WARNING!

If you are not comfortable with having your beliefs challenged you would probably not want to read this. If you wish, however, to expand your knowledge then you are at the right place.

There is a myth among many that male circumcision is harmless and beneficial while they may accept the brutality of female circumcision. Some doctors who are still bound mentally by religion try to claim that it has medical benefits. That is a lie. Scientific journals claim that it has no benefit but has detrimental effects. The damage is physical, as the most sensitive part of the sex organ is removed partially or sometimes totally. This is a bestial practice that needs to be stopped. Some think circumcision as a means to control masturbation and sex which some consider sin. That is how this part of the e-mail conversation started. If you want to learn more about circumcision, visit CIRP. Also check out the history.

Oh and remember sex is taboo in the culture that I and Sauronama are from.

NOVO is in Blue and Sauronama is in red.

NOVO,

Your letter has raised age-old questions of mine.Why should the practice of sex as a pleasure be a sin. If you say masturbation is not necessarily evil, then what is wrong if some one goes into intercourse? NOVO can you explain that to me?

Hi Sauronama,

What I may say now, you might disagree (at least the first part). I don't know if anyone will agree. And before I start I want to make it clear that all this is my opinion and nothing more. My opinions are interspersed... please read through.

1) There is no right and wrong... there is no sin(bad, evil) or good. They are human concepts upon which society was constructed.  We decide what is good and what is bad. There is no absolute in it.

Ethics and morals are collective notions of right and wrong. They hold society together. Religion often claims to be this glue... but that is not true... society was formed before religion and ethics came with the formation of society and is independent of religion which later incorporated rules and regulation in the name of ethics. At one time the "Aryan" and other Indo-European tribes, including the Vikings did not even have the concept of good or bad other than what was brave and what was cowardice in war. They were warring tribes who worshipped war Gods.

2) Sex is not bad... let alone sin. It is part of our life... one of the basic facts of life. Actually it is one of the wonderful facts of life. Nothing is wrong with intercourse ... its natural.

But since we live in society, we can have (construct) fundamental rules about sexual engagements but today's society goes too far because of bonehead religious leaders of ancient times and today. In my opinion, these are the fundamental rules of sexual engagement (I am sure many will disagree):

1) It must be by consent of the two parties involved... and not a consent through fear, money or other coercion. If it is not by free consent it is wrong. It is also wrong when one party is not competent to give a free and well informed consent (as in the case of children)

2) It is wrong when one party simply has sex for fun while leading the other into thinking there is more... i.e., love. If both parties just want sexual enjoyment with no attachment or strings, then that is perfectly alright.

3) Sex is wrong when "you" are "with" someone but have sex with another hurting the one you are with. (more below)

4) It is definitely wrong when babies are born and not wanted.

Is there anything left above? Other than those cases sex is fine I think, and "society" should keep its big nose out.

Another thing is also surprising. You know about cows, goats or cocks (rooster)? I don't know the exact word, but they do a kind of operation and remove the sex organ from the body of the animal, which makes the animal become larger in size than it used to be. When we go for meat, we like "KHASHIR  Mangsho" (meat of male goat without the organ) more than "CHHAGOLER Mangsho" (meat from one with organ)? Why is that?

The term for removing the sex organ is "neutering". Even though many people think it is right and humane, I am totally against it. I don't think we have the right to do that. How would you feel if you were neutered. I think it is inhumane.

And about Khashir and Chhagoler Mangsho, I donno... is there a difference in taste? I did not know there was... or is it just a cultural thing... were we raised (conditioned) to think that way? Many of the hormones that originate in the sex organs are not there for the neutered animal and might be the reason for the differences that are there.

Regarding masturbation or other sexual practice in my whole life, I am a conservative (at least I try). Again, always I think, is it necessary that a person should have sex? How would you define it? Time has already come when the production of a new child would not necessarily require the mating between male and female. A lot of processes are coming for making a girl a mother (without sex). Then why is it needed?

As a living creature, it is a basic part of our life to have descendants to keep life and (on a lower scale) our species going. I think sex is a very important part of our life... there are some functions (again my opinion) basic for a human.

1) Feed and protect oneself and dependants (survival on individual level)

2) Reproduce (survival on a species level or even higher)

(The first two are for living beings... of course, some do not have dependants)

3) Cultivate knowledge (what makes us unique)

This is the cycle of life... One can not deny it... its part of nature.

When we eat we do not just eat to survive. We try to find pleasure in eating... if we have the chance we try to find food that tastes delicious for maximum pleasure. Similarly when we cultivate knowledge we do not just do it for propagation of knowledge in the world... we do not just do it as it is what makes us a unique species. We gain knowledge in fields that gives us pleasure (interesting). Same for sex... we could do it just for reproduction but that is reducing its role to a mechanistic perspective. Sex is not just for reproduction... but for pleasure... to deny it is foolish... and no benefit comes from denying it. Denying pleasure in sex or denying sex begets no profit and therefore is no more or less than one not having pleasure. It does not have any godly praise or reward involved.

Everything in this world has a good aspect as well as a dark side. I know if you apply the rule of generalization, then unlimited practice of anything is harmful for human being. That is OK.

Yes being addicted to anything is a slavery ... and not beneficial. Extremes are what we should avoid... I believe in a balance.

But what is wrong, if you like a girl and she also likes you and both of you have the understanding. Again if there nothing wrong, then why should you bother if your wife goes to bed with another person or vice versa?

Jealousy is part of us... it comes from fear of losing something that is important to us. If a spouse sleeps with another person... it is not a crime in my book as long as the other spouse is ok with it... but if that other spouse has a problem with it -- even in the slightest, whether expressed or not... it is wrong. Anything that hurts others unnecessarily is wrong in my book. That person must be clear with his/her spouse and if necessary end their conjugal relationship.

This situation also brings into question trust. In my book marriage is not a piece of paper (certificate) that a court gives or some dumb priest declares. It is when two people love each other to the highest, where sex is not their only bond. In that state sex with another at the cost of that bond is wrong as it causes hurt and destroys the bond automatically. If one spouse acts in anyway to undermine that bond (includes total trust as an important ingredient)... then the bond automatically is ruined and since I think that bond is sacred, I believe such lack of integrity is wrong. Anything that.

Oh and living together as husband and wife without being legally or socially married is fine with me... no matter what society says.

Or what is the sin in marrying 2-3 wives? It is sometimes true that sexual demand for men are much stronger in their old age than that of in the case of female.

I don't know for sure how true that is ...

It seems by nature animals are more polygamists with some exceptions. Especially, the male of the species is more likely to have sex with different partners than the female. It is an instinctive drive that some males feel strongly and society declares it wrong. As before, I say, nothing by itself is wrong or bad or right/good... we decide it when we bring it into the context of society. The male of the species copulates with many females to ensure the greater probability of his descendants being born and surviving. The female on the other hand can't just do that... she has a liability, she is the one who bears the offspring (for mammals it is even harder, they have to rear the young until they are capable of fending for themselves). A female often needs the help of a male to take care of the offspring... so she chooses a male who will stay with her after she conceives and gives birth... this contributes to the female not being as promiscuous.

If am a man or a woman has more than one spouse at the same time... it is OK, as long as all three are OK with the arrangement. Having sex with two girls or guys at the same time is not wrong either... All this has one catch in my book... they are alright as long as no one is hurt in the process. In our society, we do have some men having 2-3 wives... he will also have to accept if his wife wants more than one husband! However, since that kind of liberalism could create chaos in society, society decreed that monogamy or polygamy (for a man having more than one wife) be allowed. Society leaders decided this as a way of averting collapse of society, and it was male oriented since males ruled.

Now in the west, we see that chaos has already seeped in... there is no need for strict monogamous relationships. All rules of sexual engagement are being overruled in the new age of sexual "liberation"! All forms of relationships are available. I feel they have gone overboard. This "liberation" eats away the family. Their society has become extremely individualistic with little regard for family. Of course, this is a generalization, but its a pretty good one. Broken families are becoming more and more the norm. In my opinion, broken families are the worst for kids and ultimately the whole society. This is one of the worst effects of capitalism -- the destruction of the family... unfortunately it is spreading all over the world.

So if a person is honest and capable, why should he suppress his sexual desire at the age of 50, when his wife is 40 and is of no use to give him proper satisfaction? Rather an honest person should go to a brothel or else take a girl friend or get himself married once again. If he goes to a brothel, it is unhygienic and hiding from others (it is CHURI).(Churi = Theft, the action of a thief)

Secondly, if he has a girl friend, she might be another person's daughter or wife. Why should her father or husband take it lightly? Again, the man's wife may also not take it easily and the conjugal life may end in doom. Then what will happen to his children. Thirdly, if he openly marries another woman, he might get the pleasure and if his first wife has no objection, then life may go on smoothly. Of course, the question comes, if the man is quite capable to carry on with more than one wife and much more children? Things become more complicated when I think this way.

First, what about the woman... should she also seek a new partner if she is not satisfied by her husband?

Ok a man of 50 can indeed have another wife or sex partner as long as it does not affect his wife and children. Its a matter of priority... I think feelings of those that loves the man should be more important than sexual craving. But if his children are adults and live their own lives... if the wife is ok with her husband having sex with others (and maybe can find her own satisfaction elsewhere...) then the man can look for other younger girls.

But this search in the brothel I abhor... not just because of the risk of disease ... in many countries the disease spread by brothels is being reduced by controls. I have other reasons... I would not support brothels in a million years...

If one goes to the brothel, he keeps some vicious cycles going. He is part of the demand group. That is -- the demand for prostitutes go up with more customers. This causes a few things (and if it is socially accepted the effects will worsen):

1) To supply enough prostitutes to meet demand, forced prostitution picks up as today in most countries. This I see as wrong. (Even many of those who are by choice prostitutes NOW were (most) once forced into it initially). Then as the demand goes up the price for sex goes up... which makes it more lucrative for other girls to become prostitutes for money. This I think threatens the very foundation of society... eventually all sex might be from prostitutes (this is in accordance to the wedge or slippery slope theory)

2) The other reason is this: Think of the prostitutes, a study was done which revealed why prostitutes do not feel bad about having sex with old ugly, brutal and disgusting even older customers. The study revealed (I can't quote the study off hand) that most girls and also boys who are now prostitutes were sexually molested as kids, mostly by a parent or both. Their first experience was with a parent. Their first experience was rape, and is horrible. Prostitutes are products of horrible nightmares.

I feel that if we go to whore houses we keep the cycle of horror going and gnaw at the foundation of society. And that I think is wrong.

NOTE: In nature sex is often by rape, and by prostitution (food). So probably by itself they are not wrong, but in the human context, since we have moved into a complex society, they are different.

Finally the answer comes this way or may be its a part. Actually the best answer should vary among different situations. The answer is where ever you live, you must try to maintain the harmony of society, must stop any kind of activity which is harmful for your health, economic condition, your family, your society.

Exactly, I agree... I understand your thoughts all through, and I see the depth. Each situation dictates its own solution... I like generalizing but each situation is unique. I like your conclusion above.

And yes, we have to live in a way as not to destroy the very fabric of society, and respect family and health. But I also think that the conniving religious and political leaders have made our society more rigid than necessary... so there are times when we should revolt against the dictum of society and its stupid leaders.

If you trust on someone, you should not deceive him or her because trust would generate a third power in you, which, if you are knowledgeable, you would enjoy much more  and may be which is the next step of evolution, from Homo Sapiens to some new species... But definitely, some new change in habit and demand and a change in nature is going to come, I believe.

As a Majlish Stwabee, my other feeling is, if you do not surrender to your desire, especially sexual desire, you will develop an extra strength of controlling yourself which you might apply even to control the nature.

It is a kind of polarizing human mind which we do in our Stwab. And when you have control over yourself, you can make some changes of the environment around you, which might give you the utter satisfaction that money can not buy.

Again I have to agree with you.

Control is good but denying sexual desires or other desires is wrong. A balance is what we seek. And on the note of Majlish, I must add, for us it is   a bit different. For Stwabees, we aspire something (as you mentioned above) that religious leaders would not understand with all their fake stuff. If we always think of sex or any other desire and give in... we will be flooded with certain hormones and enzymes... they interfere with Stwab. When we control desires, we control the hormones making it easier to Stwab. It does not cloud out the necessary components for going into deep Stwab. I believe this is exactly what you were saying above.

THE NOT END

Go back to The Rock Temple

NOVO's Library