Conscious Sexuality (Blog)

[Fullcrum]

Riddle,

If you do not have a society focused on feeling good and pleasure...what do they focus on? Principles and morals? And the principles and morals achieve...or help to achieve a state of feeling good.

"Hedonism" is inescapable. In our society, it is brought more into the forefront. In a way, that aspect of humans is less repressed than other times in history. Of course, pleasure seeking at the cost of self-destruction or the destruction of principles leads to collapsing societies. Think Rome, think the Ottoman Empire.

What is moral integrity, anyway, except consciously following defined principles as one's highest ideals?

[Riddle]

Originally Posted by Angela

Not me. I never get tired of hearing about sex.

Why? What is there left to hear that hasn't been heard 1000 times before?

[WhiteCrow]

Originally Posted by Riddle

Why? What is there left to hear that hasn't been heard 1000 times before?

Why not hear something good a 1000 times?

Why is it bad to just pursue something because it makes someone feel good? Ofcourse we can cling to principles just because they sound good.

Things like justice, patience, morals have no meaning. It is the people who give them meaning.

I mean what does decadence mean? The definition states "a luxurious self-indulgence".

That sounds pretty good to me. I mean ofcourse we can stick to the morals our parents taught us, or society, or Jesus, but I would prefer if we ALL would just think for our selves, decide what we like and then just do it. If we are not hurting anyone in the process, what is the problem?????????

[Riddle]

Originally Posted by Fullcrum

Riddle,

If you do not have a society focused on feeling good and pleasure...what do they focus on? Principles and morals? And the principles and morals achieve...or help to achieve a state of feeling good.

"Hedonism" is inescapable. In our society, it is brought more into the forefront. In a way, that aspect of humans is less repressed than other times in history. Of course, pleasure seeking at the cost of self-destruction or the destruction of principles leads to collapsing societies. Think Rome, think the Ottoman Empire.

What is moral integrity, anyway, except consciously following defined principles as one's highest ideals?

Perhaps living virtuously achieves a state of 'eudaimonia' or well-being, but that I think is not the same as achieving sensual pleasure, which is the goal of hedonism.

I don't think we can have true morality in a society that promotes self-interest as an overriding goal, for a culture that says 'do whatever feels good' will naturally breed hedonistic ideology. Why is personal development so popular? Because it fits with the current 'feel good' zeitgeist. People don't really care about leading a moral life anymore, instead people only want to feel good. Under hedonism moral integrity can only be abandoned when one does something against self-interest (for pleasure is always in one's self-interest); is that a system of morals your conscience can feel genuinely good about?

[Riddle]

Originally Posted by WhiteCrow

Why not hear something good a 1000 times?

It may be 'good' (which is debatable), but to hear something over and over is tedious, at least to me.

Originally Posted by WhiteCrow

Why is it bad to just pursue something because it makes someone feel good? Ofcourse we can cling to principles just because they sound good.

There is no reason why hedonism is bad if it causes no harm to others. However, I just wonder whether it truly can cause no harm to others?

Originally Posted by WhiteCrow

Things like justice, patience, morals have no meaning. It is the people who give them meaning

Yes, ultimately nothing has any real meaning if one puts humans center stage, which is what the current zeitgeist maintains. Nihilism is inevitable, and hedonism will surely follow.

Originally Posted by WhiteCrow

If we are not hurting anyone in the process, what is the problem?????????

There is no problem in that case.

[Fullcrum]

I think eudaimonia is more what I was after.

Nevertheless, I implore you to come up with a better system. What are these "morals" you speak of?

[million]

Originally Posted by Riddle

I don't think sex is wrong or immoral, but I definitely do get tired of hearing about it. It's constantly shoved down your throat 24/7 and it does get wearisome. And when I see my little sister watching a show on the disney channel with some 10 year old kids talking about sexual relationship problems... that's when I lose all faith in humanity! What happened to educational children programmes? Also, I hate listening to people talk about their sexual exploits as if their debauchery were worthy of moral acclaim. I think the moral zeitgeist is heading towards a hedonist ideal, where 'good' is whatever makes one feel good. I feel a bit sad that our society has lost its moral integrity and succumbed to hedonist morals and values. Now Steve has succumbed to hedonism aswell, although he is very good at rationalizing his decadence.

Newsflash, society was always like this even in the days of stone age.

[Riddle]

Originally Posted by Fullcrum

I think eudaimonia is more what I was after.

Nevertheless, I implore you to come up with a better system. What are these "morals" you speak of?

I think religious text can yield some fundamental morals which are ubiquitous and perhaps innate to our conscience.

Religion aside, I think there may be a rational bases for morality, but since I haven't studied ethics yet, I don't know what this rational morality would be.

[Antarananda]

Originally Posted by Riddle

I think the moral zeitgeist is heading towards a hedonist ideal, where 'good' is whatever makes one feel good. I feel a bit sad that our society has lost its moral integrity and succumbed to hedonist morals and values. Now Steve has succumbed to hedonism aswell, although he is very good at rationalizing his decadence.

Elegantly put. Now, I personally really don't care about choices individuals make, but in this case, Steve knows and recognizes that he has this platform where large numbers of people not only read what he writes, but start actively questioning their own value system, even though it might not be in their best interests to do so. That is what's dangerous, and the real reason for most people objecting to his new direction, not some sense of outraged morality.

With great power comes great responsibility, and Steve is in a position of great power, because he has taken on the role of "helping people live consciously". However, even by Steve's own admission, he is still learning. Now, it could be a big mistake to subject so many people to what could amount to half-baked wisdom, because the maturity to realize errors in judgment and to learn from those errors could happen only after this course is run.

In the Kathopanishad, part of the works of classical Vedanta, there is the concept of shreya vs. preya. Simply put, shreya is what is pleasant, or fulfilling, but leads to sorrow, or suffering - either immediately, or in the long term. Preya is what is good; it appears unpleasant, or lacking in the qualities which excite us, or drive us towards seeking it, but ultimately, leads towards lasting bliss and ultimately, enlightenment.

Men who were able to successfully and entirely sublimate the sexual urge into works of great value were always held in high regard in every society, because such men had learned to evolve beyond the model of the human being as merely being a higher animal. Our destiny as incarnated human beings is not only to experience the fleeting sensations that contact with our senses makes (ultimately all experiences of pleasure / joy are merely nervous impulses which feel good, setting in motion a positive feedback loop involving the brain. Even personal development in its essence is just that - we do it because at the end of the day it feels good).

Now I'm not implying that sex is merely sensual pleasure with no potential for lasting transformation. It does have the potential. That's why, in India, Vedanta (the path of renunciation) was complemented with Tantra (the path of conscious experience of the world, including sexual pleasure). However, in our present day, our overwhelming tendency is towards experience through the senses, and not using the experiences to transcend the senses so as to experience bliss which is not of the mind and body. That is the tragic error most make, including the swelling numbers of so-called "Tantric" practitioners in the West.

[Riddle]

Originally Posted by million

Newsflash, society was always like this even in the days of stone age.

I disagree. The importance of the individual was never emphasized in earlier societies. Adherence to the church or state was more important.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Riddle

People don't really care about leading a moral life anymore, instead people only want to feel good..... (for pleasure is always in one's self-interest)

I sure don't care about leading a moral life! Screw a moral life! And I do only want to feel good, it's true.

And... you may be right that pleasure is always in one's self-interest, but that doesn't mean it's never in the interest of others, as well.

If I hear the sound of my lover's moan only 1,000 times, I'll feel like I'm just getting started. To you it may be tedious; to me it is heaven.

[Savage]

The actions I'm currently taking fall well within the scope of the Truth-Love-Power model from my book. This is a system for optimal growth based on core principles, but it also covers ethics in way I find very elegant.

In this case, Love is the perhaps the most obvious principle, which means moving toward what you want and helping others do the same.

Since I currently want to improve my experience of intimate relationships, I am actively moving toward that goal. If I didn't do this, I'd be turning my back on growth and living way too timidly.

I am already seeing positive results, and I'm very happy on this path. This pursuit is helping me feel more connected, which increases my motivation to help others. This is certainly better than going the opposite way and feeling disconnected and demotivated. If the results weren't positive, I'd stop and try something else.

At the same time, by sharing what I learn, I can help others achieve more of what they want. Quite a number of people would like to improve their intimate relationships. I think the insights I can share about polyamorous relationships will apply to other relationship structures as well.

I don't see this as a hedonistic pursuit. That's a very myopic way of looking at it, which totally misses the big picture. If I was a hedonist, I'd never run a personal development website. The truth is that by sharing what makes us happy and explaining how we got there, we can help others achieve greater happiness too. And this improves the state of the planet as a whole.

In order for this pursuit to be considered unethical, it would have to be dishonest, unloving, or disempowering -- for myself and/or others. But this pursuit is none of those things. I'm being honest about my experiences. I'm entering this from a loving frame and a genuine desire to connect. And I'm doing what I can to share knowledge in a way that empowers people to improve their own relationships.

Consequently, I'm living in accordance with my highest values and principles. And I shall continue to do so indefinitely. I know this is the right path for me.

[polyfulcrum]

Riddle, can you define "true morality" as you see it?

It seems like there is an underlying belief that things that are pleasant are not truly moral, or lead away from being enlightened, while challenges and suffering will bring you closer to a higher understanding. Is there only one path that will achieve the desired results?

It's been my experience that both pleasurable and unpleasurable events can lead to growth. Why limit yourself to suffering and pain when pleasure can also be a great teacher?

[Johnny Soporno]

Originally Posted by hybrid756

I don't personally see the point in sex, and that's perfectly fine. It's only when people start claiming that you must have sex, and you must love it, otherwise you're a deficient person, that I start getting a bit pissed about it.

Hybrid, Steve's statement does not mention people who are apathetic to sex, nor people who don't enjoy sex. It comments specifically about people who feel sex is "wrong, dirty, or immoral" (ie, repressed people) and is not critical of anyone who doesn't have sex for any other reason.

Originally Posted by Riddle

I think the moral zeitgeist is heading towards a hedonist ideal, where 'Good' is whatever makes one feel good.

Yes indeed! And it's about time! The nonsensical and anti-human notions that "we are born to suffer" and that "happiness is something which we only deserve when we've accomplished what we're supposed to do, to the satisfaction of others" have been propagated since time-immemorial strictly as a mechanism for controlling people, and keeping them from doing what they want to do!


Johnny Soporno
Worthy Playboy

[cacheborn]

Wow Steve. another refreshing post.
as always your posts force me to rethink about my beliefs!

[Chris_1977]

I see a problem with the "have sex with whomever you want"-idea and that is sexually transmittable disease. Especially if you're gay (like I am) I think the risk is just too big. Condoms are not 100% safe. Maybe I should do a bit of soul-searching in the sense separately answering the questions "with whom would I like to have sex" and "what do I consider an acceptable risk" and after having answered that, find a solution that works from the point of view of both questions.

[MidasGirl]

If somebody chooses polyamory and they choose consciously, who cares?

If they choose monogamy and they choose consciously, who cares?

The problem is pretending you are happy with your current situation when you know you are not.

And another problem is starting to feel superior because you have somehow decided your way is THE way. Or that one is somehow more enlightened than the other. No different than what we see people do in religion and politics. Then it becomes obvious to everybody else but yourself that you are on an ego trip.

Just be happy you live in a country where you can choose these lifestyles, whether you are a man or woman.

The fact is, whichever path you use, they all have unique consequences that have to be dealt with. No free ride on this crazy ball of dirt.

[Riddle]

Originally Posted by Angela

I sure don't care about leading a moral life! Screw a moral life! And I do only want to feel good, it's true.

Fair enough, but you just confirmed my point. QED

Originally Posted by Angela

If I hear the sound of my lover's moan only 1,000 times, I'll feel like I'm just getting started. To you it may be tedious; to me it is heaven.

No, in that case it would be terrifying, tedious would seem like sweet mercy in comparison.

[Riddle]

Originally Posted by polyfulcrum

Riddle, can you define "true morality" as you see it?

Morality that stems from principles independent of self-interest or desire.

Originally Posted by polyfulcrum

It's been my experience that both pleasurable and unpleasurable events can lead to growth. Why limit yourself to suffering and pain when pleasure can also be a great teacher?

This is not what I am debating. The issue is whether popular hedonist ideals are representative of a more widespread moral decline, that places the individual on a platform, where their desire to 'feel good' replaces any ethical consideration. Perhaps it is possible to rationalize promiscuity as ethical conduct, but I think the true rationale doesn't contain a consideration of ethics, but rather a consideration of self-interest, which reflects the current capitalist ideology and hedonistic zeitgeist.

[Eric Revelin]

There's absolutely no reason someone has to disregard the well-being of others in order to pursue their own happiness, however they may define what happiness is.

Not everyone is built the same sexually and not everyone is meant for the same kind of relationship. If someone is consciously polyamorous and they only seek relationships with other people within the same paradigm, who's getting hurt? So long as each party is cautious and mature the risk is minimal. If someone does get hurt, is it any worse than the pain they'd go through in a monogamous relationship that fell apart? (Maybe if you take STDs into account, but that's not a failsafe argument since STDs are also a factor if someone has an affair.)

Healthy polyamorous relationships require a lot more energy and clarity than monogamous relationships do, and it's certainly not advisable to everyone. It's irresponsible to say, "this is what I'm doing and you have to do it too if you want to live a conscious life." Steve isn't saying that, and most people who would aren't well-respected (regardless of what they're talking about).

Is the culture as a whole taking it a little too far? Maybe. This is the backlash for centuries of puritanical oppression. Because nothing could be questioned, everything is being questioned. That's good; everything should be questioned. Asking questions doesn't mean you'll abandon your morals, it means that you'll know why you hold to your set of beliefs. I spent years wondering what kind of relationship would be best for me and I realized that monogamy is what I prefer. I have a very strong sense of justice and honor but I realized that self-sacrifice in all but the most extreme circumstances is going to lead to a worse outcome overall. The result is that I held out for someone who's compatible with me on all levels, and I've switched from a win-lose paradigm to a win-win mindset. There's no way that puritanical morality is better than this. I tried living that way and it stripped the color and meaning out of life.

Humanity is in a constant state of flux; to live is to change. If people as a whole are becoming too damn selfish then it's in response to the selfless-at-any-cost morality of yesteryear. However, people have not become callous and heartless, and if they do the repercussions of that will cause a future generation to look on with dismay and create another shift. Ideally we'll come to rest somewhere in the middle, where we understand that both pleasure and pain have a role, and even the callous have to feign love for the whole to achieve success, health, and happiness.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Riddle

No, in that case it would be terrifying, tedious would seem like sweet mercy in comparison.

You are terrified of the repeated sound of your lover's pleasure? Or is it just the sound of MY lover's pleasure that terrifies you?

Originally Posted by Eric Revelin

...I've switched from a win-lose paradigm to a win-win mindset. There's no way that puritanical morality is better than this.

I'm right on with Eric -- that was well put.

What Riddle seems to be advocating sounds like lose/lose to me.

[CelebritiCat]

Originally Posted by Angela

I would call that autoamorous. (But car lovers might get confused! )

"Autoamorous". That's funny.

My personal approach is to skip right past polyamory and go for omniamory.

Love all.

[Angela]

But hopefully not omnisexual! If so, I hope you are taking your vitamins.

[Riddle]

Originally Posted by Angela

You are terrified of the repeated sound of your lover's pleasure? Or is it just the sound of MY lover's pleasure that terrifies you?.

Ha, I was referring to the sound if your lover's pleasure. Although admittedly I don't know what that sounds like, although I don't really want to know either!

[Andreas]

But I assure you — they’re real… and they’re spectacular.

I just gotta say, EXCELLENT use of a Seinfeld quote. Completely laughed out loud!

I really appreciate you relaying your experiences with us, Steve. I'm learning so much. Now I'm crossing my fingers that you find someone as open as you so the blog has greater potential for transparency as new relationships form.

I can dream...

[million]

Originally Posted by Angela

If I hear the sound of my lover's moan only 1,000 times, I'll feel like I'm just getting started. To you it may be tedious; to me it is heaven.

go you!!!

[JeromeX]

Originally Posted by Angela

If I hear the sound of my lover's moan only 1,000 times, I'll feel like I'm just getting started.

Originally Posted by Steve

You slut!

Originally Posted by Angela

You are terrified of the repeated sound of your lover's pleasure? Or is it just the sound of MY lover's pleasure that terrifies you?

Originally Posted by Steve

Serious rocket science here, eh?

Originally Posted by Steve

You don’t need to be exclusive with your partner.

Originally Posted by Angela

But hopefully not omnisexual! If so, I hope you are taking your vitamins.

It puts Seinfeld to Shame.

[xyz]

Steve Wrote:

Sex isn’t a relationship. It isn’t a sin. It isn’t a performance. It isn’t a curse.

Sex is simply an experience.

Is it really that simple? IF its consensual, then it is OK to have it with your father, mother, brother, daughter and sister? Will it just be pleasure, warmth, energy flow and above all FUN? Or we have to keep these people out of the periphery of such higher level of consciousness?
What about orgy, if it is consensual? Should we encourage our teenage / adult children to join our groups too using same theme of ONENESS?

[xyz]

You don’t need to be married or in a committed relationship.

You don’t need to be dating.

You don’t need to be in love.

You don’t need an opposite-sex partner.

You don’t need to be exclusive with your partner.

Your partner doesn’t need to be exclusive with you.

You don’t need to be programmed in multiple techniques.

You don’t even need to have met the other person first.

All you need is consent.

Teenagers practice this stuff all the time. So you mean we don't have to grow out of our teen? :-) WOW! I love this piece. Way to go!

[Bradshaw]

Originally Posted by JeromeX

Angela: If I hear the sound of my lover's moan only 1,000 times, I'll feel like I'm just getting started.
Steve: You slut!
Angela: You are terrified of the repeated sound of your lover's pleasure? Or is it just the sound of MY lover's pleasure that terrifies you?
Steve: Serious rocket science here, eh?
Steve: You don’t need to be exclusive with your partner.
Angela: But hopefully not omnisexual! If so, I hope you are taking your vitamins.

It puts Seinfeld to Shame.

LOL

You sir, have just conquered the entire internet!