OK, but this is far beyond what the OP is asking about. What you are describing is an academic pali language and anthropological matter, not the dhamma.salayatananirodha wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 12:54 amWhat I recall reading in the vinaya is that there were bhikkhus (male) who had sexual encounters with other bhikkhus (male) and there were bhikkhus who had sexual encounters with paṇḍakas, which is more reason I think the meaning of the word is similar to hijra, a non-male but non-female third gender. Where 'transgender' falls into this btw I dont know. But in Indian society and in other places (Muxe in Mexico) this is understand as a distinct gender or class of people.dharmacorps wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:26 pmNo, this isn't a right interpretation either, although many of the responses to your inquiry were confusing so I can't blame you for drawing that conclusion.dharmatheway84 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 9:38 pm So, it seems that the answer to my question is not made entirely clear in the body of teachings. Though, according to some interpretations, it is clearly prohibited (not necessarily being homosexual but homosexual behavior).
Put simply:
For monks, all sexual behavior is prohibited; some gay people could be excluded from ordination by some preceptors. Of note, many segments of the population are excluded from ordination as well for many reasons so this is of limited relevance.
For lay people, in the whole of the Buddhist teaching taken by large, there is no indication I have ever seen that homosexuality or homosexual behavior is viewed as "worse" by definition than hetero a la- Judeo Christian traditions.
Homosexuality
-
- Posts: 2298
- Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 7:33 pm
Re: Homosexuality
- dharmatheway84
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2021 10:10 am
- Location: Maitland, Florida
Re: Homosexuality
I think it might be worth noting that a substantial minority of gay males do not actually even engage in anal sex. I know we are digressing a bit here.2600htz wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 3:43 pmHi Chownah:
This is getting a little out of topic haha, and im no expert, but to name a few in comparision with vaginal intercourse:
-prevalence of individuals who experience extreme pain during anal sex.
-prevalence of rectal tissue tearing in comparision with vaginal tearing.
-prevalence of disease transmission
-lack of natural lubrication
-direct contact with stool.
-lack of reproductive function
As to what does anal sex have to do with orientation well, there is direct correlation between sexual orientation and recurrence of anal sex.
Regards
- salayatananirodha
- Posts: 1479
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
- Contact:
Re: Homosexuality
it has to do with how the term homosexual even translates back to ancient india.dharmacorps wrote:OK, but this is far beyond what the OP is asking about. What you are describing is an academic pali language and anthropological matter, not the dhamma.salayatananirodha wrote: What I recall reading in the vinaya is that there were bhikkhus (male) who had sexual encounters with other bhikkhus (male) and there were bhikkhus who had sexual encounters with paṇḍakas, which is more reason I think the meaning of the word is similar to hijra, a non-male but non-female third gender. Where 'transgender' falls into this btw I dont know. But in Indian society and in other places (Muxe in Mexico) this is understand as a distinct gender or class of people.
long story short, there's nothing exceptional about homosexual activity and it occurs in the vinaya but it is an offense (entailing expulsion, i believe)
just the same as if you had sex with a woman or with a child or an animal (if i recall correctly)
by examining the vinaya i think we can tell that there is nothing considered exceptional about homosexuality and there is nothing that i know of in the suttas. no one else has shown anything in the suttas, but the term paṇḍaka often comes up in this type of discussion because it is used to mean homosexual in many circles, and the term was brought up here so addressing that is necessary. aside from that term it basically comes down to opinion and interpreting the third precept as it pertains to countries in which homosexual behavior is outlawed.
true and even tho i've tried it and am homosexual i am not interested much in it precisely because there is poop involveddharmatheway84 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 8:43 pm I think it might be worth noting that a substantial minority of gay males do not actually even engage in anal sex. I know we are digressing a bit here.
so i am not inclined to engage in anal sex more than a heterosexual person due to my sexuality and actually am less inclined than many many heteros
and im not even really into oral either but ok we can move on
but 2600htz does raise some valid albeit very generalized points
also noticed i dont think anyone ever talked about lesbians in this thread
lesbians might actually have some of the safest sex?
PC means politically correct. these days, it is less socially acceptable to say things that are considered offensive about minority social groups. but i have grown to be tolerant of that sort of thing. being buddhist i have learned that being PC and being buddhist are not one in the same. there are people who would read what you said about homosexuality and become very angry. some of what you wrote seems true, some does not
well, what i meant was 'is it because of the innate quality of being homosexual that a homo suffers bad kamma, or is it because the society hates him(/her)?'Yesss i have read the aggañña sutta. I dont think sexual orientation is due to widespread social attitudes, but definetely they play some influence in ones gati (character).
It is due to ones gati that a particular sexual orientation is formed.
So i guess what i am saying is that it is not "unnatural" to have gay gati, its just that is less harmonious that straight gati in my opinion.
Just like having sensual/sexual gati is less harmonious than having a gati free of sensual desire.
But again, its no big deal. Personality is made of many many aspects, sexual orientation is just a tiny portion.
Regards.
but yeah sexuality is evolving still and further, and there are a lot of bizarre kinks and fetishes out there now too, and there are people who are attracted to filth, and there is incest and so on down the rabbit hole of perversion. seems you already understand that being a homo is really only a step further if that from being a hetero. plenty of people in the world uphold the latter while condemning the former, which is inconsistent with the defiled nature of sex. but also some gays have really good karma and dont have to go thru the different things that you could say make up a hard life of a gay
I host a sutta discussion via Zoom Sundays at 11AM Chicago time — message me if you are interested
Re: Homosexuality
INdeed, and alot of hetero people do engage in anal sex.....which is why I asked "what does anal penetration have to do with sexual orientation".......also note that although there are some whose response to anal sex is pain there are also lots of people who find it pleasurable....even orgasmic for some people.....also note that some people find vaginal sex painful too....dharmatheway84 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 8:43 pmI think it might be worth noting that a substantial minority of gay males do not actually even engage in anal sex. I know we are digressing a bit here.2600htz wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 3:43 pmHi Chownah:
This is getting a little out of topic haha, and im no expert, but to name a few in comparision with vaginal intercourse:
-prevalence of individuals who experience extreme pain during anal sex.
-prevalence of rectal tissue tearing in comparision with vaginal tearing.
-prevalence of disease transmission
-lack of natural lubrication
-direct contact with stool.
-lack of reproductive function
As to what does anal sex have to do with orientation well, there is direct correlation between sexual orientation and recurrence of anal sex.
Regards
Also, while above it claims that anal sex lacking the reproductive function is a drawback I want to point out that some people prefer anal sex to vaginal sex BECAUSE of its lacking the reproductive function!!!
chownah
Re: Homosexuality
bhante , iyo what are buddhist perspective on functionality of bodies in regards with sexuality ? Would Buddha / Vinaya allows organs of sexuality other than those for reproduction with regards to lay people ? If Buddha never mentioned in suttas N vinaya of homosexuality , what would be the Buddhism stand on this ?Dhammanando wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 1:34 am Since the Buddhist perspective is a non-theistic one, it can't be said that bodies are "designed" at all, let alone designed for one sort of sexual act but not another.
No bashing No gossiping
- Dhammanando
- Posts: 6512
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
- Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun
Re: Homosexuality
As far as I'm aware, the specification of certain types of sexual act (oral and anal sex, and masturbation) as being intrinsically breaches of the third householder's precept (regardless of whom one's partner might be) is a peculiarity of Tibetan Buddhism, based on late Sarvāstivādin texts. The Buddha in the suttas doesn't go into such matters at all and confines himself to listing improper partners. Likewise the later Theravādin texts.asahi wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 3:04 pm bhante , iyo what are buddhist perspective on functionality of bodies in regards with sexuality ? Would Buddha / Vinaya allows organs of sexuality other than those for reproduction with regards to lay people ? If Buddha never mentioned in suttas N vinaya of homosexuality , what would be the Buddhism stand on this ?
As for homosexuals, the suttas don't specify what would be an improper partner for them, but the majority opinion among Theravada teachers is that they should try to observe analogous restraints to those of a heterosexual layperson, i.e., to be faithful to their partner and to not enter into relations with someone who's already spoken for or who's still under the guardianship of his/her family members .
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.
In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.
In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
Re: Homosexuality
Hi chownah:chownah wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 2:26 pmINdeed, and alot of hetero people do engage in anal sex.....which is why I asked "what does anal penetration have to do with sexual orientation".......also note that although there are some whose response to anal sex is pain there are also lots of people who find it pleasurable....even orgasmic for some people.....also note that some people find vaginal sex painful too....dharmatheway84 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 8:43 pmI think it might be worth noting that a substantial minority of gay males do not actually even engage in anal sex. I know we are digressing a bit here.2600htz wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 3:43 pm
Hi Chownah:
This is getting a little out of topic haha, and im no expert, but to name a few in comparision with vaginal intercourse:
-prevalence of individuals who experience extreme pain during anal sex.
-prevalence of rectal tissue tearing in comparision with vaginal tearing.
-prevalence of disease transmission
-lack of natural lubrication
-direct contact with stool.
-lack of reproductive function
As to what does anal sex have to do with orientation well, there is direct correlation between sexual orientation and recurrence of anal sex.
Regards
Also, while above it claims that anal sex lacking the reproductive function is a drawback I want to point out that some people prefer anal sex to vaginal sex BECAUSE of its lacking the reproductive function!!!
chownah
You asked and i pointed why is less suitable anal sex than vaginal sex for sexual intercourse due to stadistical and physiological reasons.
Just because some minor percentage of people beat the odds of stadistics and physiology is not enough to not call it "less suitable".
Im sure there are lots of good short nba players, dumb university graduates, fat models, smart people in jail, etc.
Regards.
- salayatananirodha
- Posts: 1479
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
- Contact:
Re: Homosexuality
i know porn has some influence on why gays do anal but to what extent idk
I host a sutta discussion via Zoom Sundays at 11AM Chicago time — message me if you are interested
-
- Posts: 2607
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm
Re: Homosexuality
Damma is always best in this life and the next . ( Agganna Sutta).salayatananirodha wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 12:52 am i know porn has some influence on why gays do anal but to what extent idk
Re: Homosexuality
The Sarvāstivādin text you refer to is Vasubandhu's kosa?Dhammanando wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 4:47 pm As far as I'm aware, the specification of certain types of sexual act (oral and anal sex, and masturbation) as being intrinsically breaches of the third householder's precept (regardless of whom one's partner might be) is a peculiarity of Tibetan Buddhism, based on late Sarvāstivādin texts. The Buddha in the suttas doesn't go into such matters at all and confines himself to listing improper partners. Likewise the later Theravādin texts.
Re: Homosexuality
Something is considered more or less suitable when one is considering the purpose which is intended. For instance is a hammer more suitable than a shovel?.....it depends on the purpose intended....for digging one is more suitable and for pounding nails one is more suitable but without indicating the purpose it makes no sense to talk about suitability. Similarly statistics and physiology can only indicate suitability if an intended purpose is indicated.2600htz wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 8:13 pm Hi chownah:
You asked and i pointed why is less suitable anal sex than vaginal sex for sexual intercourse due to stadistical and physiological reasons.
Just because some minor percentage of people beat the odds of stadistics and physiology is not enough to not call it "less suitable".
Im sure there are lots of good short nba players, dumb university graduates, fat models, smart people in jail, etc.
For instance, you say that anal penetration is less suitable than penis-vagina with one reason being lack of reproductive function. You seem to make the assumption that reproductive function makes intercourse more suitable while lack of reproductive function makes intercourse less suitable.....BUT you have not indicated the intended purpose for intercourse. If one wants to reproduce then penis-vagina is more suitable BUT if one wants to avoid penis-vagina then anal penetration is more suitable (if viewed statistically as you suggest).
So, I ask everyone reading here to think about all the times they have had sexual intercourse and estimate how many times they clearly had the intention "I want this sexual contact to create a baby".....and then estimate how many times if they had stopped to consider they would have clearly had the intention "I do not want this sexual contact to create a baby." I think that for just about everyone there are hundreds if not thousands of times a baby was not intended for every time that a baby was intended. Fact is that many people have never had sexual intercourse with the intent to have a baby.
Given that the vast majority of sexual encounters are had with the intent to not have a baby it can be said if the intent is to not reproduce then penis-vagina is less suitable than anal penetration.
chownah
Re: Homosexuality
The above appears mostly relevant to the last 50 years of the last 2600 years of history. Previously, men & women had little choice in being certain sex would not lead to impregnation. But more importantly, what is the long term result (vipaka) of sowing seed without any result?
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
- Dhammanando
- Posts: 6512
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
- Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun
Re: Homosexuality
I can't remember which one it is. I think the source is given in Peter Harvey's book on Buddhist ethics.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.
In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.
In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
Re: Homosexuality
I made a mistake in my last post.....the sentence in red should read "If one wants to reproduce then penis-vagina is more suitable BUT if one wants to avoid reproduction then anal penetration is more suitable (if viewed statistically as you suggest)."chownah wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:49 am For instance, you say that anal penetration is less suitable than penis-vagina with one reason being lack of reproductive function. You seem to make the assumption that reproductive function makes intercourse more suitable while lack of reproductive function makes intercourse less suitable.....BUT you have not indicated the intended purpose for intercourse. If one wants to reproduce then penis-vagina is more suitable BUT if one wants to avoid penis-vagina then anal penetration is more suitable (if viewed statistically as you suggest).
So, I ask everyone reading here to think about all the times they have had sexual intercourse and estimate how many times they clearly had the intention "I want this sexual contact to create a baby".....and then estimate how many times if they had stopped to consider they would have clearly had the intention "I do not want this sexual contact to create a baby." I think that for just about everyone there are hundreds if not thousands of times a baby was not intended for every time that a baby was intended. Fact is that many people have never had sexual intercourse with the intent to have a baby.
Given that the vast majority of sexual encounters are had with the intent to not have a baby it can be said if the intent is to not reproduce then penis-vagina is less suitable than anal penetration.
chownah
Sorry,
chownah
Re: Homosexuality
Hi Chownah:
Yeah i get your point.
This is going out of topic so im just doing it out of like for the debate haha, so sorry if is troublesome to someone.
-We can talk all day about whats the purpouse of having sexual intercourse, but i think its about physical pleasure, mental pleasure and reproductive function. You could take reproductive function out of the picture, and you could also talk about a more "complex" psychology instead of pleasure under some conditions.
-Health is usually the first thing we consider when it comes to things being suitable or not to do. So its not just purpouse.
-example: if the purpouse is to enjoy. Taking drugs could bring far more enjoyment than lets say some walking. Yet we dont recommend drugs, at least as buddhists, because of health and future outcome.
-Unless proven wrong, literature seems to point far more health issues with anal sex as opposed to vaginal sex. There are some diseases and problems that tend to happen more with vaginal intercourse, but it seems this are not so regular in opposition with the other side. Like i said, tissue tearing, unsanitary conditions, STDs, etc.
I am not in the health or research business, so im talking just based on some reading and intuition. You are welcome if you change my mind in this part, or have any info i dont.
Regards.
Yeah i get your point.
This is going out of topic so im just doing it out of like for the debate haha, so sorry if is troublesome to someone.
-We can talk all day about whats the purpouse of having sexual intercourse, but i think its about physical pleasure, mental pleasure and reproductive function. You could take reproductive function out of the picture, and you could also talk about a more "complex" psychology instead of pleasure under some conditions.
-Health is usually the first thing we consider when it comes to things being suitable or not to do. So its not just purpouse.
-example: if the purpouse is to enjoy. Taking drugs could bring far more enjoyment than lets say some walking. Yet we dont recommend drugs, at least as buddhists, because of health and future outcome.
-Unless proven wrong, literature seems to point far more health issues with anal sex as opposed to vaginal sex. There are some diseases and problems that tend to happen more with vaginal intercourse, but it seems this are not so regular in opposition with the other side. Like i said, tissue tearing, unsanitary conditions, STDs, etc.
I am not in the health or research business, so im talking just based on some reading and intuition. You are welcome if you change my mind in this part, or have any info i dont.
Regards.