ADAM POSTED :This has nothing to do with S&M, rape, depiction of rape or any other deviant act. This is about sex between two people who love one another, but is not for the purpose of making babies. For the sake of argument let us make it one female strapping on a rubber 7 inch phallus and making love to her female partners vagina. Or two guys kissing while masturbating themselves. I want to know, what authority says this is wrong? How do you know it is RIGHT to point to these people and confer guilt?

RESPONSE :(1) First of all, let me state that the latter phenomenon , I would *not* consider as bad as the former .

(2) . Well it is *not* a matter of authority , it is a matter of pre-existing principles that any sex ---regardless of the gender orientation (again I do *not* single out gay people for any extra disapproval) that sex not for the sake of reproduction is wrong because it engenders a mood of abandon ...a sort of devil- may- care , no boundaries./ state of lassitude, like a daredevil (and I'm not refering to a devil in the literal satan sense of the word).....frenetic quality in the minds of people and , hence, fosters a disposition of mind contrary to mindfulness .

As a corollary of that, such a craving for more of that sort of fare in the emotions what psychologists refer to as the affect of the person ....to where such a goal could be the mainstay of much of the person's life . Granted that may not happen in every case but being that such a propensity tends to take on a momentum, it runs that risk ...of being quite probable ..

There is also another element :and that is how the phallus is visually incompatible with esthetic principles, and , hence, the craving of people in a relationship (and that worry against such a prospect applies to hetero couples also ) to witness a phallus and find "allurement" in the sight of it , is , hence, a wrong disposition in regard to how the visual attributes of the phallus does *not* fit the principles of esthetics (that are a criteria) for evaluating it ...which is to say that--- according to the principles of esthetics ..which pertain to such a matter the phallus fails to meet the criteria for something being esthetically well -crafted . To expound on the latter element would be another dissertaion in itself .

There is an essay I posted on the latter element (the visual unattractiveness of the phallus) , around last year, that I could copy (if I can find it) which illumines that topic in greater detail .

Just some of the most recent posts by Jason, just in this thread:

"God , who is Jesus , who I am the Daddy of"

"I tell them this daily . I say , "Dear Aunt and Uncle , you may not use Uncle's penis in any capacity , since Aunt is beyond the young-bearing age . And they take my word as Biblical law ."

"Leprechauns are infamous for having dingleberries ."

These are far from every ridiculously unfathomable quote by Jason, but in light of the recent concentration of these three in such a short period of time leaves me no choice but to question Jason's validity as an actual person vs. a created character for the soul purpose of trolling.

Really Jason? You're Jesus' father, dictator of your elder family members' private sex lives, and not only believe in leprechauns but also somehow fashioned some kind of common knowledge about their lack of fecal hygiene? Really?

Come on!

Interesting idea, that sex with abandon can undermine "mindfulness".

I agree mindfulness is becoming increasingly rare in our culture, but I attribute it to consumer culture geared to redirecting and anesthetizing mindfulness.... not sex.

In fact, I'd argue that sex with or without the intent of procreation can be approached mindfully. In fact, sex is a lot better when there is a full zen like mindfulness of being in tune with one's perceptions, sensations, scents, the oceanic feelings of ebb and flow, tuning in fully into their essence, their sensations as much as your own. One can do it well when one does it like that. Most people don't.

If one doesn't have sex mindfully they are thinking about someone else, or they are thinking of some fantasy which isn't in the present with the person they are thinking about but rather projected onto them... they may have their minds on their insecurities, on people they had sex with in the past or never have had sex with, or maybe worse they are thinking about very unsexy things that kill their own "buzz", like what frustrating things happened that day or something in politics, or I'm thinking of a word I couldn't figure out in a crossword, twelve letters, I thought it was... oh, gee, that can kill an erection!

In fact I'd argue there is a lot of sex people shouldn't be having, that they'd be better off not having, that it is a waste of time for them unless they get in a more mindful state... but not from the reasoning you are having. There are a lot of people having sex just to use someone else as an instrument of their fantasies with no regard for the actual person they do it with, who may as well be masturbating because they are that into their inner world, that narcissistic, or whatever. Then there are the armies of people that have sex they don't want because they root their concept of masculinity in how many sexual conquests they've had, perhaps more in love with the power of seduction than the sex itself, seducing even people they are repulsed by. There are women who use sex as a weapon, as a tool, sleep with people that they don't want or like to make people jealous. There are people who have sex out of some sense of duty, see it as a job or chore, for someone they have no desire for but don't want to make waves with because of some codependency or perhaps even genuine love for the person who really they regard more as a little brother than a man but do not want to offend since they might be married. There are people who are sexual addicts who are chasing after a high they once may have had, but sleep with person after person with nothing but a feeling of hollow disappointment.

There are tons of people having sex and not having a very good time having it, there are tons of people talking about the great sex that they have and the more they talk about it the more I wonder if they are trying to convince me that their sex is so great or themselves.

It is ironic really, Adam is arguing with Jason that it is wrong for people not to have sex that they really want, that needless guilt causes people to not have sex and feel ashamed for wanting it the way they truly want it. Yes, that happens. But I think it cuts both ways, there are a lot of people who by classic definition are not being raped or compelled to have sex they don't want, but are having anyway. There are people having sex they don't because they'd feel guilty or like there would be something wrong with them if they didn't have it.

Really all of this stems from a lack of mindfulness, I am glad Jason brought up the word. If you let the dictates of someone else's idea of aesthetics make you blind to your own and what you really want, then orthodoxy has infringed on your capacity to be mindful of yourself and what you want. If you let the pop culture make you blind to when you don't want something you think you are supposed to want, then teen style peer pressure mentality on grown adults (who read too much Cosmo) has infringed on your capacity to be mindful of yourself and what you want.

I think very few people are actually mindful, among those that claim to be sexually liberated or those who are trying to be a bullwark of sexual propriety... I think that once sex becomes an ideological battle ground, once somebody has sex and it's now not about the person they are sleeping with but rather proving a point or being defiant, or once somebody abstains from sex they really want because they've been taught to be ashamed of who they really are mindfulness has been lost.

There are mindful gay people who have sex, and there are gay people having sex that are lousy at sex because their mind is elsewhere and they are having sex they don't want.

There are mindful people exploring BDSM, and there are hopeless posers who are no better in bed with props, toys, and cuffs than without, a distracted cold fish is still a cold fish if you put a leather mask on it's head, and a two pump chump is still a two pump chump even if they wear electrical tape, got a penis enlargement, and have a face chiseled with the best hollywood plastic surgeon.

There are mindful people abstaining from sexual activity they don't want, feel would get in the way of what they do want, or just don't personally find aesthetically pleasing... and there are unmindful people abstaining from sex they want, hating themselves, and everything they desire, thinking there is something hopelessly wrong with them... and in this case there is- unproductive guilt.

Now I will give a nod to Jason on one issue.

Whenever I saw a group of people gathered for a gay rights parade it was mostly normal looking people of both genders and even straight supporters, whenever I saw media coverage they always focused the camera on pictures of the small contingent of BDSM and other stereotypically dressed types. Americans do not understand with the media portrayal if 95% of the crowd at the march they see on the screen were people dressed in leather and thongs or of only one percent of the people there were dressed like that and that the other 99% would be people they would be able to relate to if they looked at them. In a sense the BDSM community and more theatrical types have be a liability to Americans that like any person gay or straight fear the unfamiliar, I mean I've met preppy gay people that grimace in disgust looking at BDSM, actually I've met BDSM react the same way to preppies too come to think of it. But anyway, the media seems to create a false correlation by focusing in on the more extreme stereotypes with their newscams that Gay and BDSM are the same thing. It was a very good thing that a series like "will and grace" came along so that Americans could at least see a Gay character who really outside of being gay and rather nicely dressed seemed like a pretty normal guy.

Not to say that it isn't a bad idea for the gay community to work with the BDSM community to keep their rights, refusing anyone on the grounds they are not worthy to rights you are fighting for is really bad form, but the Gay community should take care to put out it's own press releases, photo ops, shows like Will and Grace, and demonstrate to remind Americans that though some Gays can be BDSM, not all are, some are pretty vanilla, some aren't even that well dressed or groomed and look as macho as many working class straight guys try to be. There is a lot of ignorance on the part of people due not to willed ignorance or hate, but rather due to a media that only cares about ratings through shock value and will only depict any community gay or non-gay in a way that generates shock to keep people tuned in (for the ad revenue). So straight people really don't get good info, if they've never lived near a community of gay people they just don't understand gay people as just simply people, and in that sense the BDSM community has indeed got in the way of making an accurate understanding clearer.