Haha, I have to admit, when I first stumbled upon the term "sexual economics," it sounded absolutely bizarre to me—like those two concepts had no business being in the same sentence. 🤣 However, there is actually an excellent book by Wilhelm Reich with that exact title, so, well, consider this another recommendation for your reading list. It focuses on the conscious distribution of sexual energy. It’s fascinating because most people immediately recoil at the mention of sexual-magical practices, associating them with things like promiscuity, coercion, or even dark magic, when in reality, we are talking about the awakening, channeling, and transformation of one's own energy and character.
I have always maintained that the individual experience is the absolute foundation of everything; it's what matters most. Practicing meditation alongside sexual stimulation is simply sublime, and the intensity is truly profound. When you are part of a couple, maintaining that level of control can be a bit more challenging... though certainly not impossible.
What are your thoughts on this? I am curious about what actually happens in your mind... specifically during the rituals?
For my part, periods of abstinence serve as a way to accumulate sexual energy, which I can then focus much more effectively during the actual ritual.
hiddenhound3 said:Alright, let us clarify a fundamental point that seems to be the core of our disagreement here. When we discuss sexuality within a spiritual context, we aren't talking about coerced sex or necessarily increasing frequency; instead, we are discussing how sex takes on an entirely different dimension and quality.
Am I interpreting the situation correctly?
You certainly did. 👍
The same principle applies when discussing sexual economics...🙂
True, though I wouldn't go so far as to call it forcing anything... I’d prefer to view it as intentional scheduling.
For instance, if I know I’ll be performing a specific ritual on a certain date and at a particular time (which I always do, because otherwise, what’s even the point?), I make a conscious effort to abstain for a period beforehand. That way, when the moment arrives, there isn't any internal pressure to force a result.
I've never been much of a fan of forcing things myself.
Sean Cruz said:I am not generalizing; I am simply describing the women in my own circle and social life.
No, you misunderstood me. While you correctly noted that women in a family setting carry an overwhelming load of responsibilities—leaving them little room for a life outside those duties (which includes jobs that often serve merely as family income rather than paths for career growth)—that was my point.
That implies ambition, but honestly, how many people today—men or women—work solely for a paycheck rather than out of passion for their craft? I’d argue it’s much rarer to find someone who truly loves what they do while also earning a high salary.
I’m not saying absolutely every woman is like this, but the vast majority are. It’s slightly better to be in academic or intellectual circles, since education takes longer, which theoretically grants more freedom, but highly educated people make up a very small percentage of the population.
What were you getting at with the bolded text? Are you suggesting people stay single longer, or something else? Also, having a degree doesn't automatically make someone more "aware." I know plenty of pseudo-intellectuals I wouldn't want to talk to if I could help it because they are incredibly narrow-minded, just as I know people with less formal education whom I could talk to for years without ever being bored.
So, we aren't discussing exceptions right now, but the majority.
A college degree isn't the benchmark.
That is precisely what I was getting at in my previous post, yet you went ahead and accused me of making sweeping generalizations. But, if I may, let's please try to steer the conversation back to the actual topic at hand...
That is certainly an ambitious goal, but one has to wonder how many people in America today—men and women alike—are actually working solely for the paycheck rather than out of a genuine passion for their profession. I would venture to say that those who truly find themselves doing what they love while simultaneously earning a substantial income are becoming quite a rare breed...
That is certainly true, though I would argue that a significantly larger number of men tend to view their professional careers as deeply fulfilling; and even in those instances where work falls short of providing purpose, they almost always have a dedicated hobby to fall back on...
What exactly were you getting at with those bolded parts? Are you suggesting that people end up staying single longer, or is there some other angle you're playing at? And honestly, just because someone has a fancy degree doesn't mean they're more "self-aware." I know plenty of pseudo-intellectuals out there who are so incredibly narrow-minded that I wouldn't even bother exchanging a single word with them if I didn't absolutely have to... on the flip side, I’ve met people without any higher education at all whom I could talk to for years on end without ever feeling bored for a single second. One might be tempted to believe that a degree from an Ivy League university serves as the ultimate benchmark for capability, but I firmly believe that higher education is not the definitive measure of a person's true worth or potential... While academic credentials certainly hold weight in certain circles, they often fail to capture the nuanced reality of practical wisdom and genuine character. It is quite possible for someone to possess an extensive pedigree yet lack the fundamental intuition required for real-world success... Therefore, we should look beyond the diploma to find the true essence of ability.
You are once again deviating from the primary subject at hand... I didn't mean any of those things you concluded... It’s quite simple, really. People complete their studies and then, naturally, they get married and start families. That is all there is to it...
In any given relationship, there’s always going to be a sense of competitiveness, and honestly, I don't see that as a negative at all. In fact, if you ask me, it can actually be quite motivating... When it comes to women, that competitive streak almost always boils down to who can be the most attractive or catch a man's eye, whereas the competition between men tends to take on much more interesting—and frankly, more entertaining—dimensions. That is, unless you’re dealing with a group of total Neanderthals for male friends; in those cases, the rivalry just turns into an endless showdown over who has the bigger bank account or the flashier truck... 🙄 Those types of guys, honestly, rarely ever have women as close friends...
Well, Sean Cruz, I believe you are actually generalizing quite a bit in a post specifically dedicated to condemning generalizations 😁
However, I think you may have misread my intentions entirely. While you correctly observed that women within a family structure often shoulder an overwhelming number of responsibilities—leaving them very little room to cultivate a life outside of domestic duties (and I include their careers in that, as those jobs often serve merely as a means to fund the household rather than a path for professional growth) I am certainly not suggesting that every single woman fits this mold, though the vast majority does indeed fall into this pattern. One might find slightly more breathing room in academic circles where education is prioritized and freedom is more accessible, yet those highly educated demographics represent a very small slice of our society.
So, we aren't really discussing the outliers here; we are talking about the statistical norm.
Furthermore, while these patterns might be less pronounced outside of America, I don't see much point in pivoting the conversation toward international comparisons right now, given that we are living here in the States and I would prefer not to derail the topic unnecessarily.
Elizabeth Bishop4, regarding the matter of sexual relationships, I don't have any particular grievances with men either 😁 Of course, there are certain behaviors that I find objectionable, but once they cross my threshold of tolerance, I simply end the relationship. That being said, my current partner and I have been together for six years now, and I am truly satisfied with how our connection has evolved; the relationship has become progressively better and more meaningful on every level as the years pass.
Elizabeth Bishop4 said:But you have to admit, men like that are pretty rare, aren't they? It’s not that they lack the capacity for emotional intimacy entirely, but there are so many women out there who just can't seem to build a real, deep bond with a man, let alone tap into that whole spiritual side of sexuality we're discussing here. And honestly, I think women carry a good chunk of the responsibility for that, too. Sometimes, it feels incredibly draining just trying to have a basic conversation with a guy without getting that nagging, unsettling feeling that you're just never going to be on the same wavelength.
It appears our life experiences are quite divergent, Elizabeth 🙂 throughout my entire life, I have found myself maintaining much more substantial and profound emotional connections with men than I have with women, which is an observation that seems to grow stronger as I age. I am referring strictly to platonic friendships, devoid of any sexual element... Women tend to orient themselves toward a man, and they do so decisively. When we are younger, this isn't nearly as apparent, particularly if one is immersed in intellectual circles where we focus on personal growth, but once the "game of life" begins—meaning marriage, children, and such—women often neglect almost every other facet of their existence to focus exclusively on their spouse and family. Men, conversely, almost always maintain their own circle of friends and a career, or at least some hobby that provides an escape from those purely biological imperatives... In most instances, women completely abandon their pursuit of self-development the moment they marry, or at least once the prospect of marriage becomes imminent...
To be perfectly candid, I have very few female friends with whom I can discuss the same range of topics that I can with my male friends, of whom I have no shortage...😛
Brian Lopez6 said:But if you ask me, our physical biology and those pesky hormones actually influence how we think and act way more than we’d ever want to admit or even realize.
Which is precisely why spirituality and self-discipline exist...😛
Regarding this whole issue of patriarchal indoctrination, I don't believe it has anything to do with hormones or biological drivers at all. Rather, I would argue that these supposed hormonal issues—this specific type of behavior seen in men—are merely the byproduct of patriarchal conditioning. It’s a system that has historically stigmatized women as nothing more than wombs and men solely as providers of seed 🙄 which reduces sex to a mere tool for reproduction, rather than what it should be: a profound spiritual and emotional experience.
That being said, based on my own life experiences thus far, I have to say I haven't actually encountered many such emotionless men. In fact, I find that most men are quite exhausted by the roles forced upon them... in about 90% of the men I know (not to mention those I have personally dated), I observe sincere, deep emotions and a genuine need for connection. I have only ever noticed true lack of feeling in people—both men and women—who have actively suppressed their own sexual and emotional needs, or even embraced celibacy as a shield.
The example Brian Lopez6 brought up, where a woman becomes "uninteresting" to her male partner immediately after sex, perhaps speaks more to how much he was attracted to her in the first place. I suspect that if he were truly interested in her as a person, beyond just the physical aspect, the situation wouldn't feel nearly as frustrating for either party. However, that is precisely the point. In a culture like this, women aren't given the opportunity, nor are they encouraged, to develop their own unique personalities and character; meanwhile, men are indoctrinated to view women as nothing more than reproductive vessels. Women are dehumanized, while men are deliberately prevented from achieving any real, deep connection with their partners.
If Brian Lopez6's argument were actually correct, men would be entirely incapable of any kind of emotional relationship whatsoever. Yet, we see that men—especially those types—understand each other quite well and are perfectly capable of fulfilling those emotional, spiritual, and intellectual needs among themselves.
Rebecca Sanders2, thank you so much for that wonderful post; you’ve perfectly captured everything I think and feel... 👍
Brian Lopez6, I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to say women inherently view sexuality through a "spiritual" lens by default, though it is quite likely they remain more receptive to its subtler dimensions—that seems accurate enough. I also have the impression that this entire resistance toward sexuality stems from a singular patriarchal, philosophical, and religious construct, which tends to demonize,污污dirty, and condemn everything feminine and everything a man associates with womanhood.
Unfortunately, this matrix remains deeply embedded within our American social attitudes and relationships, and even within our collective psyche; therefore, I truly value those who are attempting to challenge it and work toward meaningful change...
Good grief, this isn't actually a discussion 😳—it’s just you preaching your own set of dogmas. It’s much like how a devout Christian might turn to you and label you a Satanist or some dark sorcerer, using the exact same "logic" you're using now.
My own life experiences and spiritual journey have taught me one vital thing: I don't judge people by what they claim to know, but rather by what they have actually lived through. Anyone can boast about someone else's achievements or recite a recipe they found in a book, but when things get real and a person is left entirely alone to figure out their own path... well, that's a different story altogether. In those moments, such individuals (though, of course, there are rare exceptions...) might even turn into cannibals if it meant they could 🙄
So, while everything you're saying is likely documented somewhere in a textbook, I simply don't see you as someone capable of passing that knowledge on to another soul... because you refuse to acknowledge anything as possible, true, or beautiful unless it fits perfectly within your specific dogma.
Anyway, I do appreciate your contribution to the topic; at least you have the guts to stand behind your views (even if you aren't standing there yourself, but rather hiding behind your "authorities") 👍
One more thing, though... the easiest path is still just attending Sunday Mass 🙂
brightnomad5 said:I believe there is a slight misunderstanding regarding my point about underestimating people—specifically when someone claims, "But you're just being dismissive of those who choose that path." My intention isn't to belittle anyone's choices, but rather to discuss the efficacy of different methodologies used to reach a specific objective. It is a matter of practical application. For instance, if one's ultimate goal is to run a marathon, training exclusively through heavy bodybuilding isn't exactly the most efficient route to success, and vice versa... Some methods are simply more suited to certain outcomes than others; some paths are inherently more effective, more successful, or more appropriate for the task at hand... It seems things have become a bit more manageable lately......more appropriate... call it whatever you like.
Well, I suppose there isn't much else one can say... some people simply always choose the more difficult path. 😁
And if you happen to believe that the condescension was tucked away in that bolded section—the part about "...for people who prefer those other methods"... I simply cannot... To apply this to oneself...
Now, I have come to realize that one certainly encounters many individuals who dedicate themselves to practicing tantra and Magik, and it seems quite certain that the underlying motivation for such pursuits is simply an inability to maintain a life of celibacy... It is essentially the same as me suggesting that anyone practicing celibacy is fundamentally incapable of engaging in tantra or Magik—implying, of course, that they must be suffering from some sort of sexual dysfunction...
It is quite simply because they are superior, in principle. After all, this is a point upon which all successful followers of spiritual paths—and indeed, even the most serious spiritual teachings themselves—can reach a consensus. Celibacy isn't merely a rule confined to theology or organized religion; it is deeply embedded within mysticism as well (perhaps even more emphatically there than in theology), and extends into philosophy, and to some extent, even into purely physical disciplines... such as in elite professional sports, where it is often recommended...
Is it actually better? I mean, did you really give this one a fair shake and run a side-by-side comparison before deciding... When it comes to matters of authority, there are always those who contradict one another at every turn. It leaves one wondering... why is it that we tend to believe the ones we choose to follow are the most correct? It’s a classic logical fallacy, really... the idea that just because I follow someone, it automatically means they’re right. It's certainly not how sound reasoning works... 😁
To be perfectly honest, I have never had much use for authority figures. It isn't quite in my nature to simply bow down to whoever happens to be in charge; I certainly wasn't born to spend my days following orders or adhering to someone else's rulebook. Rather, my intention has always been to live my life on my own terms...
It could certainly be categorized as dogma—if we define dogma as a truth revealed by the Divine—but at its core, it remains a simple, undeniable fact...
That particular dogma is fundamentally opposed to both humanity and the very essence of love. It stands in direct opposition to our nature; for instance, it seeks to deny homosexual individuals the right to experience true love... 😲 So, we are talking about fundamental human rights...
Technically speaking, one could consume excrement. One could even consume human flesh; the human digestive system is perfectly capable of processing it without any physiological complications, and who knows what other biological possibilities exist... All of these things "can" be done if one doesn't find them repulsive or perceive anything inherently wrong with them. In fact, pigs actually enjoy consuming waste—especially when it is warm. They particularly favor it when it is fresh and warm, though they certainly don't reject it when it's cold; on the contrary, they quite enjoy that as well... so, strictly speaking, it "can" be done...
e, I think he's overdoing it a bit here 😳 I honestly can't fathom where these associations regarding the consumption of bodily fluids come from... Of course, there are certain psychoanalytic theories regarding such things, but since psychoanalyzing fellow forum members is strictly against the rules—I shall restrain myself accordingly.
As for sperm and vaginal fluids, that enters the realm of black magic and carries very dire consequences for one's fate; besides that, 🤮
that isn't black magic at all 🤣
It seems to me that you won't be able to grasp how much any of what we are discussing actually benefits someone, and it really would be wise to understand that if you feel it's "okay" for you. I certainly wouldn't recommend it to you, though I don't wish for you to interpret that as an attempt to repress your own free will. 😉 (I am consciously risking judgment by addressing you somewhat personally in this final paragraph...)
your issue is that you are operating under prejudices and judging something about which you possess absolutely no knowledge, let alone any actual experience.
brightnomad5 said:I approached this topic through a purely logical and philosophical lens. I didn't realize I was throwing out theological citations—though I have plenty of those at my disposal from various texts—so I don't see the basis for this objection. Even if I had been quoting scripture, there is no reason why such an explanation should be dismissed simply by labeling it "dogmatic" and attaching that negative connotation to it. The truth is, everyone loves sex and finds ways to justify it, but everything I said is a straightforward, verifiable fact; if someone takes offense to that, that’s their problem. Personally, I wish I could balance both at once and find the absolute best way to integrate them: sex and spirituality.
Look, I respect your position and your decision to steer clear of practicing spirituality through sex, but you’re underestimating the people who actually choose that path.
Who, when, and where exactly was I being condescending? I was simply stating my principled stance on a specific phenomenon and providing the reasoning behind it. 😕
I don't view sexual magic, Western tantra, or tantra in general as being some kind of sexually deviant phenomenon.
I’ve said before that if someone can’t master their sexual energy through celibacy, they can still redirect it toward awakening higher levels of consciousness. It’s certainly a better path than succumbing to mindless debauchery or the reckless misuse of sexuality. However, even that isn't anywhere near the optimal way to reach one's spiritual goals. It’s simply a practical alternative for those who, for whatever reason—whether objective or subjective—find themselves unable to practice more advanced methods.
Furthermore, both men and women can practice sexual magic—along with any other discipline—entirely on their own. In fact, practicing solo is actually highly recommended during the initial stages. Personally, I’ve had very little experience practicing this within a relationship; I find that I feel much better when I do it on my own.
There are various ways to work with sexual energy, but at its core, a sexual encounter is a connection between a man and a woman—though, naturally, that's entirely up to individual free will and whatever anyone chooses for themselves.
Thirdly, regarding sperm: beyond the possibility of redirecting its energy through specific exercises, it serves as an energetic guide. Following a sexual ritual, it can be consumed as a sacred substance—along with vaginal fluids, naturally. The release of both seed and vaginal fluid, and their subsequent blending, is the essential component; this mixture becomes consecrated once the ritual is complete.
Wait, what? 😕 Consume? What exactly do you mean by "consume"?
How can you say that? You’ve been arguing the whole time that the only "natural" sex involves reproduction within a male-female pair and so on... We don't need a justification for sex, any more than we need one for breathing.
Who, when, or where did I underestimate anyone? I was merely presenting principled stances regarding a certain phenomenon and providing the reasoning behind them. 😕
But even in the following quote... 😉
I mentioned that sexual energy, if one cannot master it through celibacy, can be channeled toward awakening higher levels of consciousness, which is preferable to debauchery or promiscuity—or similar (wrong or evil) uses of sexual energy and sexuality. However, that is not even close to the optimal way to achieve a spiritual goal. It is simply a viable option for people who cannot apply those other methods due to various reasons (whether objective or subjective).
Why would one method be superior to another? I am capable of abstaining, and indeed I have, but that isn't my spiritual path. You see, there are all kinds of people with different spiritual practices and goals; therefore, there is no "better" or "worse," only different. As I previously noted, individuals who are overly attached to sex cannot engage in sexual magic, just as they cannot practice tantra, much like how celibacy serves no purpose for an impotent man or a frigid woman.
Hmm... manipulating sexual energy can be done in various ways, but a sexual relationship is a union between a man and a woman (by nature—through free will, however one chooses to act).
dogma
Huh? 😕Consume? What exactly do you mean by "consume"?
Honestly, about 90% of what you’ve written feels more like a rigid religious dogma than actual lived experience. Look, I certainly respect your perspective and your decision to steer clear of practicing spirituality through sex, but I think you’re somewhat underselling the people who actually walk that path. In my view, sexual magic, Western tantra, and tantra in general aren't some kind of deviant behavior at all.
Furthermore, both men and women can engage in sexual magic—and pretty much anything else for that matter—entirely on their own, which is actually quite beneficial during the initial stages... Personally, I haven't had much experience practicing this within a partnership, and I find I feel much better when I perform these practices solo.
Thirdly, regarding semen: beyond the fact that it can be redirected back through certain exercises, it also serves as an energetic guide. It can even be consumed as a sacred substance following a sexual ritual (along with vaginal fluids, naturally). The release of both semen and vaginal fluids, and their subsequent mingling, is a vital element; that mixture becomes consecrated once the ritual is complete.
brightnomad5 said:In pure spirituality, there is no such thing as physical sexuality, because there is no material body, no material mind, no material senses, and no material objects to perceive... none of the elements involved. 😁 Therefore, physical sexuality has nothing to do with spirituality or spiritual Eros. It can only be utilized in a way that is more advantageous (or less detrimental) than someone simply indulging in raw, unrestrained physical sex—a physical activity that provides "intense pleasure" merely because they cannot control that impulse and have become "addicted" to the sensation of physical or refined gratification that the act offers.
It is entirely realistic. Natural sexuality implies conception (though certainly not exclusively so! However, one cannot cherry-pick components and exclude parts of that sublime whole, because then it ceases to be what it is by its very nature. Whether it involves pleasure, emotion, conception, or anything else within that unity). Any intentional interference with the flow of such sexuality—any deviation from its natural course—is clearly unnatural. It is the result of exercising (or abusing) free will, rather than following the nature of the act itself.
Humans are sexual because sex serves a purpose throughout most of life (especially for men). A person may eat throughout their entire life, but that doesn't mean overeating is natural. 😁 Everything has its own nature and purpose, and since humans possess free will, they can choose to act against nature, though that comes with consequences. Someone who overeats eventually compromises their health. This isn't just a religious or spiritual principle; it is a fundamental biological reality, much like sexuality. But, free will exists... so everyone is free to do as they please.
On a material level, there exists material sex, whereas on the spiritual level, there is spiritual 🙂 if you view sex merely as something coarse, selfish, and addictive, then, naturally, you are overlooking its function of exchange, giving, creativity, and love, and by doing so, you are closing yourself off from those types of experiences through sex.
It is entirely realistic. Natural sexuality inherently involves conception (though certainly not exclusively!!! but one shouldn't be timid and exclude any part of that sublime whole, for if one does, it ceases to be what it truly is by its very nature! Whether it be pleasure, emotions, conception, or anything else contained within that totality). Any intentional interference with the flow of such sexuality or any redirection of that natural course is, clearly, unnatural, and the result is an exercise (or misuse) of free will rather than following the natural essence and nature of the act itself.
That is completely unrealistic. A woman is only fertile for about three days a month. For all the other days, both the man and the woman can enjoy sex without offspring as a consequence. Not to mention that after menopause, a woman also cannot become pregnant, even though she remains capable of experiencing orgasm. celibacy can be, and most often is, quite aggressive toward natural human sexuality. Don't men in celibacy experience nocturnal emissions? How natural does that seem to you? Animals experience sexuality in its most natural form. And among them, there is no celibacy, except when they are ill 🙂 And yet, when I speak of sacred sexuality, I am not suggesting that every instance of sexuality is sacred, but rather that absolutely any instance can be 'sacralized.'
Humans are sexual because sex serves a purpose during the majority of life (particularly in men). Humans also eat throughout their entire lives, but that doesn't mean it is natural to overeat 😁 Everything has its own nature and purpose, and since humans are beings endowed with free will, one can choose to use things in an unnatural way according to that freedom, though appropriate consequences will follow. One who overeats disrupts their own health over time. This isn't just a religious or spiritual principle, but a fundamental physical principle, much like with sexuality. But then again, there is free will... so, let everyone do as they please.
Could you please clarify this for me, specifically regarding how it applies to men?
Why on earth would you assume that having sex automatically means someone is overindulging? One might say that celibacy is much like fasting when you look at it through the lens of dietary habits. However, viewing sexuality as a tool for spiritual practice is more akin to being mindful of the fact that everything one consumes provides nourishment... though I suppose that analogy isn't quite perfect.
...hm..... I honestly feel that people who are overly obsessed with sex struggle to actually integrate it meaningfully into their spiritual practice.
You frequently use the word 'natural' when discussing sex, and you seem to equate 'natural sexuality' solely with reproduction. Isn't that just a little unrealistic, considering humans remain sexual beings from childhood all the way through death?
That 'principle' you keep bringing up is rooted entirely in patriarchal, monotheistic, Abrahamic religions. It isn't universal, nor is it inherent to our nature. But then again, believers often love to label their specific religious dogmas and principles as being 'natural.'
brightnomad5 said:Engaging with sexuality in this manner is recommended for those who possess a spiritual inclination but find living in celibacy to be unfeasible. However, in tantra, the objective isn't the act of sex itself, but rather the redirection of sexual energy toward a different purpose—a process that carries significant risks when attempting to reach a final spiritual goal.
While Eros is natural, within material existence, it most often manifests in a distorted way—if not outright perverted—relative to its original nature.
🙂
Indeed, it all comes down to choice, and that choice is rooted in the inclinations of the heart. Such inclinations often depend on a valid and comprehensive view of reality and all the potential possibilities within our reach. If an individual is limited in their knowledge of what is actually available to them, then their inclination—and subsequently their will—will be equally restricted, simply because they aren't accounting for something else that is right there for the taking. What I mean is that free will only truly holds meaning once every single possibility has been carefully considered... only then. Otherwise, it is entirely possible for a person to lean toward one thing merely because they are living under an illusion or remain ignorant of other options, or of everything at their disposal, and how those things might impact their ultimate destiny...
you've made this quite complicated 😁 celibacy is restrictive, whereas sexuality (spiritual) is liberating 🙂 what I am trying to say is that many people in spiritual circles assume celibacy is the default, when very often that celibacy serves as a mere facade for their own sexual insufficiency, their impotence, and their emotional or affective stiffness. Similarly, for some people, claiming sexuality is part of their spiritual practice is actually just a cover for their inability to exercise self-control or achieve a more refined experience.
but neither path is correct, nor are they honest regarding one's true spiritual journey.
my point exactly I have absolutely no desire to live in celibacy—honestly, I don't think anyone else whose spiritual practice involves things like sexual rituals would want to, either. So, it isn't really a question of willpower (since you were specifically focusing on power), but rather a matter of pure desire and intention.
briskorca19 said:but honestly, you already have Religion 🙄
it really isn't all that bad... 🙂 speaking from my own perspective, since I tend to write most frequently regarding Satanism, ever since we launched the new thread, things have been quite wonderful... 👍 the moderators are cooperating beautifully; there aren't any clumsy outbursts or provocations, or rather, they are kept to an absolute minimum. I occasionally glance at other topics, but since they are almost entirely focused on Christianity or atheism versus Christianity, they don't particularly capture my interest... in truth, aside from those few heated ones, the rest are functioning quite smoothly indeed.