all sex exclusively based on sexual desire is bad, but so is sex based exclusively on desire for offspring. theyre both selfish.

@georgia the offspring hasn't even released a good album in decades smdh

@georgia selfish? if mutually enjoyable how selfish?

@ug by selfish I dont mean one person desires something the other doesnt, I mean one person wants something in return. motivated by self-interest, not by pure love.

@georgia what's pure love?

@ug love without concern for self-interest

@georgia yeah but the point of fucking is you both enjoy it

@ug the point of sex is to express love, but real love is not dependent on sex, just like its not dependent on monetary gifts or flattering words. charitas/agape/prema isnt that hard to understand. do you love someone unconditionally, without expecting anything in return? or do you love them because they provide you with something, like sex? even loving someone because they make you feel good isnt real love. Gods love is real love, like the love of a good mother. for a good mother, her child can hate her and shell still love her child, because her love is pure love. if you have sex for sex and not for pure love, you are inherently self-interested, and bind yourself, even if someone elses interests happen to align with yours. wanting what's in someone's best interest is part of love, but having the same interests as someone isnt the same as wanting their best interest. "I want this, and you also want it, so I can have it" is very different from "I want this because its best for both of us". and I should say, sex based purely on sexual desire aka casual sex is not in the best interests of anyone.

@ug the point of sex is not kama, its prema. enjoyment from sex should be derived from love, not from pleasure. love is selfless, pleasure is always self-interested.

@georgia hmmmmmm

in some ways it is
in some ways it is not
in some ways it both is and is not
in some ways it neither is nor is not
in all ways it is indescribable

@ug youll need to explain your point more. I'll just have to agree to disagree I think

@georgia i believe that is from the upanishads

i feel like you can 'love' someone casually, like you might not just view them as a sexual object but experience casual sex as a mutual beneficial activity, to doing it 'with' vs 'to'

i do think there is a lot of sex that is rather shallow or even harmful, where both parties feel empty or apart afterwards, but I'm not sure if 'pure love' needs to be there, or that casual sex can't be healthy but there's more factors at play

@georgia TRUE

@ug gosh i cant believe i missed an upanishad reference, i must continue my studies!!!

i guess im kind of a love fundamentalist by thinking agape must be there for sex to be permissable. agape is so uncommon in kali yuga. historically, most couples have come together because they wanted to have sex lawfully, and eventually wanted offspring. i view all this as selfish.

Sure do have plenty to say about it as someone that never has themselves.

@georgia@netzsphaere.xyz @ug@brain.worm.pink

@Saorsa @ug not doing something because i view it as unethical under the circumstances is a good thing

@georgia @ug It comes from both, there's no such thing as enjoyable sex without physical pleasure

@georgia @Saorsa in order to test your theories scientifically ou need to go have dirty bathroom sex with someone you despise

@scathach @ug this is the "if it didnt make my genitals feel good, i wouldnt be having it" argument. the necessary condition is not a sufficient condition.

i think its true that sex that feels bad in any way including physically means it should not be undergone typically, just like food that tastes bad shouldnt be eaten. but the involvement of the senses doesnt mean that one cant have sex for a higher purpose, or that sex doesnt have this higher purpose. theres a huge difference between making someone feel good through sex because you love them, and making someone feel good through sex because it makes one feel physical pleasure as well. when i say sex should be an expression of love, not a way of getting pleasure, that doesnt mean one should express love by doing things to someone they DONT like! thats silly! just like the point of kissing isnt to make your mouth feel good, the point of sex isnt to make your penis feel good. why is one easy for people to understand, and not the other?

anyway, sexual intercourse is just one form of physical intimacy, and just one form of expressing love. of the forms of expressing love, it is not a necessary one, and not the best one, either.

since indulgence of the senses is involved in having sex, people who are truly desireless usually stop having sex. the Buddha stopped having sex after he was liberated. when i talk about the purpose of sex being prema, that doenst mean sex is necessary for prema or that sex is close to the best way to develop or show prema.

anyway, kama is an important part of life for most people. most people arent nishkama karma yogins.

@georgia @scathach

i guarantee Georgia that every single person who has ever had sex finds your intellectualization of the topic rediculous

@georgia @ug That's not the argument I'm making at all; I'm saying enjoyment of sex comes from both affection and physical pleasure (which doesn't just mean orgasms) and sex that's only enjoyable because of love without any physical enjoyment doesn't exist and makes no sense

If you're going to moralize about sex you should really have firsthand experience

@georgia is the former selfish if all parties involved want it? having kids is indeed selfish but otherwise people go extinct!

@georgia @ug many people don't always associate sex with love, just carnal desire

@georgia @ug love is freeform

@scathach @georgia

yeah, love + attraction is the best sex
can have sex without love but not without attraction
i mean you can love someone but if you're not arroused it ain't happening

@scathach @georgia

also don't think sex just for pleasure is neccessarily selfish, like you can derive pleasure from satisfying the other person, or just hte act of seducing/arousing an other takes a bit of work and consideration, a good lover will properly groom themselves, dress and smell nice, make sure their partner is having a good time, someone who only considers their own pleasure is not a good lay

@georgia @scathach

also sex for 'a higher purpose' wtf, like yes procreation is a consequence of hetero sex, but there's actually no way of knowing if a single act of intercourse will lead to pregnancy because there's various factors at play like a women's cycle or sperm count... so like even couples who are explicitly trying to make a baby may try for weeks or months, the idea that people specifically arange a sexual encounter for the sole purpose of breeding is just silly, people fuck because it's pleasurable to do so and reproduction is a consequence of that.

@georgia @ug unconditional love is for pets. You love your pet solely for its existence and inane qualities, without any spoken or unspoken conditions for it to follow.

With humans, love is always conditional, at least after you turn 5.

@georgia did you learn that in sex education class or came up with this on your own

@ug @scathach all aspects of life should be examined

@scathach @ug i thought I covered what you said in my response. of course it feels good, why would you do something that feels bad to show love? that doesnt mean the point isnt to show love.

@ug @scathach the "good lover" you describe acts that way with concern for the other person because they actually care about them. this makes the sex not casual sex. or, if they only care about them because they want to be good at sex, then they are clearly still thinking of themselves.

casual sex is inherently self-involved, being motivated exclusively by seeking sensory enjoyment. all forms of seeking sensory enjoyment as an end in itself are selfish and karmically binding, or not nishkama karma. they are motivated by "i want to feel like this, my senses are mine", so clearly the ego/i-maker is involved. I think when you argue that casual sex is not selfish you are still using the definition I explained to you is not the definition I'm using. I mean self-involved, self-motivated, not "putting oneself before another".

@ug @scathach when I said higher purpose I meant love, not reproduction. this is consistent with the rest of my posts on the subject.

@newt @ug most people dont love their pets or other humans unconditionally, and it shouldnt be this way.

@georgia @ug first of all, pets are incapable of following any conditions.

Second, unconditional love towards a creature capable of abusing it is the most cruel curse imaginable. Have you ever heard of toxic relationships? That's what it would look like.

@newt @ug loving someone unconditionally doesnt mean letting them hurt you. you can still influence their behavior, you just dont decide to not love them if they misbehave.

@georgia @ug sooo, consider a rather mundane scenario. A woman is married to her husband who is twice her size, drinks, and uses her as a punching bag. Would you preach unconditional love to her or would you be a good lesbian and tell her to pack her bags and gtfo?

@georgia @ug real and true

@georgia @ug All actions are motivated by self-interest beyond drinking water and eating gruel.

@georgia no, sex based pn desire is fun, you should enjoy it

@georgia aren't you old enough now to make an account on spinster?

@georgia sex is bad when you have it, chud
thats why you'll never have sex
and even the fact that you want to have sex is bad, btw

@ug @georgia Isreap, you're being anticatlady.

@bronze @georgia i dont wanna be mean but sometimes i think georgia is an alien

Is that what you tell yourself?

@bronze@pl.kitsunemimi.club Our noble love-making versus their degenerate fucking