and it doesn't take
    much to get the animal back to the surface.
    
    I admit that today's trendy thinking tends to see babies as a rather
    unwanted side effect of the sexual act, but they are really its
    prupose.

    Jamie.
        

Re. 63 (Cindy),

Could you post an ISBN for that book please ? (I don't think I'll be in 
Wordsworth's for a while :-))

And thanks for posting the note,

Ronan

    Re .79

    >in mammals, the sexual act is associated with pleasure. (i presume
    >that whales, possums, and kangeroos copulate. am i wrong in this 
    >presumption?).
    
    It would appear so, all the mammals that I have observed at it seemed to
    be enjoying it. Living on a farm as a child was most educational in
    this respect.

    >what about the egg laying animals, the birds, the bees, the
    >butterflies, the salmons, etc? what 'drives' them to fertilize an egg?
    
    Well if the two pigeons that I were at it outside my bedroom window on
    Sunday morning are anything to go by, there is a large amount of
    pleasure associated with it for them too.

    Your body uses pain as a signal to stop you doing things and pleasure
    as a method of making you do something. As most animals appear to react
    to pain it would be a logical assumption that the pleasure reward
    system is used for them too.

    Jamie.

    
    Re.77
    
    Jamie,
    
    >and as far as my experience goes it appears to give more pleasure
    >than any other act.
    
    Can you list some other acts you have in mind that you are comparing
    to when you say this?
    
    For I've found many other acts/activities that are as pleasurable or
    more so.
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.78
    
    Will do, Ronan.  I'll try to get it tomorrow...the book's at home right
    now and I'm not.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    re .63

    >>Because higher and higher unions of yin and yang are necessary for
    >>    the conception of higher life, some students may be instructed
    >>    in the art of dual cultivation, in which yin and yang are
    >>    directly integrated in the tai chi of sexual intercourse.
    >>If the student is not genuinely virtuous and the instruction not
    >>    that of a true master, dual cultivation can only have a
    >>    destructive effect.

    Cindy,

    Does the book define "dual cultivation?"  And is this always between a
    "master" and a "student?"  Or can the dual cultivators be at the same
    level of learning?

    And, if one requires a "master dual cultivator" (for proper
    cultivation) where/how would one find such a master?  My mind is going
    nuts thinking about the personal ad:

    	"Virtuous SWF student seeking true master of dual cultivation for	
    	transcendent sexual experience.  Non-smoker only, incense ok."

    --Ruth

    With all this talk of animals I hope you all are not comparing humans
    to animals?
    
    I've read all of these in depth notes regarding the actual act of sex
    but what about "making love?"
    
    I have not read one reference about love?  Isn't the reason why most of
    us make love to another person...isn't one of reasons we are on earth
    is love another???    How on earth can expressing our love for one
    another ever, ever be a drain on us spiritually....if anything it
    should enhance it..............
    

    
    Ruth,
    
    I'm not sure...I only browsed through the book and didn't read it cover
    to cover yet.        
    
    There is the old saying, "When the student is ready, the teacher will
    appear."  That means 'really' ready, as opposed to when one 'thinks' 
    they are ready.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    Beautiful Wallie....
    
    Hey Ruth... wordsworths takes all major credit cards and ships anywhere
    in the world... I just ordered the book... the didn't ask for the ISBN
    number either..
    
    mary

    re .90
    
    Mary,
    
    Wordsworths:  Is this an East Coast thing? ;-)
    
    Do you have a phone number for this place?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Ruth
    

    
    "Hua Hu Ching - the Teachings of Lao Tzu", by Brian Walker
    
    Hardcover:  $17.00
    ISBN: 0-944439-37-3

Cindy,
 Thanks for the info.

Mary,
 I'd like to know Wordsworth's phone no, as well, if you've got it.  
 Thanks,

Ronan

    Regarding the 'scientific' study of emotions and such ...
    
    This is my own perception of the current state of the 
    study of human feelings from the scientific perspective
    (which is not neccessarily the best one for gaining insight into this
    subject, if that's not obvious ;-))
    
    Don't let anybody kid you, biology has a very extensive body of
    knowledge, and there are some insights gained into behavior and
    experience from these, but it doesn't begin to explain the human 
    experience in its depth, or even all of the observed _experimental_
    phenomena.  The distinction between 'unexplained' and 'unexplainable'
    factors in to how well agreed upon that would be, however.
    
    IMO, there are some very clear indications that we are still
    pretty far away from any kind of mechanistic description of
    the range and depth of human subjective experience (such as
    'will to live' as *humans* think of it).  A number
    of attempts were made in the psychological community in the
    late 19th and early 20th centuries to objectify human feelings,
    based partly on neurobiology of the time, and partly on systematic
    study of patterns in introspection of aspects of our consciousness.  
    
    But this (somewhat philosophical study at the time) gave way to the trend 
    toward behaviorism, and a very strongly environmental view of human
    behavior.  Emotions were a 'side effect' of sorts.  Well, associational 
    behaviorism, in some form, has stood the test of time as a useful model, 
    and we are just beginning to return in some areas to the neurbiological 
    study of experience.  So, I think it would be fair to say that
    eventually, in fits and starts, we accumulate more knowledge, even
    if it means revisiting with some pain various ideas that might have gone 
    out of fashion in the past.  Scientific progress is extremely
    turbulent.
    
    And the current state of neuroscience, while using some very
    sophisticated math and experimental techniques, is really as primitive 
    as you can imagine, as far as explaining behavior or human experience 
    is concerned.
    
    The simple animal _Aplysia_, becauause it has a few very large neurons 
    rather than an enormous network like we have, gives clues to researchers 
    about the chemical and electrical mechanisms that permit some kinds of 
    learning to take place.  The ways in which neurotransmitters and neural
    action potentials act to trigger genes to help consolidate memory,
    the way chemicals seem in some vaguely understood way to influence
    behavior and experience, and so on.  And at the other end of the 
    neuroscience spectrum, some researchers can produce patterns in complex 
    neural networks that may be found to bear resemblances to patterns found 
    in the brain.  Commonly, 'holographic' patterns and 'chaotic' patterns 
    are very popular to study and to postulate  to help explain the
    body of observations.
    
    I don't know if that answers any of the questions around this,
    but I'd add that it is very controversial in biology to attribute
    any kind of human-like conscious experience to animals based on their
    behavior.  Not that they have 'no consciousness,' just that 
    the philosophical issues tend to very quickly complicate our ability
    to make useful models of animal behavior.  That was a big part of the
    reason why behaviorism was (and is) a popular approach.  Not that there
    is 'no mind' or 'no feelings' but that there is no _entirely_ satisfactory 
    way to describe these things with current models.
    
    So, offering 'science' as dogma regarding questions of the subtleties
    of human experience is probably in most cases misplaced.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    >Can you list some other acts you have in mind that you are comparing
    >to when you say this?
    
    As far as I know it is more pleasurable than any experience that I have
    ever had. Mind you I have never tried hard drugs so my experience is
    limited. There are many other activities that give me pleasure but none
    are remotely near sex.

    Re .84 
    
    >but what pleasure does a bird or fish derive from fertilizing an egg?
    
    They probably wonder what pleasure you could possibly get from
    fertilizing an egg.

    >does a pheromone(?) in the female trigger the production of sperm in
    >the male? could the male produce sperm without that trigger? is there
    >such a thing as an estris cycle in birds and fish and insects?
    
    Most females communicate the fact that they are receptive males.
    Sometimes this is by smell and this in turn makes the male responsive.
    In the case of domestic cats, yowling seems to play a big part in it.
    
    >the mystical question centers around 'why does an ameoba split?', and
    >why do cells split? an excess of energy? a certain protein being
    >produced?, etc. the same slant can be put on why a cancer cell
    >reproduces and grows, and why an aids virus spreads, or at the
    >very least the common cold.

    An awful lot of different questions there. Cells split according to a
    pattern, normally time is the determining factor, but sometimes this is
    speeded up if you require more calls, for example blood cells will be
    produced at a higher level than normal if you lose blood.

    Cancer cells are faulty reproduction and tend to be rather random in
    their reproduction. Some can grow very fast if the damage is in the
    wrong place.

    AIDS and the common cold are produced by viruses. These are the
    ultimate parasite. They are just a piece of genetic code in a protein
    shell. They penetrate a cell wall and hijack the cell's reproductive
    system forcing it to make viruses instead of cells. They cannot
    reproduce on their own.
    
    >i do know(?) that when a sperma enters an egg, at least in humans,
    >the cell produces a protein which makes the outside hard enough
    >that no other sperma can get in. when two enter at the same time,
    >supposedly twins are the product. 

    Nope that would leave you with 3 sets of genes and you only want two.
    This would not produce a viable ferialized egg.
    
    Twins happen either when the female produces two eggs, giving non
    identical twins, or when the egg splits in two on the first division
    and the two halves become separated and go on to lead separate
    existences, identical twins.

    >and sometimes when the protein is slow acting, supposedly, two or more
    >sperma can get in, and the usual result is, for lack of a better word,
    >'handicapped'.
    
    I assume that you mean genetic defects like Downs syndrome where all or
    part of the 21st pair of genes has an extra copy. This usually happens
    when the genes are splitting. In the female one half is thrown away, in
    the male each half is used to produce two separate sperm cells. If this
    split is not perfect then you get a genetic defect, mercifully most are
    not viable and spontaneously abort quickly.
    
    >please don't attack me on vagueness of terms, or see insensitivities
    >which are not there, at least consciously. i really would like to
    >know.
    
    No attack and I did not find you insensitive. I hope I have managed to
    answer all your questions.

    Re .85

    >and exactly how does a chicken egg get fertilized? in fish, the male
    >ejaculates over all the eggs. 

    The female stores the sperm and it penetrates the egg when it is
    contained by just a membrane, the shell coats the egg later. Some
    female insects can store sperm for their entire lives. 
    
    Re .86
       
    >With all this talk of animals I hope you all are not comparing humans
    >to animals?
    
    Yes human is an animal, a mammal as it happens. Physiologically our
    nearest relative in the animal world is the pig. Our bodies work very
    similarly to pigs and some, but not all, communicable diseases can be
    shared by us and pigs.
     
    >I've read all of these in depth notes regarding the actual act of sex
    >but what about "making love?"
    
    "Making love" like "sleeping with" is a euphemism for performing the
    sexual act. Being in love, or loving someone is another thing which may
    or may not be sexually related.

    >I have not read one reference about love?

    That is because the discussion was about sex, the person was about to
    give up having sex. Whether this included love was not made clear.
    
    Jamie.
                              

    re .95
    
    >>Whether this included love was not made clear.
    
    The first woman (described in the base note) felt that the presence or
    absence of "love" was irrelevant to whether or not sex is a spiritual
    drain.
    
    Her thoughts on this were that all emotions were a form of bondage to
    the world.  She included *all* kinds of specific-to-one-person love in
    this rule.
    
    So, in her view, sex-with-love would probably be more draining than
    sex-with-indifference since it involved two energy draining activities;
    sex and love.  
    
    I think she meant contract type love; the kind of love that gives
    because it gets.  Or maybe she meant attachment type love; the type of
    love that a person uses to make themselves more whole.
    
    The word "love" is basically meaningless in our language since it has
    so many varied and imprecise definitions.  Almost everyone wants
    to say "yes, but *real* love is different..."
    
    Personally, I think lust is a more trustworthy emotion than what we
    generally call love.
    
    -  Ruth

    Well Ruth, you did not use the word love in the basenote, all
    references were to sex and celibacy.
    
    Jamie.

    Some random thoughts on the topic. Professional athletes were, at one
    point, encouraged to be celibate before major contests (especially
    fighters) as it was felt that it depleted their energy and strength.
    There was actual research done (I don't have the name of the report but
    I do know the the subject is 'on file' with the Olympic development
    people....I read the article while attending an symposium at the
    Olympic training center in Colorado Springs,Colarado about 10 years
    ago.) The conclusions of the report were 1) it did not make any
    difference physically >either enhanced or sub performance and 2)any
    performance was influenced by the person's own beliefs. If they thought
    it would help them it did and if they thought it would drain them then
    it did. So physically there was no significance one way or another.
    Mentally, as always, it came down to a personal belief system.
    From the person who practices celibacy for religious purposes their
    personal beliefs are the 'fact' not scientific evidence. 
    From my own religion > which falls under that broad umbrella 'Native
    American' (an aside> do you know just how many 'sects' are involved
    with the Native American religion >hundreds!) .......I have been taught
    that in order for true harmony to occur your life must be in balance.
    All three of the big three > physical,mental,spiritual > must work
    in harmony and balance in order to be a well integrated human being
    otherwise there is disharmony (chaos). A rather farfetched example
    but maybe one that can give a picture  would be fine wine turning to a
    bitter vinegar. Same stuff > one in harmony one in disharmony.
    
    This 'centering or balancing' crops up in a lot of religions under
    different guises. I think the key word here is 'religion'. Sex itself
    is just a physical act that is good for the body. It produces all sorts
    of 'feel good' chemical reactions. Humans have created their own
    trappings in regards to sex > who has it, with whom, when, how
    long,etc.
    
    So.....winding back down the road.....scientific facts say that sex
    (we are referring to the actual physical act)does not detract from
    performance.However phsycological(sp?) aspects do. My own personal
    religion says that this person would be out of balance and in need of
    much reflection. However....like any religion...we have the exception.
    Sometimes it is necessary to only concentrate on one of the aspects in
    order to bring it into balance. Like devoting all your time to training
    for a race...the concentration on the physical development. Or going
    on a religious retreat to reaffirm one's spiritual side.
    
    As a last thought...way back at the start...someone suggested that this
    person examine their emotions to truly decide whether this was a
    spiritual need or an advoidance of something else. I think there is
    some merit to that thought too.
    
    Paula
    

    re .97
    
    >>Well Ruth, you did not use the word love in the basenote
    
    Yes Jamie.  That is correct.  What's the point?
    
    Ruth

    I forgot who asked me to post this but here it is...
    
    WordsWorth of Harcard Square
    30 Brattle Street
    Cambridge, Ma 02138
    (617)354-4223

    re. 95
    
    Jamie:
    
    Any person who is just having "sex" is of course going to have their
    spirituality drained.  Sex for ones sole pleasure is selfish.  The
    whole idea behind developing ones spirituality is create a harmonious
    union between ones self, others, earth...any what every that person
    call their Higher Power (ie. God or whatever).
    
    How can one claim to have ANY spirituality if they are only out for
    their own pleasures?????
    
    Sex without love is a waste of time because it empty.  

    re .101

    There is no such thing as "just sex."  There is ho-hum sex, great sex,
    and sex that makes your toes curl, but not "just sex."

    I believe that all sexual unions change the participants in ways they
    do not even understand.

    >>Sex without love is a waste of time because it empty.

    Could you please define "love?"

    Thanks,
    Ruth

    Re .99
    
     >>Well Ruth, you did not use the word love in the basenote
    
     >Yes Jamie.  That is correct.  What's the point?
    
    Someone had asked why we were discussing sex and not mentioning love. I
    pointed out that the original question had not mentioned love, just
    sex. You then came back with more information about the person
    mentioned in the basenote, this time using the word love several times.
    I was pointing out that this was the first time you had mentioned love
    in connection with the problem.


    Re .101

    >How can one claim to have ANY spirituality if they are only out for
    >their own pleasures?????
    
    Many do not give a fig about their spirituality, they have sex for
    their personal gratification, sometimes they do not even consider the
    feelings of their partner.

    >Sex without love is a waste of time because it empty.  

    Were this the case then the human population of the world would be only
    a fraction of what it is now, that is supposing there were any of us
    around at all.

    Jamie.                    

    re: .101,
    
    >How can one claim to have ANY spirituality if they are only out for
    >their own pleasures?????
    
    	It's done similarly to the way one can claim to experience 
    	spirituality without experiencing pleasure.  By defining the
    	words for our own convenience and applying our own personal
    	values.
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

    re: 102
    
    Define love? Everyones ideas are completely different as what it really
    is however since you are asking me for my definition:
    
    Love first is unconditional, given freely with expecting anything in
    return. Love is pure void of any negativity. I believe that it is an
    act of selflessness where the other persons needs, wants and desires
    are more important than your own.
    
    

    Jamie I would expect such an answer from a man.....
    
    I feel sorry for anyone who isn't able to experience love and the
    physical expression of that love at the same time.
    
	For me it is a waste of time and has the same excitement level of
    	brushing my teeth.
    
    

    Re 104:
    
    EXCUSE ME? Are saying I have this idea just to justify my own attitudes
    and beliefs about love and sex?
    
    If you are than you need to step back and look at you values?

    He used the passive voice, and the third person, not the second
    person.  It was clear to me that he was only demonstrating how cheap
    and easy it is to make such a sweeping claim.  If you took offense,
    it must be because you felt it *did* apply to you.  Ask yourself
    why.
    
    By the way, in your definition of love, you should mention something
    about the feeling(s) associated with it.  As it is, I could use
    your definition to describe hate or indifference or ....
    
    						Ann B.

    re: .107, 
    
    	No, no, no, please.  I'm so sorry it came off that way.
    	Ann (thank you) was accurately interpreting what I meant, I was
    	replying in a similar tone to the one you used
    	"how can one ..." in an apparently vain attempt to be clever.  
    	I wasn't asking you to justify anything and I apologize.
    
    	I would, though, be interested in hearing why 'I would expect such a 
        comment from a man.' 
    
    	Rapacious, brief, unfeeling perfunctory sex is
    	(more commonly) associated with animals than humans.  Even
    	including human males (!)
    
    	That's the point I was trying to make with my Paul MacLean reference 
        before, showing how humans take on similar biological functions and
    	find new meaningful ways to use them that aren't found with
    	animals.  I suspect that it's probably very rare, and probably 
    	somewhat pathological to find a human male who gets no pleasure from 
    	pleasing his partner and having her/him respond lovingly.  There's 
    	a tremendous difference for men between masturbation and 
    	sex for at least this reason, otherwise they would be virtually the
    	same experience.  In my opinion, of course.
    
    	In short, I'm agreeing that sex 'with love' is a qualitatively
    	and perhaps even physiologically different experience than
    	sex performed as a quick release of sexual tension (as with
    	most masturbation).
    
    						kind regards,
    							todd

                          
    Re.106 (Seifert)
    
    About your comment:
    
    >Jamie I would expect such an answer from a man.....
                                              ^^^^^
    
    Please refrain from making stereotypical comments such as this.  
    
    You are free to express that you would expect such an answer
    from Jamie specifically, however.  While this is not a highly 
    recommended alternative for reasons that may or may not be 
    obvious to you, still you may do so.
    
    Cindy (moderator hat on)

    It seems to me that there are an awful lot of prostitutes around to
    service something so "empty" as sex without love...
    
    Laurie.

    Re .109

    >I suspect that it's probably very rare, and probably somewhat
    >pathological to find a human male who gets no pleasure from 	
    >pleasing his partner and having her/him respond lovingly

    There are a lot of them out there Todd, rapists are not usually known
    for their urge to please their partners. There are also those who wish
    only casual sex and often they care nothing for their partners.

    People vary, and what they want from sex varies greatly.

    Jamie.

    RE:108
    
    GIVE ME A BREAK!!! The reason I took offense is because has NO idea who
    I am or what I stand for or believe in.  I think it is very wrong to
    tell me what I may or may not believe in.
    
    Also my definition of love in no way for ME be associated with hate or
    indifferences
    

    re:111.
    
    Well maybe we should feel sorry for those people who never had the joy
    of experiencing physical love.
    
    
    

    re: .110, (Cindy)
    	I appreciate and support your efforts as moderator to point out 
        stereotyping, but in all fairness, she did say "I would expect ..." not
    	"men are ...," so to me it is a very fair expression of perception
    	and I welcome dialogue around it.   I like to know how I'm
    	seen, even if it's a stereotyped view.
    
    re: Jamie,
    
    	I recognize the diversity of human behavior, that wasn't the
    	point.  The point (to me)was that anonymous promiscuous sex 
    	and rape are not in biology considered the baseline for human sexual 
    	relations as you seem to imply.  The evolutionary current view 
    	expresses that social and sexual behavior developed in an
    	interlinked way, to create the early family bonding that 
    	permitted societies to arise.  You might well disagree about whether
    	they are 'rare' or 'pathological,' they are partly value
    	judgements and partly quantitative estimations on my part.  
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

    re: rape and prostitutes ...
    
    Also, I'd be very surprised if rape were deviod of 'emotional
    baggage' and were purely an overdeveloped sexual drive.  That
    doesn't match what I've heard.  Ditto with visiting prostitutes.
    I don't think they support the thesis of sex being independent
    of more interwoven social and emotional factors at a biological 
    level.
    
    						todd

    .117
    
    .... well... it is an attachment..

    Maybe your family, Wal, not mine.  :-)
    My wife wields the real power in our household.
    
    Your approach to natural history reminds me in some ways
    of Freud's.  That's sort of a compliment (and sort of not).
    It isn't neccessarily contradictory with the view in 
    evolutionary biology, but it doesn't have the same general
    usefulness, I think.   It's more a rationale than explanation,
    I suspect.
    
    If we can find even a single society in history that didn't 
    match the characteristics of the family in your explanation,
    it seems to me it would weaken it considerably.
    
    I wonder if someone with some knowledge of cultural anthropology could 
    elucidate the likelihood or occurance of matriarchal societies or
    others inconsistent with the 'dominant male' model that Wal
    proposes as universal ?  I'm not up on this.   Does it have any support
    ?
    
    						todd

    I don't think there is enough yang influence in our country 
    right now .... too much yin influence, I think... 

RE .100 

Hi Mary,

  Thanks for posting Wordsworth's phone number.

Ronan

ps did you have any success finding David Burns' book "Feeling Good" ?    Just wondering
   if it's still in print.

    No Ronan... I haven't found that one yet... actually my book buying
    budget is getting stretched right now so I'll probably put that on my
    "to get tomorrow" list.

    The notes I've been replying to have been deleted, I assume by their
    author, since there was nothing particularly offensive in them as
    far as I could tell .  I find that extremely disrespectful and annoying.
    If you don't care enough about your own opinion to support it,
    or have enough respect for me to engage in a dialogue, then please
    don't waste my time asking me questions like 'huh ?' when I try
    to express a thought, Wal.   I respond to this because it's not the
    first time this has happened to me in this conference by a long shot.
    I apologize if I misinterpreted the situation.
    
    Like I've got nothing better to do than chase dissappearing notes
    around in this conference.   Damn, that's aggravating !
    
    							todd

    1816.117
    
    So then if love is responsible for keeping the universe together and
    the attraction of planets how then could the expression of physical
    love have a drain on anyones spirituality.
    
    Mindy
    
    
    

    There has never been a matriARCHal society reported�; however, there
    have been many matriLINEal, equalitarian societies, (See _The_Chalice_
    _and_the_Blade_ by Riane Eisler, _When_God_Was_a_Woman_ by Merlin
    Stone, etc.) which predate (mostly) the patriarchal models we are so
    used to.
    
    						Ann B.
    
    � The !Kung were originally claimed to be matriarchal; this claim has
    been corrected after further study.  The same is true for <some tribe
    in the vague region of Indonesia>.

    re: .126,
    	Thanks very much, Ann. That's what I was interested in.
    
    re: Wal,
    	Thanks for the mail explaining what was going on.
    
    	I believe the biological evolutionary events I was talking
    	about long predate the cultures you referred to.  I don't know
    	how well such a theory as the one you proposed would have applied
    	to the kind of early socio-sexual interlinking I was talking about.   
    	It's difficult to imagine Hominds or such having families in
    	the terms we think of them.  I'm sorry if I was unclear that I 
    	was talking about biological evolution and not cultural
    	evolution.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

RE:                     <<< Note 1816.125 by AIMHI::SEIFERT >>>
    
�    So then if love is responsible for keeping the universe together and
�    the attraction of planets how then could the expression of physical
�    love have a drain on anyones spirituality.
    
    I don't understand the question either (assuming it is a question,
    there's no question mark). The basenote said:
    
.0�    I have a friend who has decided to become celibate for spiritual
.0�    reasons.  She feels that sexual activity is a drain on her spiritual
.0�    energy.

    There is no mention of love. Jamie and I have been to great pains to
    explain that sexual activity and love are not one and the same, and not
    necessarily connected.
    
    Laurie.

    RE: 127
    
    The author of the note stated that she thought sexual contact had a
    drain on her spirituality.
    
    Now this brings up the question of what type of sexual contact.  I
    believe that when you truly love the person it can be a wonderful
    spirital union where you are able to express your love for God, self
    and that other person.  I  experience a wonderful sense of loving
    energy.
    
    Now I also believe that sex just for the sake of your own pleasure is
    wrong.  I believe it selfish and devoid of any positive emotions. 
    Therefore I can see how it could be a drain on someones spirituality.
    
    To answer you question on what is spiritualiy. I believe it is ones
    ability to get closer to your "Higher Power - whatever you chose to
    call HIM or HER", Higher self, Angels, Spirit Guides and then take that 
    knowledge and incorporate it into your everyday for the good of all
    around you.
    

    Yes Laurie you have stated that sexual activity and love are not
    connected and for a lot of people that is true....that is a
    shame.....but I think we have to look a ones purpose for having sex or
    making love to determine if that would be a drain on ones spirituality.
    
    

    CHANNELING MIKHAEL (a 19th Century Cossack)
    
    ***begin***
    
    You people need to ride horses more.  The law of the excluded middle
    does not apply to sex.  There are good horses, bad horses, indifferent
    horses, and horses that willingly ride over a cliff with you.  Sex
    between two people is equally varied.  Two people can please each
    other, please themselves, please the gods, heal the universe, all at
    the same time.  Really good sex is like a campfire for the gods.  They
    gather around, they meditate, they envy us.  And they should, too.  
    
    Get your chakras aligned, people.  Any choice you make, celibacy, sex,
    hard riding, war, taps the energy flowing around you.  Sex without
    choice, which is what I think some of you mean when you say "sex
    without love," is not draining so much as a deliberate refusal to tap
    the energy flowing around you.  It is anti-life.
    
    
    ***end***

    re. 132.
    
    
    NO! You don't seem to understand what I mean....FOR ME AND JUST FOR
    ME....love and sex are one in the same. Sex is just another way of
    expressing love to someone.
    
    So for me it could never be a drain on my spiritality.....
    
    

    re 133
    
    Let me ask you this...where does that positive energy come
    from....isn't love??
    
    

    	Re: .133, 
    
    		Bravo Ruth!! ..er, I mean Mikhael.  :^)
    
    					chuck
    

    re. 137
    
    Ok...you stated in note 117 that love was responsible for keeping the 
    universe together...did you not?  So for me love and sex are one in the 
    same so if love is so powerful that it can keep the universe together
    how then can making love be a drain on ones spirituality?
    
    The only way I can see physical love being a drain on ones spiritality
    is when one is only doing it for their own pleasure.

    RE:139....
    
    You may believe what you wish....As I've stated many times....the act
    of sex does not have a drain on my spirituality because for ME it is
    another way of expressing my love towards my boyfriend.
    
    If you are still confused you mail send me mail on AIMHI.....
    
    

    
    I still like the part about the angelic realm myself...  0(;^)
    
    Cindy

    :-) ... me too, Cindy ... thing is.. it's the angel who chooses.. 

    RE: .133
    
    What, pray, is the "law of the excluded middle"?
    
    Laurie.
    
    PS. Is "channeling" [sic] a PC phrase for schizophrenia?

    >    PS. Is "channeling" [sic] a PC phrase for schizophrenia?
    
    	Laurie,
    
    With the amount of time you've participated in this notesfile, I've no
    doubt that you've read many, many notes dealing with "Channeling", and
    have all of the information you need on the topic to have formulated
    your own opinion on the topic, as I have. I'm probably as skeptical as
    yourself on the topic.
    
    Normally I enjoy the "skeptical" viewpoint in your notes; but I can see
    no purpose to the above question other than a "PC" opportunity for some
    namecalling. It's a shame you felt a need to put that "PS" in your
    reply.... *I* would normally react to namecalling by disregarding the
    other portion of your reply, even though it may ask a valid question.
    But perhaps the author of .133 is thicker-skinned than myself. In any
    case, I cannot see where your "PS" adds value to the discussion at
    hand, but appears to be merely throwing stones. Sad.
    
    					chuck
    
    

    Laurie,
    
    The "law of the excluded middle" says that an insistance on making
    binary choices drives out moderation.  E.g., "Is that shade of grey
    really black or white?"
    
    It is a valid condemnation of extremism of any sort.
    
    						Ann B.

    People may use it to mean that, Ann, but that is not what it means.

    Generally, the "law of the excluded middle" is considered one of the
    foundations of rigorous logic.  It says that a well stated, singular,
    true/false statement, is either true or false -- there is no middle
    ground -- such fundamental statements do not admit to being both true
    and false.  If we have defined what it means for it to be raining
    then it is either raining or it is not raining it cannot be both --
    though I might want to create a category -- e.g., drizling -- that
    moderates between the two.

    The law of the excluded middle does not prevent one from talking about
    "shades of grey" -- it only prevents one from claiming that something
    is completely black and unambiguously black and also completely an
    unambiguously white -- where white is here taken as the total and
    complete contradiction of black.  More accurately it prevents us from
    saying that something is definitely black and at the same time saying
    that it definitely is *not* black.

    It is the law of the excluded middle which allows me to conclude that
    when something is not true that it is false.  Some modern systems of
    logic (for example, fuzzy logic) do not require the law of the excluded
    middle in its classic form but there is always something functionally
    equivalent, or reasoning becomes impossible.  (For example, in fuzzy
    logic, things may be only partly true, but there is a rule which says
    that the degree of truth of a proposition plus the degree of truth of
    its denial equal 1 the maximum degree of truth for any proposition).

    To discard the law of the excluded middle completely is to say "nothing
    logical or even reasonable can be said about this, no contradiction
    will give me the slightest pause."

    It is of course, perfectly valid to say that ones first level concepts
    are not precise enough to apply the law of the excluded middle.  In
    that case, in order to get any reasonable discourse, one must refine
    what one means until one can apply it.

				    Topher

    re .144

    Laurie,

    I think channeling is the correct term here.   Mikhael is a separate
    entity.  I can tune-in to the vibration of his words.  He speaks to me
    and sometimes I write down what he says.  I can't control his comings
    and goings.  He shows up when he wants to and when I am open to it.

    If I were schizophrenic, I would actually believe that Mikhael is part
    of my own mind.  Since I do not believe that he and I are the same
    entity (except, of course in a cosmic sense) then schizophrenia is
    not the term I would use.

    But, thanks for asking.

    Ruth

    Thank you, one and all. It's now clear.
    
    Laurie.

    Re .148

    >If I were schizophrenic, I would actually believe that Mikhael is part
    >of my own mind.  Since I do not believe that he and I are the same
    >entity (except, of course in a cosmic sense) then schizophrenia is
    >not the term I would use.

    Actually Ruth you have described a classic case of schizophrenia. The
    secondary personality, or influence is always perceived as external to
    the person.

    Jamie.     

|    >If I were schizophrenic, I would actually believe that Mikhael is part
|    >of my own mind.  Since I do not believe that he and I are the same
|    >entity (except, of course in a cosmic sense) then schizophrenia is
|    >not the term I would use.
|
|    Actually Ruth you have described a classic case of schizophrenia. The
|    secondary personality, or influence is always perceived as external to
|    the person.
    
    Jamie describes a sometime symptom of personality disorder, but not 
    specifically symptomatic of schizophrenia, 'classic' or otherwise.
    
    Multiple Personality Disorder and schizoid symptomatology do have
    some overlap with trance mediumship or channeling.  The difference
    is that automonous dissociated behavior is not by itself considered a 
    pathology, it is generally considered a marker along with other 
    symptoms of various schizoid ('splitting') disorders, when and if
    it interferes with normal functioning and is out of the control
    of the individual.  The exact nature of the dissociation that occurs
    in MPD is controversial, but it is not synonymous with schizophrenia
    in any case.

    Schizophrenia, on the other hand, is mostly a serious sensory-perceptual
    disorder that appears to have a complex multifaceted biological origin.  
    It is characterized by visual and/or auditory hallucinations, 
    difficulty in social functioning, but not neccessarily dissociated 
    behavior or the development of distinct separate personalities.
    
    Schizophrenia is frequently confused in popular literature with schizoid 
    disorders (splits of the integrated psyche), because of the similar
    sounding names, and because schizophrenia is often associated with 
    auditory hallucinations.  The schizophrenic doesn't neccessarily repeat 
    what they're hearing or go into an autonomous role playing of a separate 
    personality, however, as appears to happen in channeling/mediumship.   
    
    Dissociated behavior of this type is not by itself considered a pathology, 
    or symptomatic of a pathology until and unless it becomes
    uncontrollable and unwanted by the person, and interferes
    with the individual's effective functioning.

    						kind regards,

    						todd

    re: .151,
    	In other words, Ruth's experience with Mikhael as described would not,
    	in my opinion, constitute symptoms of schizophrenia, (it is too
    	orderly and situationally controlled) and would only
    	indicate something I'd consider a personality disorder if her
    	channeling caused her to lose the ability to perform normal 
    	reality testing, and caused her to behave in a manner which
    	was completely dissociated from her most usual waking personality.
    
    	For example, not remembering what the 'other entities' said and did
    	when presenting her usual personality, *and* being unable to
    	prevent the occurances from happening.   Or, for example,
    	being unable to attend to daily tasks because of interference by
    	auditory hallucinations.
    
    						todd

    Ah Todd you seem to have misinterpreted what I said. 
    
    Ruth claimed that she could not be a schizophrenic because Mikhael was
    external to her. I then looked up schizophrenia in medical text book
    and discovered that people who suffer from schizophrenia have
    hallucinations of various sorts and these are always perceived as being
    external to themselves.

    Therefore her claim that Mikhael was external did not tend to rule out
    schizophrenia, but rather tended to indicate it.

    Jamie.
                    

    re: .153, Jamie,
    	I understand that, but it's a minor point compared to the attempt
    	to relate a channeling experience to schizophrenic psychosis, which
    	I insist is inappropriate.   Schizophrenia is a serious illness
    	(actually probably class of related illnesses) and it doesn't do 
    	anyone any justice to throw it around as a way of poking fun at 
    	trance channeling.  
    
    	A big general issue is that modern psychiatry is considered above all
    	*goal oriented*, not symptom oriented, and I don't want people to
    	think that all shrinks walk around thinking that trance mediums
    	or channelers are psychotic or possessing dissociative disorders just 
    	because some of what they experience, _in_another_context_, would be 
    	considered a symptom of some kind.  If there isn't a problem being
    	presented, there isn't a 'diagnosis' of any kind.   I don't think
    	we made that point clear when we started discussing the 
    	psychiatric perspective of trance mediums.	
    
    	Secondly, if we do, in the abstract, consider the case where
    	we are looking at channeling in the context of a problem, for
    	example the individual appears possessed by what they perceive as 
    	the other entity, and it interferes with their normal functioning
    	and produces serious impairment, then we have at least two
    	different classes of problem, dissociative disorders (neuroses),
    	and schizophrenia-like conditions (psychoses).  The latter, which
    	is what you were comparing channeling to, requires a great deal
    	more than just occasional dissociative experiences to establish.
    
    	Schizophrenia is technically a group of syndromes associated with 
    	progressively worsening *massive* disruptions of thinking,
    	mood, and behavior.  There is highly impaired concentration,
    	influenced by delusions and hallucinations, inappropriate
    	reactions to environmental stimuli, flat rapidly and randomly
    	changing affect, behavior incongruent with the external
    	environment, impaired social function without any pleasure,
    	and almost continual depression except during acute psychotic
    	episodes.   This is not generally the clinical picture of
    	someone who dabbles in or experiences periods of
    	trance mediumship.  
    
    	The depersonalization effect that you are relating to
    	'classic schizophrenia,' would generally be associated with complete
    	lack of humor, feelings of dread, fear of annhilation, and
    	generation of worseniing anxiety levels.  The boundary betwen
    	the individual and the 'entity' would fade, rather than remain
    	distinct.  Also, the auditory hallucinations of schizophrenic
    	and schizophreniform disorders are usually derogatory in nature.
    	
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    As you point out Todd schizophrenia is a class of related illnesses. It
    is also far from fully understood. As far as I can see channeling and
    walk ins fit some of the descriptions of some of the forms of this
    illness. However as I have no medical qualifications I cannot judge
    with any certainty if it is indeed a schizophrenic condition. That said
    I cannot see how you can be so sure that it is not.

    Jamie.

>    illness. However as I have no medical qualifications I cannot judge
>    with any certainty if it is indeed a schizophrenic condition. That said
>    I cannot see how you can be so sure that it is not.
    
    It's possible that you might be judging this from a limited experience
    with dissociation.   It is not all that uncommon an experience in its
    many forms.  There are many types of human experience where we view
    ourselves from this unconventional kind of psychological perspective.  
    
    It doesn't take much medical background to be able
    to distinguish simple dissociative experiences from schizophrenic
    delusional episodes.  The two don't look all that much alike, imo.
    They don't even smell alike.  The biochemistry of many schizophrenics
    gives them an unusual characteristic odor.
    
    I used to do some volunteer work in a massive local 
    psychiatric facility, the Pennsylvania State Hospital.
    I came into contact with many treated schizophrenics.
    
    When they closed a number of years ago, the streets of
    my home town suddenly saw an influx of sad, lonely people,
    unable to communicate with others, hearing voices in their
    head that they couldn't turn off, unable to think clearly 
    enough to plan their day or put together a coherent sentence.
    I sometimes came across them, and would engage them in conversation,
    finding that after talking for 20 minutes, they hadn't said anything.
    
    That was my first direct exposure to untreated schizophrenia,
    a label now used to mean a _progressively_debilitating_psychosis_.
    
    Needless to say, it made an impression on me.  I have a hard time
    reconciling that tragedy with someone's playful benign dissociative
    experiences.   No, I can't say there is no connection of some kind
    at some level.  But I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt that
    most dissociative experiences are not neccessarily precursors to 
    schizophrenic psychosis !   There is no such indication anywhere that
    I've ever seen.   
    
    If significant number of trance mediums were in that category, many or
    most would end up under psychiatric care or wandering the streets 
    talking to themselves, withdrawn and unable to communicate with others,
    and this does not seem to be the case at all.  The phenomena sometimes
    comes and goes, sometimes is deliberately cultivated, and 
    rarely leads to psychiatric problems of the magnitude that term
    schizophrenia implies.  
    
    We've about beaten the topic of unqualified psychiatrization of trance
    phenomena sufficently to death by now, right ?
    
    							todd

    Jamie,

    Even in the most conservative, conventionalist, rationalistic
    interpretations there are many, many psychological conditions which
    result in people "hearing" voices inside their head which they
    interpret as more or less distinct from their own personality.  While
    this can be a symptom of psychopathology -- including but not
    restricted to schizophrenia -- there are many other instances where
    there is absolutely no reason to suppose any psychopathology.  It
    is mildly unusual but *not* "abnormal".  This is backed up by over
    100 years of intense study of the phenomenon in various forms.

    How people interpret these internal, yet apparently dissociated from
    the conscious self, voices depends in a quite rational way upon their
    particular belief systems and upon the circumstances under which they
    "hear" the voices.  Many writers, for example, describe their characters
    as quite literally dictating their dialog to the writer.  Under the
    circumstances most modern writers would attribute these voices to their
    own subconscious -- but the experience is, as they describe it, of
    a wholly autonomous entity speaking to them.  Under different
    circumstances they could reasonably attribute an external entity as
    the source of their voice.

    That you do not agree with the belief system which backs up the
    particular interpretation of the very real experience in question does
    not make it pathological.  Attempts to define it as pathological simply
    because it differs from what some people consider to be The Truth is
    the same kind of pseudo-rationality which had homosexuality labeled as
    a pathological condition for a while.

    No one with any knowledge of psychology would think of even tentativly
    applying a label (especially publically given the misplaced negative
    connotations) such as "schizophrenia" without quite a bit of evidence
    of pathology and of additional symptoms.  That you, Jamie, with your
    professed and demonstrated profound ignorance of the subject, would
    arrogantly do so shows an extraordinary degree of irresponsibility.
    I see very little difference, frankly, between your behavior, and
    that of the believers in alternative medical practices that you get
    all fired up about.

				    Topher

    
    You all might want to take a look at topic 1561 too...
    
    Cindy

    Fellow Dejaviewers,

    I am *not* schizophrenic (even a little bit).  But, I appreciate your
    concern for me.

    On the other hand, Mikhael informed me that he *is*.  (Although he did
    comment that he can't see how this is really anyone else's business.)

    He would like to know why all of you took the "first opportunity to
    bolt from the topic of sex and celibacy" and "what you think that
    means."

    Peace,

    Ruth

    Re .159

    >On the other hand, Mikhael informed me that he *is*.

    This does bring up the possibility that you are merely a figment of his
    imagination and he is the primary personality.

    Jamie.

    For me, having followed this, I suppose "channeling[sic]" falls into
    another of the "act of faith" things: either one believes it, or one
    doesn't. For those who believe it, including, naturally, those who
    "practise" it, that presents no problem. For those who regard it with
    scepticism, the problem is that there are alternative, more
    conventional ways to explain the phenomenom. It is towards those
    explanations, that the sceptic is drawn, understandably, in my opinion.
    
    Laurie.

    	Of course, the IMPORTANT question is:
    
    Is sex charging or draining for a schizophrenic? Or will it vary with
    the same person, depending upon the peak or valley of the person's
    daily mania?
    
    And will a schizoid personality experience both charging and draining
    at once? 
    
    Well, it's charging for me. Shutup, no one asked you, and I find it's 
    draining! Charging! Draining! Charging! And *I'm* sick and tired of both 
    of your bickering, and I think you both have dirty minds for even 
    discussing such a topic. Do not! Do so! Do not! Lalalalalalal, I can't 
    hear you, lalalalalalala....

RE: .161 (Laurie)

>    conventional ways to explain the phenomenom. It is towards those
>    explanations, that the sceptic is drawn, understandably, in my opinion.

    The person who is "drawn" towards such explanations, without a detailed
    understanding of the evidence for or against them, is the person who,
    a priori, believes them to be more likely.  This is not "skepticism"
    but simply belief in a more "conventional" view of reality, i.e.,
    conventionalism.  Conventionalism is opposed to skepticism.  The
    skeptic is skeptical of conventional explanations as well as
    unconventional ones.

				Topher

BSS::C_OUIMETTE 
    
    	No... the IMPORTANT question is:
    
    Can a schizophrenic have sex with himself... like a hermaphrodite? 
    :-)

    re .163 - Topher
    
    Even though I do not understand your reply (it's late on Friday
    afternoon), I *like* it.  Bravo, Topher.
    
    :-)  *Stella* Susan

    re 1.57 - Topher
    
    Again, Topher, hats off to you.  I'm glad we have you as our moderator.
    
    

    Whilst I agree that .157 is an excellent reply it completely misses the
    point that I was making.

    Ruth had said that as she perceived him to be external to her she could
    not be schizophrenic. She assumed that this proved that she was not. In
    reality people who are schizophrenic always seem to perceive the
    stimulus as external. Thus her criterion for judgement was flawed. 

    Not I did not say that Ruth was schizophrenic, I just pointed out that
    she was using one symptom to prove that she was not, whereas in fact
    this symptom did not prove that at all, if anything it tended to
    indicate the exact opposite. 

    Jamie.

    re: .168

    >>Thus wouldn't you like to start a topic on him? Since you say you are
    >>in direct conscious contact with him, he might be willing to give us
    >>some words and answers.

    Marcos,

    I will give this some consideration.

    I am curious about one thing though.  Why would Mikhael's "words and
    answers" be an item of interest to you?  What would you hope to learn
    or gain from it?
    
    Ruth

    Hi,
    
    	How does sexuality relate to spirituality?
    
    The following is a quote...
    
    "Love is often felt as sexuality
    Your body is an instrument of experience.
    When you experience love
    you do so in your total physical being.
    There is nothing within you  
    that is not designed to express love.
    
    Sexuality is a wonderful door to oneness.
    It is the willingness to see and be seen,
    to share as completely as you are able
    through each and every part of your self
    so that you can be known and cherished.
    
    There is a necessity in the human committment
    to honour the reality of the sexual union.
    It is, perhaps, the most direct means of unification
    when it is experienced on all levels,
    not only the physical, of course,
    but not only at the spiritual either.
    Be careful of that, for you are all things
    and you exist on all levels.
    
    Sexuality is a biological doorway into truth."
    
    
    To be honest, I'm not sure if I can relate to all that, but it seems to
    come near the mark for me.
    
    
        I too would like to hear from Mikheal, though I would prefer to
    hear his comments as they relate to the current discussions, as to be
    honest there are many, many books that describe what life is like in
    spirit, what it feels like to die, is there God/Devil etc....
    
    Anyhow, that's my request.
    
     Steve

    Hi again,
    
         forgot to put my own bit into the discussion...
    
    Pyschic activity, channeling etc takes effort. A healer can get
    knackered pretty quickly, it is draining work and part of the training
    for a healer is to know not to overdo it and to recognise when he/she
    is.
    
    I dont know about you, but I get pretty knackered after good sex too.
    On the one hand it can be uplifting, an expression of love etc.
    but I generally want to fall asleep soon afterwards. (getting old and
    mouldy I guess) 
    
    What I am pointing is the obvious effect on the body of both
    activities. 
    
    We are all have physical bodies and it is hard to do two draining
    activities without much of a break in between.
    
    
    cheers
    
    Steve
     
    
    
    

    According to a Taoist I saw on TV recently (in his seventies and still,
    er, going strong!), sex (orgasm) is a drain if you're a man, but
    energising if you're a woman.

    >sex (orgasm) is a drain if you're a man, but energising if you're a woman.

    that figures, men has always be giving to women and women just take
    take and take, they never give us anything back in return, we men are
    sick and tired of this and we must revolt and put an end to this.

    \nasser

    >sex (orgasm) is a drain if you're a man, but energising if you're a
    woman.
    
    really?
    
    hmmmm
    
    energising if you're a woman eh?  
    
    really?
    
    hmmmmm
    
    not
    always!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    

    Nasser, perhaps you could mention your theory in WOMANNOTES. I'm sure
    that you would get an interesting response.

    Jamie.

    .-1

    thanks Jamie, but iam panned for life from that file , and i wont , i
    say wont, break the pan under any negating cirumenstances.

    \bye
    \nasser

    Of course, Jamie, you can guess the truth of that statement too.
    
    						Ann B.

    Well Nasser you could always post it in VAXCAT::EUROWOMAN, might liven
    it up a bit.

    Jamie.