Log in

Why Sex Is Not Spiritual - Open Knowledge

Feb. 21st, 2012

06:53 pm - Why Sex Is Not Spiritual

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

Originally published at craschworks. You can comment here or there.

Probably the biggest obstacle facing anyone who thinks or writes about sexuality is that the body is always suspect. The idea that our bodies are inherently flawed and corrupt and that what matters is our abstract self — whether you call it soul, spirit, mind, or whatever — is only slightly less universal than 1+1=2. It’s central to the religious teachings of the Catholic Church and the Dalai Lama, but it’s also laced into the more secular ideas of feminists who write about objectification, and transhumanists who long for the day when they can upload their consciousness into a cloud of nanites.

Our bodies can be seen, heard, felt, weighed. They bleed and sweat and shit and come. They eventually age and die. And bizarrely, that very substance is why they’re considered the most superficial parts of ourselves. Perhaps the sickest, most perverse part of religion’s legacy is the lie that followers should ignore their worldly suffering in favor of the bliss that will come in the afterlife, when they can leave the soiled impurity of the mortal shell behind.

via Why Sex Is Not Spiritual – San Francisco Arts – The Exhibitionist.


[User Picture]
Date:February 22nd, 2012 03:36 am (UTC)
Yet, when people treat their bodies with respect (eat right, exercise, et al) they flourish. The proverbial body as temple. With tangibly good results in this life. That's what makes me think sex is spiritual.

It's the slackers who always seem to sell the notion that what you can't see,hear,touch is better than the real. The purveyors of snake oil spirituality.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
Date:February 22nd, 2012 06:48 am (UTC)
Well, I don't want to have sex with chris hall. He sounds like a boring lover. One doesn't need a spiritual identity/philosophy to experience a transcendental event of lifeforce connection.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
Date:February 23rd, 2012 12:42 am (UTC)
This. You beat me to it.

I don't think Chris Hall or you (crasch) get to tell anyone what is or is not "spiritual" to them.

How can one even make an argument about whether or not something has property X (in this case "spiritualness") when property X is abstract and subjective?

I certainly agree with you that religions of all kinds are lying with regards to claiming the afterlife is better.

But you're conflating specific religion's notions of "spirituality" with that of any individual person who the word means something to.

For me, "spirituality" is not a word I use much, but if I were to approximate a meaning to it for myself, it would be about deep, strong connection with another person, or feeling connected to the world around me. In that sense, sex can be very spiritual if it helps me feel deeply connected to the other person.

That has nothing to do with religious dogma or denial of the body.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)