How is this related to the love of god?

Here is a wonderful and tragic example of an expression of love without self interest:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/natio...re/2200181.aspx

"Dad dies trying to save child in fire
20 Jun, 2011 04:00 AM
A father is being hailed a hero after dragging his wife from their burning house on the Mornington Peninsula and returning to try to save his 10-year-old daughter before both succumbed to the blaze..."

It's a good example of supposed "abandoning of self-interest" - a man says he loves the woman, claims to have abandoned all self-interest, but then endangers her health and even her life and the lives of other beings in the name of his pleasure.

That said, if one loves God, then why would one bring His parts and parcels in danger, especially in the pursuit of one's own pleasure?

I pity you. Are you a Brahmachari? This reminds me of the puerile attitudes that seem to permeate the ashram.

Did you miss this? "Dad dies trying to save child in fire."


Silly.

I hope that next time around, you will be born in a female body - but intelligent. And surrounded by loving and self-abandoning men such as yourself now.

I have never thought of women as being less intelligent than men. Actually, the mentality of people who believe that a whole section of human society is deficient based on their gender displays a lack of intelligence. It is just this sort of simplistic thinking(?) that makes me feel very uncomfortable around devotees who are trying to be something they are not - Indians. The horrible attitudes in Indian society towards women results in infanticides in the millions.

This is one reason (among many) that I view the Hindu belief system as being crude and barbaric. They profess to be the most advanced in their understanding of god based on their mythology but when one looks at their society it is one of the most backwards.

You seem to be a person who sees love as being a sort of business arrangement. If I were god I would not be attracted by this. Oddly enough, most devotees of whatever religion seem to view having a relationship with god as being a business arrangement.

I am sorry if you have been abused, but I also see that there is something in your attitude that may be attracting this. We all need to access the part we act out in the play that is being staged just for us, individually.

I have lived my life as the fool who leaps in where angels fear to tread. This is who I am and I do not wish to change. Actually, I don't think I could change. I am not a schemer in matters of love. I follow my instincts. This has not shielded me from being hurt or disappointed but I do remain true to myself. Love of god or love for another person, it is the same for me. God is supposed to be a person, right?

If you have ever had sex where any kind of contraceptives were used, then you are in favor of women being the less intelligent ones.



Yes. And this is why I should be a good, advanced Western woman, and believe that my health, my sanity, my life and the life of other beings is outweighed, infinitely outweighed by the attention of a man!
Equality above all!



I never suggested anything of that kind.



Sure, and they should die for your pleasure! Like Jesus, or like millions of women, instantly, or in installments.

Sorry, I really do not understand where this is going. Are you saying that when a woman decides to have sex using contraception she is being exploited? It is a widely known fact that when women do have control of their reproduction it results in those women having a better life.

If a woman has 12 children does that mean she is more intelligent than a woman who decides to not have any children or just less exploited?


Where did I say that? At least you were not drown when you were born because you were seen as being inferior.


When you extol the virtues of conformity in religion I am struck that this seems to imply that one size fits all. It is as if being in a relationship with god is automatic as long as one follows the rules.

Wow! I don't think that blood sacrifice fits my idea of who god is or what a relationship is.

Sophia, usually your points are clear to me. But this one, I find puzzling.

You think you are so wonderful that a woman should be willing to risk her health, her sanity, and even her life and the life of unborn children for the sake of pleasing you and having a relationship with you?

What kind of woman would do that ...



You call that a "better life"?!

You call it a "better life" to live in fear of unwanted pregnancy, that the contraceptives will fail, to say "Yes, having a relationship with a man is worth risking my health, my life, yes, it's worth living in the fear of unwanted pregnancy, it is worth the abortions. Because when he looks at me, I lose my mind and all my concerns, sanity and morality go out of the window! I must give in to him!"

"Women's liberation" is just patriarchy at its extreme.



Why have sex if one doesn't want its natural consequences?

So, are you saying that women risk their health by using contraception - is that it?

Not just that. But first and foremost by risking unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

Do you think that causal sex is a fair price for a relationship?

I don't think 'relationship' has a price.

What do you mean by 'casual'? (Unless you actually meant 'causal'. In which case, you've really lost me.)

Then what?



Whenever there is the desire to not have children, but to have sex.

There are more loving relationships than just sexual ones.

Why do you ignore this?.....

Here is a wonderful and tragic example of an expression of love without self interest:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/natio...re/2200181.aspx

"Dad dies trying to save child in fire
20 Jun, 2011 04:00 AM
A father is being hailed a hero after dragging his wife from their burning house on the Mornington Peninsula and returning to try to save his 10-year-old daughter before both succumbed to the blaze..."

Then what, what?




What of people who cannot reproduce, or , for that matter, homosexuals?

Your losing more of your readers now. Wasn't contraception invented to avoid unwanted pregnancies?

This discussion seems to get stuck in the Prabhupadian dichotomy of either 1) you're having sex for procreation or 2) you're having sex for fun (casual or perhaps even not so casual).

Prabhupad didn't have a clue what sex was. He compared having sex for fun with the sex cats and dogs have. But cats and dogs only have sex for procreation. Thus having sex like cats and dogs is something a HK should strive for (and I don't think that is what SP meant to say).

In this discussion, one seems to tend to forget a third function of sex. If you are going to raise a few kids the parents have to stay together for at least 20 - 25 years. Is that possible without any fun? Divorce is one of the worst things that can happen to a child. Sex (fun together) has a very strong bonding effect.

And also, can sex not become over the years an expression of affection for each other, without the high-strung teenage hormonal tension to it?

In case you don't know: no contraceptive is 100% reliable.

Some gynecologists even tell women, after informing them that no contraceptive is 100% reliable, that they won't be able to enjoy sex unless they decide in advance what they will do in case they conceive despite the contraceptives.




This has nothing to do with SP. In fact, I am quite sure the line of reasoning I am presenting would not be approved of by Vedic authorities, as it is too materialistic.



I guess living in fear of unwanted pregnancy and abortions are fun too!

This data is about ten years old, the things might have changed by now - but for some time, unwanted pregnancy was the second worst fear of US college students, after getting infected with HIV.

Perhaps you should eavesdrop on some girl talk, visit some gynecology and abortion clinics, read Dear Abby features in the newspapers and such ...



All right...I'm glad it's a girl. And I hope she'll be a fool -- that's the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool.
The Great Gatsby
Chapter 1, Daisy on her newborn girl.

Vasectomy is. It is usually the man who has his tubes done. How nice of him.

If it's just about unwanted pregnancies and abortions, then, as I asked before, what of people who cannot reproduce, or , for that matter, homosexuals - if people from either of these groups are in a monogonous relationship, do you think it is fine for them to have sexual fun?

What? Cats and dogs having sex for procreation?
I don't see my male cat go to one of my female cats in heat and say - hey, you furry beauty, should we have some intercouse to make cute kittens?

Cats have sex only for fun, or call it "lust" if you want to.
Humans have an option to have sex for procreation.
So there it appears that Prabhupada was quite on spot, when it cames to sex.

Many people call it "instinct", so if we have to be like cats & dogs we just have to follow our instincts, but then we would just be like animals. So I think Prabhuapad missed the spot by a long way (because I don't think he would call human beings just animals).

Wow, this is a really bizarre topic.

When Dave and I married, I got a tubal ligation because my children were nearly grown, and he didn't want any of his own. Worked for me. Easy procedure.

Then of course in 2006 I had to give up my uterus since I was having so many problems with it.

Our sex life has hardly been "casual." I wouldn't call sex in any committed relationship casual. Where there is a commitment to stay together out of mutual love, the word casual does not seem at all appropriate.

Sex can be a lot of things for humans. It can be a means of keeping a woman bound to raising children, too tired to do anything for herself as in the Quiverfull movement. It can be used as a weapon, as in rape or deliberate sabotage of contraception. It can be used simply as a recreational activity between mutually consenting partners. It can be a heartfelt attempt to impregnate when a couple desperately wishes for a child.

Or it can be a transcendent experience between two people who wish to express their mutual love. If one has never experienced this I can understand adopting the ISKCON view of sex, but it saddens me. Sex can be a spiritual sacrament.

With the advent of Mirena one can have pretty much 99.9 per cent effectiveness of contraception. I completely reject the notion that any woman who uses contraception is being exploited by a man. Effective contraception frees a woman to make her own decisions about her sexual choices and enjoy it--free of anxiety--as much as any man.

As for cats and dogs, their species is continued by the triggering of estrus which causes them to only engage in intercourse when the female is fertile. Yes it is motivated by lust but only when conception is possible. Thus they naturally have the "only sex for procreation" sex we were all allowed to have in the grihastha ashram.

I'm puzzled how my statement about the abandonment in love morphed into killing women via protected sex.

What about that father giving up his life for his daughter? Isn't that sexy enough for anyone?

He had four children and they are all demons. What's that bit about only having disciples and children if you can make them KC?

I thought that was a great story. He must have loved her very much. I can imagine dying for my children/grandchildren.

Though as an anthro major I also saw it as an example of how we are hard wired to make sure our offspring survive. Gorillas will also lay down their lives for their young. That doesn't mean love isn't involved--I see lots of love in the animal kingdom.

The point I was making is that love is not just sex. Love comes in many wonderful forms and manifestations. Why the obsession with sex?


We are also hard wired for sex.

Anyone around cats and dogs know that they only get sexual active when the right fertility cycles hit and a female is in heat, otherwise, they want to eat, sleep, go for walks, chase things, lay around your feet, sometimes craving attention to play or be petted. The idea that all they want to do is have sex seems more like a transference of human lustful traits put onto animals to explain or exploit a point.

Celibacy is an adult option in life, many people live sane healthy lives this way, but they are by far a large minority based on any polls made on human lifestyle choices.

Being in love with someone and expressing that feeling with physical intimacy is a rather normal healthy human thing to do and experience if one is fortunate to find a partner who shares that with you. Promiscuous sex with no responsibility is a problem, especially for women in child bearing years, but to tell everyone to be celibate unless they want children just does not historically work, even within families who raise their kids within fundamentalist religions that teach abstinence based on strict moral values, the fear of sin or some higher taste, so what to do? Without contraceptives or medical procedures to tie or cut things up, we would have a lot more abortions and unwanted children as a consequence, so what is the alternative ... making everyone a celibate monk? How do you enforce that, how do you make people do something they do not want to do, plus how do you stop teenagers from exploring their sexuality?

Some parents do the best they can helping their kids realize the power and consequences of sexual activity, but once out into the world with their peers and a society that uses sex as an allure for entertainment and advertising, it is asking a lot for them not to explore and experiment with their emerging curiosity and feelings. There are no guarantees provided and any stance on sexual morality will come with deep consequences upon the lives of many. Women do take the brunt of responsibility when it comes to reproduction and ways to contain or deal with unwanted pregnancies, and with males dominating the pharmaceutical/medical industries, not to mention government agencies, it is no surprise that when it comes to birth control or being held responsible for a child, men historically have not been held to the same standards as women, though things have been changing in the past 40 years to change this history.

It's also bizarre to see grown men here who are loving responsible fathers and husbands be placed in a position of being lumped in with sexual predators or irresponsible patriarchs because of their position on contraceptives written on a forum.

I would guess that there are underlying issues surrounding relationships and men. It is strange how many people who have these issues are attracted to repressive male dominated patriarchal religions.

Tell me about your father.....

Not you, Kali.

I can imagine that all it takes is one really bad experience in life to set the stage for these types of issues, what to mention if there are more than one. Life sometimes can be an obstacle course we have to find our way through to become whole.

Reincarnation? This is something I never really understood very well. I know the devotee simplistic explanation - if you like sex then take birth as a pigeon - but as for making the jiva responsible for something that happened in a previous life without any knowledge of that previous life seems to be a cruel way of running things.

We make enough mistakes in this life already. Why would a compassionate god hold us to ransom for a wrong thought, desire or deed if we are acting out karma from a previous life which compels us to make further mistakes?

I understood Kali to be talking about more than one bad experience in this life, not multiple lives.

I've had abundant bad experiences in this life with men but I think it is essentially unfair to project onto all men the feelings associated with those experiences. Perhaps some of the positive experiences I had balanced it out, too, I don't know. But I am glad I was open to having a wonderful relationship with Dave.

I was struck by this as well.

It would be hard to find a more loving or faithful companion than Homer or yourself. (Or my own husband, though he hasn't participated in this discussion.)

Maybe I am just a sucker? Two families and I still have not learned my lessons! Don't forget Metamorphosis.

Ummmm... I had my vasectomy in '89. My two youngest are three and five years old. These children are rare birds.

Nobody is suggesting that everyone should practice celibacy or to have sex only when they want children.

I would just like to see some persuasive argument why it is an absolutely superior stance that a woman should risk her health and even her life for a man's attention.

How did this enter the conversation? How is contraception risking anyone's life? Why do you ignore the fact that love is not solely between a man and a woman?

The father who lost his life trying to save his little girl certainly demonstrated his selfless love. He did save his wife. I hope that god does not damn him because he was not wearing neck beads.

We are talking about "abandoning self-interest."



Aside from hormonal contraceptives that are known to have dangerous side-effects -

Using contraceptives means that one does not want to have children.
If the contraceptives fail, and the woman conceives, she will either have to have a child she does not want, have an abortion, hope for a miscarriage, or hope that she will magically change her mind once she is pregnant. The first three are serious consequences for the woman's health and life, and the fourth one is stressful.

In sex, the woman is risking her health and her life whether she wants children or not.

But there is a difference in risking health and life when in the pursuit of fun, as opposed to in the pursuit of work or bearing desired children.

I find it acceptable to, to some extent, risk health and life in the pursuit of work or bearing desired children.

I do not find it acceptable to, to any extent, risk health and life in the pursuit of fun of any kind.


Fun ought to be fun, pleasure should be pleasure: why should they come at costs?
Why would we have to knowingly pursue fun and pleasure in ways that can cause harm to our health and life?



I'm not ignoring that. I just don't have anything to say to it at this point.

But then why do I always see both cats and dogs dry humping each other and also on people's legs? If it isn't sex, then it sure looks like it, so Prabhupada might have been making a statement based on observation. He should have used monkeys as a good example, though anyone who hadn't been to India wouldn't understand the example.

That tends to be an statement in itself.

However, I was using the term in relation to love of god. The self interest I referred to was the rewards that a devotee expects from his relationship with god.

"Love is the abandonment of self-interest. The motivation of the vast majority of religionists is self-interest. Why would god be interested in sycophantic individuals looking for rewards?"

You went off on a tangent about men killing women by having sex when the women are using contraceptives.



I had the snip.

If you do not wish to use contraception then that is your choice. I fail to see how that should translate into your assertion that we men are killing women by the millions by having sex with them when they are using contraceptives.




Child and mother? Daughter and father? Grandmother and grandson? My dingo and me?

And you think this is what women who end up with heart and other health problems, who lie on abortion tables, or in birthpains while giving birth to an unwanted child think?
"The sex was so great, it was so worth all this trouble" -?



What about the 0.01%?

What did you tell yourself when you were still able to bear children, but used contraceptives?

"Sex, and keeping a man, is more important to me than my health or the lives of children. I do not care about the possibility that the contraceptives would fail. I am perfectly willing to have an abortion or bear a child I do not want."

What is the reasoning here ...?

Is this was normal women think? They value sex, or their relationship with the man above their health, life and the lives of the unborn?

You are participating in the creation of circumstances in which a woman could be faced with unwanted pregnancy (and all the risks conntected with that), and you do so in the name of pursuit of pleasure.

I was speaking of a person having one or more bad experience in their life, not a life reincarnated which experiences multiple bad experiences ... amazing how a misunderstanding can lead to a harangue about devotees, sex, god, karma and taking birth as a pigeon ... geez ... the clock is ticking.

I will go back to my corner....

Getting into traffic has a higher percentage of getting injured than 0.01% yet people keep driving around. Not to mention sport. There are people abound who enjoy football. The injury percentage is very high in football. Yet football goes on. People keep smoking cigarettes. Going on vacation is not without risks. It has one of the highest stress factors. Do you want life to be without any risk?
Maybe you do, but almost all people just take some risk on a daily basis.

No, stay in the ring by all means Homer, for it's my clock that is ticking away, simply winding down.

Haha! I admit that I misread your post, but it felt good to have a little bitch about karma. Devotees normally do attribute their life experiences to what happened to them in a former life. I was slightly surprised that no one took exception to my little observation about Buddhist teachings concerning reincarnation. That is, if there is no soul then who or what is subject to reincarnation?

What has this have to do with sex, contraception and the abuse of women? I suppose it depends on whether one believes in karma or not.

We know all about the odd proclivities of you lot!

http://www.heatworld.com/Entertainment/TV/...how-The-Scheme/

"Scotland left stunned at reality show The Scheme...

Full of alcoholism, violence and drug-taking (the sort of behaviour you’d see on TV show Shameless), the show is even being shown with subtitles as producers thought people would find it difficult to understand...."

Subtitles!