Sexuality Before Marnia Robinson: for Share "The pleasures of sex are more vehement that the pleasures of food and exert more pressure on us; they need more whipping into line, for the more we give way to them the more they dominate us and the more able they are to overthrow our strength of mind. Even married sex, adorned with all the honourableness of marriage, carries with it a certain shame, because the movements of the genitals unlike those of other external members don't obey reason. The virtue that deals with the sex-act we call chastity, and the virtue concerned with more public actions such as looking and kissing and caressing we call *purity*. *Purity* is a sort of adjunct serving chastity, not a separate virtue but a sort of environment to chastity. Sexual sin is thought of as more disgraceful than other immoderate action, partly because of the uncontrolled movements of the genitals, but also because our reason gets submerged.
There are three levels to be considered in the act of sex: the physiological level (the breaking of the hymen, etc) has no moral context as such; at the psychological level shared by body and soul, emission of seed brings sensory pleasure (the material side of the human moral act); and at the deepest level there is an act of intention in the soul aiming at such pleasure (and making that act a human, moral activity). Now *virginity* is defined by a moral integrity: not then the integrity of the hymen as such, but a material immunity from the pleasures of orgasm, wedded with a formal purpose of perpetual abstinence from such pleasures. A hymen broken from some other cause is no more a loss of virginity in this sense than a broken arm or leg. And the pleasure of orgasm can be experienced unintentionally during sleep or externally forced without a person's consent. In no such case is virginity lost. External goods are meant to serve our body's good, our body to serve our soul, and in our soul the active life should serve the contemplative life. So it is not a bad thing, but reasonable and right, to abstain from external possessions, which are otherwise good, for the sake of the body's health or the contemplation of truth. And in the same way abstaining from bodily pleasure so as to make ourselves more freely available to contemplate truth, is reasonable and right. The injunction of the law in us by nature to *eat* must be observed by everybody if individuals are to survive; but the injunction to *be fruitful and multiply* obliges the community of mankind reproduce whilst others, abstaining from that, give themselves up to the contemplation of God, and so bring a beauty and health into the whole human race. To refuse all pleasure as such because of dislike for it and without good reason is to be insensitive and boorish. The practice of virginity doesn't refuse all pleasure, but only that of sex, and that only for a good reason. Virginity seeks the soul's good in a life of contemplation *mindful of the things of God*. Marriage seeks the body's good--the bodily multiplication of the human race--in an active life in which husband and wife are *mindful of the things of this world*. Without doubt then the state of virginity is preferable to that of even continent marriage, though married people may well be better people than those practising virginity; more chaste, having a spirit that would have made them better virgins were they called to it than those actually practising virginity, and more virtuous in general. The general good ranks above the good of the private person when those goods are of the same sort. But the private good may be of a higher sort; and that is what happens when virginity dedicated to God is compared with bodily fruitfulness. However, the theological virtues and even the virtue of religion, being directly occupied with God, are to be preferred to virginity. Again martyrs cleave to God more mightily, because they lay down their own lives, whilst those who dwell in monasteries lay down their own wills and all they possess; virgins lay down only the pleasures of sex. Simply speaking then virginity is by no means the greatest of virtues. Use of food properly ordered for the body's welfare is no sin; and in the same way, use of sex properly ordered for the purpose of human reproduction is no sin. Virtuous balance is not measured quantitatively but by rightness of reason, so the high degree of pleasure that attaches to a properly ordered sex-act doesn't stop it being balanced. In any case virtue isn't concerned with how much external sense-pleasure accompanies the act (that depends on the body's temperament), but with the way that pleasure interiorly affects us. Though not even our distraction from spiritual matters at the moment of enjoying such pleasure makes it unvirtuous; for it is not unvirtuous to suspend reason for a time for a good reason, otherwise sleeping would be a vice." --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Marnia Robinson writes: "Take, for example, the ancient Tibetan Buddhist > myth, The Great Stupa. It confirms that passion is indeed the reason for > mankind's fallen state, and says there are three paths to liberation: > > > > ~the overcoming of passion through renunciation > ~the neutralization of passion by pouring all one's energy into selfless > service > ~the conquering of passion through controlled indulgence. That is, using sex > itself in such a way as to transcend passion's treacherous downward suction. > > It says that the third path is the fastest and most powerful path, although > also the easiest one to fall from...until one masters it. > > The myth, which is very old, predicted there would come a time when the > unstable energies produced by increased indulgence in passion would create > chaos at both seen and unseen levels across the globe. The first two paths, > celibacy and compassionate service to others, would no longer open the door > to enlightenment, though they would remain useful spiritual disciplines. > Why? Because general unrest would render impossible the necessary degree of > inner stillness. > > Instead, only > the > third path, balance with a partner, would serve. Apparently a loving > relationship, devoted entirely to the goal of transcendence, can create > enduring inner peace and stability. In this way, we can reconnect the broken > circuit of gender and permanently rise about our built-in sense of lack. By > contrast, > celibacy still allows gender polarity to create severe longings in many of > us, if only for simple loving touch. And I suspect this trait is less a > product of moral weakness than a result of the easily inflamed body chemistry > that we have bred into ourselves for millennia. These bothersome longings > may also mask intense yearnings for reunion with our Source. The silver > lining? Many of us are apparently now primed for shared enlightenment should > we care to use our urges for a higher end." > > from Marnia Robinson's Peace Between the Sheets, pg 137-8 > > Balinese medicine man Ketut from Eat Pray Love: To lose balance sometimes > for love is part of living a balanced life. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8csr68LjUM&feature=relmfu >
