Are all sexual activities same?

[Sam Vara]

Many thanks, Zom. These suttas do indeed outline the concept of anusaya, but I was wondering if any dealt with the specific point

They do, though not much.

When one experiences pleasure,
If one does not understand feeling
The tendency to lust is present
For one not seeing the escape from it.


Touched by that painful feeling, he delights in sensual pleasure. Why is that? Because the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person does not discern any escape from painful feeling aside from sensual pleasure. As he is delighting in sensual pleasure, any passion-obsession with regard to that feeling of pleasure obsesses him.

These are just 2 passages from these two suttas, but there are more in some other suttas. I searched a bit, and, for example, found this in MN 148:

Dependent on the eye and forms... body and tangibles, body-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there arises a feeling felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant. When one is touched by a pleasant feeling, if one delights in it, welcomes it, and remains holding to it, then the underlying tendency to lust lies within one.

Again, many thanks for following these up. Appreciated.

[Sam Vara]

All the activities you list are unwholesome in that they necessarily involve lust, but I think they become more unwholesome when motivated or accompanied by other defilements such as harming, anger, deception, denigration, lying, vanity, and so on. You might want to have a look at this recent thread - be aware that it got quite heated...

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... ostitution

Thanks for the reply.
Is there sex activity without lust? I just think how to maintain a balance happy married life.

No, I don't think there can be sex without the lust underlying it.

For a person to indulge in sensual pleasures without sensual passion, without sensual perception, without sensual thinking: That isn't possible.

According to the Commentary, "indulge in sensual pleasures" here means indulging in sexual intercourse; the Sub-commentary adds that other acts expressing sexual desire — such as hugging and petting — should be included under this phrase as well.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .html#fn-4
Married life can of course be "balanced" when it involves a sexual component. The key thing is strong positive emotions and helpfulness towards one's spouse.

[Siha]

Some forms of sexual activity, e.g. oral sex, carry a high risk of cancer, so allowing one's partner to perform it shows a lack of compassion for them, even if they perform it willingly.

Thanks for that, bhante. I particularly appreciate the way that you stress the importance of compassion. In their concern with the legalistic niceties of the third precept people often overlook the compassion angle of things.

I have a question in connection with this. What in your opinion would be the compassionate course of action for a man who “can’t get it up” or is in some other way incapable of sexually satisfying a woman (or a man if he’s gay)? Suppose that he’s done everything he can to improve: he’s read sex manuals, he’s had counselling from sexologists, he’s practised with inflatable dolls, and so on and so forth. Yet in spite of all his best efforts the man still brings only boredom, wearisomeness and disappointment to the women who sleep with him (or to the men if he’s gay). In the field of the erotic he is as useless as the blood-smeared bone in the Potaliya Sutta that cannot satisfy a hungry dog’s appetite. Out of compassion for women (or for men if he’s gay), do you think it would be better for a man like this to take a vow of celibacy? Or is there some other compassionate course that he could consider?

--
Siha

[D1W1]

No, I don't think there can be sex without the lust underlying it.

For a person to indulge in sensual pleasures without sensual passion, without sensual perception, without sensual thinking: That isn't possible.
According to the Commentary, "indulge in sensual pleasures" here means indulging in sexual intercourse; the Sub-commentary adds that other acts expressing sexual desire — such as hugging and petting — should be included under this phrase as well.

I understand all desires are harmful even for lay practitioners.
But there is of course a reason why lay people precept is five precepts not eight or ten precepts.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .html#fn-4
Married life can of course be "balanced" when it involves a sexual component. The key thing is strong positive emotions and helpfulness towards one's spouse.

Thanks for the link. Similar to the positive emotions and love towards one's spouse, a Happy married life by K. Sri Dhammananda. Does anyone agree with this?

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... e.html#ch2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"When beauty, complexion and youth start to fade away, a husband who considers only the physical aspects of love may think of acquiring another young one. That type of love is animal love or lust. If a man really develops love as an expression of human concern for another being, he will not lay emphasis only on the external beauty and physical attractiveness of his partner. The beauty and attractiveness of his partner should be in his heart and mind, not in what he sees. Likewise, the wife who follows Buddhist teachings will never neglect her husband even though he has become old, poor or sick".

"Love may indeed be a product of sex, but the reverse is likewise true: sex is an expression of love. In the ideally happy married life, both love and sex are inseparable".

[D1W1]

I just think how to maintain a balance happy married life

It might be a good idea to read this sutta "Living in Tune":

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Excerpt:

[The Blessed One said:] "If both husband & wife want to see one another not only in the present life but also in the life to come, they should be in tune [with each other] in conviction, in tune in virtue, in tune in generosity, and in tune in discernment. Then they will see one another not only in the present life but also in the life to come."

Husband & wife, both of them
having conviction,
being responsive,
being restrained,
living by the Dhamma,
addressing each other
with loving words:
they benefit in manifold ways.
To them comes bliss.
Their enemies are dejected
when both are in tune in virtue.
Having followed the Dhamma here in this world,
both in tune in precepts & practices,
they delight in the world of the devas,
enjoying the pleasures they desire.

Thanks Aloka, this is surely something important for all married people in order to improve their wholesome deeds.

[Emulated Reality]

Hello D1W1,

All types of sexual activities could be considered the same with the only differentiating factor being the degree or existence of attachment to the behavior itself or to the individual(s) involved. In other words, how you have sex is less important than why you have sex. I will reference a discussion on one Buddhist take on homosexuality (http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=24014" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), I think you will find the answer you seek in the article provided. Note that attachment to sex and attachment to your partner are both attachments, but the forms of attachment are handled differently for Buddhists with different relationships to the path. Worth mentioning I think, but a little off topic for discussion here.

Additionally, I want to assure you that one type of sex or another will not increase you chances of cancer or other bodily harm if the proper precautions are taken (generally this means protection and/or testing for infections). HPV, on the other hand, can cause cancer and can be transmitted by oral sex. Physical injury and infection are the only kinds of risk sex might have beyond the attachment and suffering described above. Not every publication, scientific or otherwise, can be taken at face value.

[gben]

All sexual activities are the same to a Buddha, because all of life is the same to a Buddha. It is the mind that creates differences, the mind is difference.