posted August 20, 2015 10:28 AM            

It would be interesting to post here how relationships/not just sex (but included) are reflected/treated in different religion practices.

How do they mingle/support each other or not?

If you have a religion/or are religious, how do you feel it is connected with relationship advice and patterns? How does it impact your views on sexuality?

If not a certain religion, the idea of religion and being religious.

I know many people today define themselves as "spiritual" rather than "religious in a certain religion". How do you view the connection between spirituality and sex? Is sex a spiritual practice?

------------------
I seem to have loved you in numberless forms...

AstroMandala

posted August 20, 2015 10:58 AM            

I think Sex can be a very powerful thing, if had between two people who are very in tune with both their energy and their partners. Because, to me, sex is one of the purest forms of energetic exchange that can be made between 2 people, at least on a sheerly physical level.

I think sex can be a very spiritual thing.. To totally immerse into one another.. Without restraint, boundaries, or judgement.. To become completely vulnerable with another.. And to really lay yourself bare. Of course, sex isn't always like this. Sometimes it is stimulated mainly through lust.. Or is done in a thoughtless manner.. Sometimes in which that true unrestrained, vulnerable energy isn't given.

Of course, I think somewhat lust-driven sex is ok here and there in a committed relationship.. But.. To me, if you want to talk about intensity.. Let's talk about sex with someone who knows everything there is to know about you.. Sex where there is no judgement.. But, also no need to feel restrained or fearful of total expression.. Sex that is fueled from love. Now, that, to me, is spiritual sex.

posted August 20, 2015 11:04 AM            

quote:

---

In general, in Buddhism, we always try to follow a middle path, and so regarding sexuality, we want to avoid two extremes. One extreme is that of being very strict and severe. This view looks at sexuality as something dirty and, basically, bad. But, then, we also want to avoid the other extreme, which is the attitude toward sex that anything is okay: "Just express yourself."

---

quote:

---

Buddhist ethics is completely different from all three. It is not based on obeying laws. Nor is it based on merely trying to avoid hurting others, although of course we try our best not to cause harm. But it goes deeper than that. According to Buddhism, the basis for being an ethical person is avoiding action motivated by longing desire, anger, or naivety, and having correct discriminating awareness. The latter means the ability to discriminate between which motivations and actions are constructive and which ones are destructive. Constructive and destructive motivations and behavior, here, refer to ones that build up tendencies and habits on our mental continuums that at some time in the future will cause us to experience happiness or suffering as their consequence.

---

quote:

---

The basic thrust of Buddhist ethics, then, is to try to understand which types of motivation and behavior are destructive and which types are constructive. In other words, we need to learn to discriminate between what's going to cause us unhappiness and what's going to bring us happiness. And then, it's up to us; it's our responsibility what we will experience in the future. It's like, for instance, we learn about the dangers of smoking and then it's up to us whether or not we smoke. If somebody acts destructively and causes themselves harm, they are appropriate objects of compassion. It's inappropriate to look down on them self-righteously and pity them. That's not the Buddhist attitude

---

quote:

---

Buddhism takes this same approach to sexual ethics. It's nonjudgmental. Certain types of sexual behavior and motivations are destructive and cause us unhappiness, while others are constructive and bring us happiness. And again, it's up to us.

---

posted August 20, 2015 12:14 PM            

Although I am not religious and a bit allergic to it, one can find wisdom and inspiration in all of them. Since I mentioned the Bible in a critical way, I will now mention one of the most delightful erotic/romantic texts, also in the Bible, a very inspiring one, the Song of Songs probably many of you know about:

You are my private garden, my treasure, my bride,
a secluded spring, a hidden fountain.
13
Your thighs shelter a paradise of pomegranates
with rare spices—
henna with nard,
14
nard and saffron,
fragrant calamus and cinnamon,
with all the trees of frankincense, myrrh, and aloes,
and every other lovely spice.
15
You are a garden fountain,
a well of fresh water
streaming down from Lebanon’s mountains.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Song+of+Solomon+1&version=NLT

There were many versions of interpreting this text, with the (two) Churches involved here mostly embracing the allegorical view (not surprisingly), you can check out here:

http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_song1_tanner.html

But at least to me, it being a story about love and erotic merging, and about the profound connection between love and eroticism, is undeniable.

------------------
I seem to have loved you in numberless forms...

AstroMandala

posted August 20, 2015 12:55 PM            

Great thread idea and great replies!

posted August 20, 2015 01:08 PM            

Lust is celebrated as love, and saying "sex/masturbation for pleasure is wrong and never intended by God" makes as much sense to us as saying "your nose is to keep you alive, enjoying the scents of candles and home cooked meals is wrong and never intended by God."

Of course obsessions is as dangerous as alienation from nature, and there's generally encouragement for balance and learning to use all our character traits in positive ways rather than negative ones. It doesn't normally endorse violations of trust (such as cheating) or mandate sexual practices. If there's a danger seen then it's usually that ego can become so sensitive and self-congratulating that it creates self-misery through alienation from others including the divine and mistaking one's own ego for the divine (though this doesn't mean ego needs to be done away with, only kept in proper perspective and balance).

posted August 20, 2015 02:28 PM            

Both are vital to me.

posted August 20, 2015 03:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
an attempt to attune to the forces of creation and the belief that the gods want us to be happy in the world around them rather than trying to escape it in the name of spirituality

---

I think this is one major positive contribution of New Age/neo-pagan religions. Thank you for your post, PixieJane.

I also think repressing sex was indeed a form of control and manipulation and the whole concept of "sin" unfortunately deviated from the idea of "doing no harm/discernment between good and evil" to a powerful instrument to enslave and control others on a global scale.

In fact, I think it was a smashing weapon for control, qualifying sex as the "original sin". Maybe there was some initial positive intent about it, the genuine contempt those people had for their own animalistic nature, coming from the desire to rise above it, as maybe human spiritual nature began to emerge, but I am still unsure as to what was the initial spark: this, or power intent. Nevertheless, it lost most of its positive meaning on the way, with few exceptions when religious icons practiced ascesis, without necessarily despising or condemning sex.

------------------
I seem to have loved you in numberless forms...

AstroMandala

posted August 21, 2015 05:45 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soltze:
I keep religion in one box and sex in the other.

Both are vital to me.

I just don't mix them together. I'll pray when I feel like it...I will ______when I feel like it. Simple

---

posted August 22, 2015 04:05 AM            

Nature, and by extension the human body, has its own self-regulating mechanisms. We have a very intelligent system, a product of thousands of years of evolution, and we have both the "push" and "pull" instincts which guide us to healthy physical self-expression. When these instincts are repressed and twisted, we get unhealthy sexual behaviour, over-eating, over-drinking, and so on. The human mind should focus on getting to know the body's intelligence first, and learn to work with it, instead of trying to control it, with judgement and criticism.

Therefore I am convinced, as long as there is adequate, informed consent between 2 human beings, they should be free to act on their natural instincts and desires without any external judgement or intervention.

All this fanatic effort to police how other people express themselves sexually, should be EXCLUSIVELY focused on preventing non-consensual sexual interactions, which are abundant in today's society. Tellingly, the Catholic church, which is one of the most rigid and dogmatic when it comes to repressing human sexuality, has its own (very recent) history in child sexual abuse. Why would they and their views (which have been paraphrased a few times in recent threads as "spiritual messages") hold any authority on sex?

posted August 22, 2015 11:00 PM            

Though I'm not as articulate as you are.

And a little more...

To me, religion has always co-opted and appropriated sex for its own purposes. As if the premise is always, "If we can control their sexual behavior, we can control absolutely anything else we want!" This applies to everything from radical polygamist cults to celibate orders and communities.

The most common emphasis is on sexual purity, abstinence, holding back. Taken to extremes (as religion always takes it to extremes) you have the Immaculate Conception, the stockpile of virgins Allah promises for his men....

And what is that about?

To me all it does is....degrade actual women. And with their women degraded as such, patriarchal societies had to find some new ideals, so they built temples to imaginary embodiments of their ideals, and littered the world with the products of these sentiments. Rather than just appreciating nature, including natural women. Rather than just SEEING what was there, with the true spiritual vision of love and appreciation.

Additionally....I suppose the virgin-adulation began with the basic concern that men have had, that a woman's child would not be his own, and that he would be raising someone else's child, and/or might not see his own bloodlines continuing. Perhaps on a primal level so much is about the basic desire for some kind of immortality...both spiritual and biological or material...but I think a lack of true spirituality causes an overemphasis on the material, which in turn obscures the spiritual even further, and this is all a downward cycle.

My argument with all religion is the over-reliance on material accoutrements...for some reason I just have to believe truth ought to be able flourish without any market value, negative environmental impact, and without domination/compulsion...

I've talked about ecofeminism before and remain convinced that until we somehow balance the divine feminine (including virtues like quiet passivity) with patriarchal instincts (the doing, the building), the material world will reflect the extreme male-dominance and antagonize our spirits in every way including relationships and sexuality.

It's a little obtuse to say that, but if you consider how couples may stay married because they cannot figure out how to part without financial catastrophe...because a regular life has become so reliant on expensive things...always these immense (male-built) things over spirit...then you see how natural sexual relationships are also threatened. Just to give a most blatant kind of example. This principle is actually interwoven into everything, as I see it.

Well I hope that made some sense. It's just bits and pieces of a comprehensive argument but the best I can do, and please no one misconstrue this as man-bashing, because it's not intended as such. I mean it only makes sense that the more physically dominant gender would more physically dominate the natural world. And living in comfort as I am, I have to be grateful, but we all see the unsustainability of the First World lifestyle, as it is...or we should.

posted August 22, 2015 11:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeeLoo2014:

I also think repressing sex was indeed a form of control and manipulation and the whole concept of "sin" unfortunately deviated from the idea of "doing no harm/discernment between good and evil" to a powerful instrument to enslave and control others on a global scale.

In fact, I think it was a smashing weapon for control, qualifying sex as the "original sin". Maybe there was some initial positive intent about it, the genuine contempt those people had for their own animalistic nature, coming from the desire to rise above it, as maybe human spiritual nature began to emerge, but I am still unsure as to what was the initial spark: this, or power intent. Nevertheless, it lost most of its positive meaning on the way, with few exceptions when religious icons practiced ascesis, without necessarily despising or condemning sex.

---

posted August 23, 2015 09:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeeLoo2014:
I think this is one major positive contribution of New Age/neo-pagan religions. Thank you for your post, PixieJane.

I also think repressing sex was indeed a form of control and manipulation and the whole concept of "sin" unfortunately deviated from the idea of "doing no harm/discernment between good and evil" to a powerful instrument to enslave and control others on a global scale.

In fact, I think it was a smashing weapon for control, qualifying sex as the "original sin". Maybe there was some initial positive intent about it, the genuine contempt those people had for their own animalistic nature, coming from the desire to rise above it, as maybe human spiritual nature began to emerge, but I am still unsure as to what was the initial spark: this, or power intent. Nevertheless, it lost most of its positive meaning on the way, with few exceptions when religious icons practiced ascesis, without necessarily despising or condemning sex.

---

Ok. Sex is actually not interpreted as the original sin. And sex is not a sin according to christianity believe it or not. Immoral sex is a sin, as is overindulging, BUT OVERINDULGING IN EVERYTHING ELSE IS A SIN. These ancients werent like "lets repress sex" they wanted to repress the overindulgence of everything. To keep people from going down to wrong path. Not everyone agrees with it but religion did and still does serve a purpose the best thing to do is to approach every religion, even the ones that are trendy to bash, with respect.

posted August 23, 2015 09:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bansheequeen:
Ok. Sex is actually not interpreted as the original sin. And sex is not a sin according to christianity believe it or not. Immoral sex is a sin, as is overindulging, BUT OVERINDULGING IN EVERYTHING ELSE IS A SIN. These ancients werent like "lets repress sex" they wanted to repress the overindulgence of everything. To keep people from going down to wrong path. Not everyone agrees with it but religion did and still does serve a purpose the best thing to do is to approach every religion, even the ones that are trendy to bash, with respect.

I dont know how everyone thinks religion is trying to repress sex on a conspiracy level scale. I really just think its because parents wanted something to say to their children to stop them from having sex or something. Just like dont masturbate your your palms will be hairy. It's not propaganda, its just... people trying to live their life and raise their kids and just... live.

---

Well, banshee, the Bilblical original sin was sex between Adam and Eve What do you mean?
Also, the Bible and dogma is full of condemnation of sex in all forms. Only my Orthodox priest friend is trying, unsuccessfully, to tell me otherwise There are of course, some occasional wise thoughts about sex in the Bible as well, such as this Song.

Personally, I respect the idea that people have the right to choose to live their life as they please; it doesn't mean I respect everything that is happening under the sun, such as a religion I find passed its due time, or redundant. I mean, just because it is a religion (I am not talking about a specific one at this point), it doesn't mean it should be respected and embraced automatically.
Perhaps this happens if someone believes the percepts or words in a religion come from god. I certainly don't believe the words in the Bible come from god, do you?

------------------
I seem to have loved you in numberless forms...

AstroMandala

posted August 23, 2015 09:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
It would have been so hard for me to concentrate and pull that out of my own mind, SaturnFan! So thanks for doing it for me, because that's what I was going to say.

Though I'm not as articulate as you are.

And a little more...

To me, religion has always co-opted and appropriated sex for its own purposes. As if the premise is always, "If we can control their sexual behavior, we can control absolutely anything else we want!" This applies to everything from radical polygamist cults to celibate orders and communities.

The most common emphasis is on sexual purity, abstinence, holding back. Taken to extremes (as religion always takes it to extremes) you have the Immaculate Conception, the stockpile of virgins Allah promises for his men....

And what is that about?

To me all it does is....degrade actual women. And with their women degraded as such, patriarchal societies had to find some new ideals, so they built temples to imaginary embodiments of their ideals, and littered the world with the products of these sentiments. Rather than just appreciating nature, including natural women. Rather than just SEEING what was there, with the true spiritual vision of love and appreciation.

Additionally....I suppose the virgin-adulation began with the basic concern that men have had, that a woman's child would not be his own, and that he would be raising someone else's child, and/or might not see his own bloodlines continuing. Perhaps on a primal level so much is about the basic desire for some kind of immortality...both spiritual and biological or material...but I think a lack of true spirituality causes an overemphasis on the material, which in turn obscures the spiritual even further, and this is all a downward cycle.

My argument with all religion is the over-reliance on material accoutrements...for some reason I just have to believe truth ought to be able flourish without any market value, negative environmental impact, and without domination/compulsion...

I've talked about ecofeminism before and remain convinced that until we somehow balance the divine feminine (including virtues like quiet passivity) with patriarchal instincts (the doing, the building), the material world will reflect the extreme male-dominance and antagonize our spirits in every way including relationships and sexuality.

It's a little obtuse to say that, but if you consider how couples may stay married because they cannot figure out how to part without financial catastrophe...because a regular life has become so reliant on expensive things...always these immense (male-built) [b]things over spirit...then you see how natural sexual relationships are also threatened. Just to give a most blatant kind of example. This principle is actually interwoven into everything, as I see it.

Well I hope that made some sense. It's just bits and pieces of a comprehensive argument but the best I can do, and please no one misconstrue this as man-bashing, because it's not intended as such. I mean it only makes sense that the more physically dominant gender would more physically dominate the natural world. And living in comfort as I am, I have to be grateful, but we all see the unsustainability of the First World lifestyle, as it is...or we should.

There's so much more in my mind but unfortunately it's all rather jumbled, like puzzle pieces. Sorry if you read all this hoping I'd put it together more neatly by the end...maybe I need to live longer and see better to know how to do that. [/B]

---

I have a good point about spirituality. Nuns, monk, priests and just other holy people.. have to abstain from sex not because of a control regime, but because it might distract from their spiritual goals.

posted August 23, 2015 10:03 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeeLoo2014:
Well, banshee, the Bilblical original sin was sex between Adam and Eve What do you mean?
Also, the Bible and dogma is full of condemnation of sex in all forms. Only my Orthodox priest friend is trying, unsuccessfully, to tell me otherwise There are of course, some occasional wise thoughts about sex in the Bible as well, such as this Song.

Personally, I respect the idea that people have the right to choose to live their life as they please; it doesn't mean I respect everything that is happening under the sun, such as a religion I find passed its due time, or redundant. I mean, just because it is a religion (I am not talking about a specific one at this point), it doesn't mean it should be respected and embraced automatically.
Perhaps this happens if someone believes the percepts or words in a religion come from god. I certainly don't believe the words in the Bible come from god do you?

---

The original sin is the apple! Gaining knowledge and directly disobeying god. Maybe the apple can symbolize sex, or it could symbolize the knowledge and awareness of sex. But either way, its knowledge. The idea that happens in the brain before the action. I think it's popular to see the apple as representing sex because our society is so sex centered and is trying to break though any kind of resistance there is to sexual expression. But to me, I think there was an intended spiritual meaning to the whole adam and eve story, but people today have colored it with themes from our time and our own lives. My PERSONAL take-away from that story is that knowledge brings more pain than pleasure but it is critical for growth and expansion.

posted August 23, 2015 10:17 AM            

First of all, yeah, the fruit (it's unclear if it was an apple); disobeying god and aspiring to knowledge.

Now, why in the world would god want to be obeyed? he or she is all-mighty and is everything. He does not need any slaves, nor does he need obedience. Neither does he promote it, for he doesn't want a world of slaves and masters. Maybe the Devil wants that, but god? Nah.

Now comes the second part: why would he not want his freshly intelligent creature to have access to knowledge? It's like creating a masterpiece and keeping it in the dark. Our god here seems to have a twisted, illogical mind.

Then comes another tricky part: Eve grabs the "apple" and corrupts Adam. Thus the beginning of the woman portrayed as a devilish creature (these are the sins of the bible to be honest, and trust me, they were chosen with a purpose by the people writing it). He bites it and they both see they're naked hurray let's do the deed...this is the sexual part of the original sin, which is in fact part of thousands of sermons portraying sex as the original sin. And then starts an entire and long epic story, or shall I say history of reprimand, violence and slavery. In the Bible, and what it brought into the world as well, for the most part.

------------------
I seem to have loved you in numberless forms...

AstroMandala

posted August 23, 2015 10:27 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bansheequeen:
Ok. Sex is actually not interpreted as the original sin. And sex is not a sin according to christianity believe it or not. Immoral sex is a sin, as is overindulging, BUT OVERINDULGING IN EVERYTHING ELSE IS A SIN. These ancients werent like "lets repress sex" they wanted to repress the overindulgence of everything. To keep people from going down to wrong path. Not everyone agrees with it but religion did and still does serve a purpose the best thing to do is to approach every religion, even the ones that are trendy to bash, with respect.

I dont know how everyone thinks religion is trying to repress sex on a conspiracy level scale. I really just think its because parents wanted something to say to their children to stop them from having sex or something. Just like dont masturbate your your palms will be hairy. It's not propaganda, its just... people trying to live their life and raise their kids and just... live.

---

I see what you mean here. It could have served a purpose when creating initial social structures. We could have done better though, theoretically. We'll never know how and what we could have become without it. Oh well, no point in crying over spilled milk now
That's the best we could do, I mean the minds of the time, the best that they could come up with. But honestly, I think it's done Time to give up these primitives "books' and "percepts".

------------------
I seem to have loved you in numberless forms...

AstroMandala

posted August 23, 2015 10:32 AM            

That's like the whole theme of the bible haha you need to obey god. And that is kind of the framework for how people think people should behave.

Also the bible, along with everything else in history was written by men. Of course n it's all in their perspective. Our society itself was built by men and is still run by men. Of course women are going to be seen as the other, the outsider, and man, the default...

posted August 23, 2015 10:37 AM            

Of course, semi-kidding here

Well, I was brought in a Christian atmosphere myself, I know how indoctrinating it can be just having it around, you simply miss its absurdity until something happens to you or your mind.

------------------
I seem to have loved you in numberless forms...

AstroMandala

posted August 23, 2015 04:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by SaturnFan:
To me, there is nothing more profound and wise than nature, and any human-conceived rules and dogmas which attempt to deny natural instincts are damaging, and bound to come down crashing sooner or later.

Nature, and by extension the human body, has its own self-regulating mechanisms. We have a very intelligent system, a product of thousands of years of evolution, and we have both the "push" and "pull" instincts which guide us to healthy physical self-expression. When these instincts are repressed and twisted, we get unhealthy sexual behaviour, over-eating, over-drinking, and so on. The human mind should focus on getting to know the body's intelligence first, and learn to work with it, instead of trying to control it, with judgement and criticism.

Therefore I am convinced, as long as there is adequate, informed consent between 2 human beings, they should be free to act on their natural instincts and desires without any external judgement or intervention.

All this fanatic effort to police how other people express themselves sexually, should be EXCLUSIVELY focused on preventing non-consensual sexual interactions, which are abundant in today's society. Tellingly, the Catholic church, which is one of the most rigid and dogmatic when it comes to repressing human sexuality, has its own (very recent) history in child sexual abuse. Why would they and their views (which have been paraphrased a few times in recent threads as "spiritual messages") hold any authority on sex?

---

This was such a beautiful post! Thank you

------------------
I seem to have loved you in numberless forms...

AstroMandala

posted August 23, 2015 04:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
It would have been so hard for me to concentrate and pull that out of my own mind, SaturnFan! So thanks for doing it for me, because that's what I was going to say.

Though I'm not as articulate as you are.

And a little more...

To me, religion has always co-opted and appropriated sex for its own purposes. As if the premise is always, "If we can control their sexual behavior, we can control absolutely anything else we want!" This applies to everything from radical polygamist cults to celibate orders and communities.

The most common emphasis is on sexual purity, abstinence, holding back. Taken to extremes (as religion always takes it to extremes) you have the Immaculate Conception, the stockpile of virgins Allah promises for his men....

And what is that about?

To me all it does is....degrade actual women. And with their women degraded as such, patriarchal societies had to find some new ideals, so they built temples to imaginary embodiments of their ideals, and littered the world with the products of these sentiments. Rather than just appreciating nature, including natural women. Rather than just SEEING what was there, with the true spiritual vision of love and appreciation.

Additionally....I suppose the virgin-adulation began with the basic concern that men have had, that a woman's child would not be his own, and that he would be raising someone else's child, and/or might not see his own bloodlines continuing. Perhaps on a primal level so much is about the basic desire for some kind of immortality...both spiritual and biological or material...but I think a lack of true spirituality causes an overemphasis on the material, which in turn obscures the spiritual even further, and this is all a downward cycle.

My argument with all religion is the over-reliance on material accoutrements...for some reason I just have to believe truth ought to be able flourish without any market value, negative environmental impact, and without domination/compulsion...

I've talked about ecofeminism before and remain convinced that until we somehow balance the divine feminine (including virtues like quiet passivity) with patriarchal instincts (the doing, the building), the material world will reflect the extreme male-dominance and antagonize our spirits in every way including relationships and sexuality.

It's a little obtuse to say that, but if you consider how couples may stay married because they cannot figure out how to part without financial catastrophe...because a regular life has become so reliant on expensive things...always these immense (male-built) [b]things over spirit...then you see how natural sexual relationships are also threatened. Just to give a most blatant kind of example. This principle is actually interwoven into everything, as I see it.

Well I hope that made some sense. It's just bits and pieces of a comprehensive argument but the best I can do, and please no one misconstrue this as man-bashing, because it's not intended as such. I mean it only makes sense that the more physically dominant gender would more physically dominate the natural world. And living in comfort as I am, I have to be grateful, but we all see the unsustainability of the First World lifestyle, as it is...or we should.

There's so much more in my mind but unfortunately it's all rather jumbled, like puzzle pieces. Sorry if you read all this hoping I'd put it together more neatly by the end...maybe I need to live longer and see better to know how to do that. [/B]

---

Brilliant!...and heartbreaking little history of humanity just beginning to see.

------------------
I seem to have loved you in numberless forms...

AstroMandala

posted August 23, 2015 05:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bansheequeen:
I have a good point about spirituality. Nuns, monk, priests and just other holy people.. have to abstain from sex not because of a control regime, but because it might distract from their spiritual goals.

---

There is indeed this valuable search of ecstasy beyond the body or the common channels for that, there is so much to mention about this from Eastern practices, to Christian icons, I remember I recently discussed Saint Teresa here, and Bernini's Ecstasy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_of_%C3%81vila

I saw in his hand a long spear of gold, and at the point there seemed to be a little fire. He appeared to me to be thrusting it at times into my heart, and to pierce my very entrails; when he drew it out, he seemed to draw them out also, and to leave me all on fire with a great love of God. The pain was so great, that it made me moan; and yet so surpassing was the sweetness of this excessive pain, that I could not wish to be rid of it...

I'm giving this example because I believe sex is a path to "divine grace", it can become a vehicle for full chakra opening, nirvana, and experiencing the divine in us.

I'll have to come back to this, for there is a lot to be said about the similarity between all kinds of ecstasy, including religious, and the physical ecstasy itself.

------------------
I seem to have loved you in numberless forms...

AstroMandala