@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 all aspects of life should be examined

@pettanko allegedly

@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.

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

@Saorsa i changed to disroot and im trying to set up forwarding

@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.

gmail is holding my fucking account hostage by making me use my old phone number to set up email forwarding. -.-

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

I wish my new phone the commodore callback were coming sooner. I dont know if my old phone will last that long and still be able to take a charge/be turned on.

@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.

@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 love without concern for self-interest

@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.

incels think that less desirable men used to be able to touch pussy because hypergamy wasnt common yet, but the real reason is because women were disenfranchised and marriages were arranged by parents and not based on love. also, societies around the world have a form of marriage specifically for men who no one wants, its called "bride kidnapping".

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

funeral Thursday :(

@nautilus

"Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one. And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy heart..." (btw I can chant the ve'ahavta in original hebrew)

"For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?' Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?' But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it."

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

@subnetter @scathach i agree with some of this, veganism in the west is far from perfect, it tends to care about animal suffering while diminishing the importance of human suffering (just like opposition to animal testing, where testing on animals is bad but testing on the desperately poor and prisoners is somehow preferable), but it is a form of harm reduction. its better to criticize carnists who eat meat AND the products of exploited migrant agricultural labor because they simply dont give a fuck if other beings suffer if the food is cheap and pleasurable, than it is to shame someone for being a vegan when they care if other beings suffer and often do try to eat fair trade etc.

veganism being practiced by the bourgeoise is not a very good argument. that doesnt make it a bourgeoise ideology. veganism practiced badly where lots of processed food and fake meat is eaten requires wealth, veganism practiced like it is in societies that eat no or less meat is quite cheap. meat is expensive, beans and tofu are cheap. one could call communism bourgeoise, it being mostly favored by the intellectual class. but, this ignores communism as practiced in other societies (many jains are becoming vegan for instance, and veganism is becoming popular in east asia), and it ignores the more important question--is it good for society/the world?

veganism isnt the only form of reducing reliance on factory farming, of course. the necessity of ending factory farming not just for ethical reasons but for the health of the earth is beyond dispute in my opinion. if veganism is taken to mean "veganism as practiced by most in the west", its less than ideal, but if just taken to mean "not exploiting any animal for selfish purpose" it is very noble. although, I personally believe that the notion that a beneficial relationship with animals under a power imbalance is inherently exploitative as a reflection of a modern western myopia, where we are far removed from a time or from societies when/where people genuinely loved non-companion animals. at its worst you get vegans who say even having a companion animal is exploitation. humans can have a mutualistic relationship with animals, like the vedic relationship with cows.

while I do think you have good intentions, your arguments are frequently used by people who simply dont care to justify not caring while thinking themselves superior to people who actually do care. "ethical consumption is impossible, even veganism is unethical, therefore I will eat and enjoy", is how it tends to go. also "its natural to eat meat" is as flawed as any appeal to nature. "the moral argument that animals eating eachother is bad is contradictory to life itself" is such a typical carnist argument. put it with "we evolved to/evolved by eating meat". factory farming isnt natural, for one, but you know that. but also, hunting for yourself is still usually wrong, causing harm to other beings for ones benefit is natural, but its still wrong. the unique privilege and purpose of human beings isnt to be part of the planet as one animal among many, its to act righteously and know God. "I will eat meat because the lion does and I'm an apex predator" is a bad argument. the lion doesnt know right from wrong, and thus always does the will of God. humans have the responsibility to know dharma from adharma and thus do the will of God. devoutly respecting the earth including the hunted animal as part of hunting diminishes or can even erase the sin of hunting, but almost no one today who fishes or hunts for themselves does more than superficially respect the animal and use most of it. revering the animal and the earth means religion, it means being without selfishness or redirecting selfish need to a higher purpose. if an act is devoted to God, it is nishkama karma. for the same reason, religious animal sacrifice without expecting a benefit but merely done as a form of worship is not a sin. but, if ahimsa isnt part of your religion, then you can't be said to really know God. so few societies have truly practiced nonviolence, but that doesnt make nonviolence bad.

a guy named chad followed me