How many of you would abstain?

[floatsamjetsam]

I'm just wondering, mainly, how many of those afflicted with loneliness, knowing how long the shadow of it is cast, would be willing to abstain from sexual intercourse, into celibacy.

I've found that not targetting any one person, in a romantic or sexual nature, allows my heart a pretty near limitless reserve of love for everyone else in the world.

Aside from this, I was wondering if anyone here might be a teetotaler, And whether or not you feel it's helped you with the suffering regarding loneliness.

 

[theraab]

Nope, sorry. I'm just not that good of a person to give up sex to be able to love the world. Although, in fairness, I haven't had sex in close to a year, and I don't love the rest of the world more because of it - so I don't know if the life of abstinence would help me love the world.

To your second question, I don't drink. This is not because of some higher moral calling or duty, but because I become an ******* when I drink too much, and after a drink or two, I have trouble stopping drinking - so I just kind of stay away from it. I don't know if it has helped me in regard to loneliness - on the one hand, not drinking keeps me from pushing away people that are close to me; on the other hand, when I did drink (especially in college) and was an *******, I still had a good number of friends. So, I don't know.

 

[Lone Apothecary]

I'd be willing to if I could see a benefit for doing so. I don't really feel any better for not having had sexual intercourse; I'm indifferent. I already feel as though I've more than enough love to appreciate the portion of the world that I feel is worth loving along with an individual in a romantic manner. I can understand to some extent how it might be appealing, but personally, I doubt it wouldn't matter much to me either way.

I'm a teetotaler. I think that has helped me suffer less, but I've never tried alcohol, nor do I intend to, so I don't really know how it might make me feel. I don't really think it's worth it in the long run to find out.

 

[Walley]

I think people limit themselves and underestimate human nature.
love is not strictly tied to sex.. that is a narrow view.
I have been married for many years and love my wife and kids completely. but at the same time, I have a couple of female friends that I have no sexual interaction with nor does it ever enter into the equation, but I also love them too. it is a completely different relationship but there is no other term to describe my feelings towards them besides love.
we are not programmed to love only one person or one thing. that is a myth.
you dont need to abstain from all forms of pleasure like a monk or a nun to be able to feel love for others..
I honestly don't see the logic in that.
the way to spread love, is to give love. simple as that.
has nothing to do with sex. or alcohol.
I don't drink in recent years mainly because ive developed an allergy to something that is commonly in alcohol and I get instant headaches so that isnt a factor for me.
but as for sex.. I bleieve that I would be more frustrated, edgy, high strung and full of lust that would make me less able to properly spread love to others with a clear heart and mind.

 

[SophiaGrace]

I've abstained but i'm apathetic about my abstention.

 

[monkeysocks]

Hard thing to do. I watched a programme a couple of weeks ago where a young man had joined a priest hood and was struggling when he saw a pretty girl in the street, realising all he had given up.

Personally I think it is better to accept periods of loneliness as 'temporary' that you equally have control of, opposed to seeing it as a closed book.

Horses for courses, everyone is different.

 

[Okiedokes]

Love goes far above sex. The two can go together and be like ...yeah I'll keep my comments to myself on that one... lol. But.. the love you are talking about yes...it is all within the heart. As Walley world said similarly..love has no boundaries. I have loved my friends because of their personalities/hearts. Because I care about them, and I want them in my life and to be there for them. That's why when I find someone, they are going to have to accept that I have friends who are coming along with me in this journey we call life. Not that it's been a problem before, but it's something I'm sticking with.

 

[Tealeaf]

The people suffering most don't need your romantic or sexual love.

 

[TheSolitaryMan]

I'm just wondering, mainly, how many of those afflicted with loneliness, knowing how long the shadow of it is cast, would be willing to abstain from sexual intercourse, into celibacy.

I've found that not targetting any one person, in a romantic or sexual nature, allows my heart a pretty near limitless reserve of love for everyone else in the world.

Aside from this, I was wondering if anyone here might be a teetotaler, And whether or not you feel it's helped you with the suffering regarding loneliness.

I'm not exactly "abstaining" (that implies totally intentional isolation of some kind), but I'm now just of the mindset that sex is something that doesn't exist for me. I now don't look for it, expect it or even want it.

It's eased my tension quite a bit. I still feel crap about relationships in general (I would absolutely love to just hold hands or kiss someone), but I don't feel as bad as I did in my teens.

It can also be liberating sometimes. Other people go on about sordid sexual experiences they regret (or amazing ones they don't) and I can just sit there quietly, shut it out, and know that I'm happy with my choices because I've not really made any.

If that makes any sense? Probably just sounds like rambling. But yeah, I'd happily remain celibate for the rest of the foreseeable future (and possibly the unforeseeable too). If anything, it might actually be good for me to forget relationships entirely in a similar manner.

 

[floatsamjetsam]

The people suffering most don't need your romantic or sexual love.

Are you saying this to me? :S

 

[Tealeaf]

The people suffering most don't need your romantic or sexual love.

Are you saying this to me? :S

Yes. I don't see how abstaining from giving romantic and sexual love leaves more platonic love for others. This sounds like the kind of thing where a cause and an effect are linked without looking far enough into it to determine what's going on. The only thing someone saves on by not giving romantic or sexual love is romantic and sexual love (and probably quite a bit of drama).

 

[monkeysocks]

Are we talking 'we have to love ourselves before we can truly love another' ?

 

[floatsamjetsam]

What I mean by this.

Is that if you have someone in your life, who you love absolutely (in a romantic sense, mutually exclusive from the act or idea of sex) you do limit your spectrum of love, it can be just as diverse and large, but at the end of the day there will be bias for who gets love between your lover, and a friend. Your lover, and a stranger. Or your lover, and yourself. Your lover will take the forefront more often than not, not all the time of course I never try to speak in absolutes, it just seems this way to me.

I don't fancy myself morally righteous or better in any way than anyone, nor do I think sex, or romance to be negative things, I used to thrive on romance. I'm just wondering if there are many members of this forum who would follow Buddhist ideals, and if it's helped them at all.

 

[Walley]

i have to completely disagree with your theory.
it is like saying that you love your children more if you are a single parent?

maybe in the early stages of a relationship a person can be blind to most everyone else and feel overwhelmingly infatuated with their lover and neglect others they care about, but that is not the norm nor how it is in healthy long term relationships.
as ive said. i am happily married, but the reason i am here on this site is to search for friends to care for. a person needs balance and more than one single relationship even if that person is your lover and life mate. it's no different than a person that has lots of friends but no lover in their life, and they feel lonely in a crowd of people. well, i can still feel lonely in a crowded house if i dont have a social network to keep me balanced.
love is not absolute. there is no reason one form of love is weaker because you expirience other forms of love.
there is a clear deffinition between platonic love and romantic relationships.
my love for my kids is platonic, no sexual attraction there.. so who would question the legitimacy of the love of a child?
is it less than the love for my wife? or just different because it excludes the sexual attraction aspect.
who is to say that because i truly love my wife i cannot love anyone else properly?

 

[theraab]

Is that if you have someone in your life, who you love absolutely (in a romantic sense, mutually exclusive from the act or idea of sex) you do limit your spectrum of love, it can be just as diverse and large, but at the end of the day there will be bias for who gets love between your lover, and a friend. Your lover, and a stranger. Or your lover, and yourself. Your lover will take the forefront more often than not, not all the time of course I never try to speak in absolutes, it just seems this way to me.

Of course your lover is at the forefront, why shouldn't they be? Why shouldn't you have a bias in their favor?

I may be old and cynical, but is it even possible to love everyone? (much less love everyone equally) - if you're able to do that, congratulations, but that notion is foreign to me.

 

[Walley]

I may be old and cynical, but is it even possible to love everyone? (much less love everyone equally)

well, I dont know about everyone...
some people dont deserve my love ;p
but can you love a few friends and family as much as your wife/lover?
well yes. as i explained above. you have to widen your concept of what love is and not tie it solely to romantic love and accept the notion of platonic love.

 

[floatsamjetsam]

i have to completely disagree with your theory.
it is like saying that you love your children more if you are a single parent?

maybe in the early stages of a relationship a person can be blind to most everyone else and feel overwhelmingly infatuated with their lover and neglect others they care about, but that is not the norm nor how it is in healthy long term relationships.
as ive said. i am happily married, but the reason i am here on this site is to search for friends to care for. a person needs balance and more than one single relationship even if that person is your lover and life mate. it's no different than a person that has lots of friends but no lover in their life, and they feel lonely in a crowd of people. well, i can still feel lonely in a crowded house if i dont have a social network to keep me balanced.
love is not absolute. there is no reason one form of love is weaker because you expirience other forms of love.
there is a clear deffinition between platonic love and romantic relationships.
my love for my kids is platonic, no sexual attraction there.. so who would question the legitimacy of the love of a child?
is it less than the love for my wife? or just different because it excludes the sexual attraction aspect.
who is to say that because i truly love my wife i cannot love anyone else properly?

Aha, not my theory but the Buddha's, but you are completely in your bounds to disagree with his way of thinking, I don't mean to say what is objectively true, because I don't believe much in the way of objectivity.

But I did not mean to say that you could love one person more than another, just more often. You have a gift to give and a boyfriend/girlfriend, will you give it to a random stranger to brighten their day, or to your boyfriend or girlfriend? If the majority of your love goes to one person, others will be left without. I know two gifts could be given, but I mean it as a matter of rhetoric.

 

[Tealeaf]

i have to completely disagree with your theory.
it is like saying that you love your children more if you are a single parent?

maybe in the early stages of a relationship a person can be blind to most everyone else and feel overwhelmingly infatuated with their lover and neglect others they care about, but that is not the norm nor how it is in healthy long term relationships.
as ive said. i am happily married, but the reason i am here on this site is to search for friends to care for. a person needs balance and more than one single relationship even if that person is your lover and life mate. it's no different than a person that has lots of friends but no lover in their life, and they feel lonely in a crowd of people. well, i can still feel lonely in a crowded house if i dont have a social network to keep me balanced.
love is not absolute. there is no reason one form of love is weaker because you expirience other forms of love.
there is a clear deffinition between platonic love and romantic relationships.
my love for my kids is platonic, no sexual attraction there.. so who would question the legitimacy of the love of a child?
is it less than the love for my wife? or just different because it excludes the sexual attraction aspect.
who is to say that because i truly love my wife i cannot love anyone else properly?

Aha, not my theory but the Buddha's, but you are completely in your bounds to disagree with his way of thinking, I don't mean to say what is objectively true, because I don't believe much in the way of objectivity.

But I did not mean to say that you could love one person more than another, just more often. You have a gift to give and a boyfriend/girlfriend, will you give it to a random stranger to brighten their day, or to your boyfriend or girlfriend? If the majority of your love goes to one person, others will be left without. I know two gifts could be given, but I mean it as a matter of rhetoric.

If there's only one gift in this instance to be given (suggesting that we have a set amount of love in the first place), though, then why does it matter whether it's given to a stranger or to one's lover? Is it better to spread the best of what you have to give thin over many and hope that it's well-received and that random actions add up to tangible results, or take good care of a select few so that you can guarantee their welfare?

 

[floatsamjetsam]

Well technically, we have only a certain amount of time in which we are able to take action, we could do 100 nice deeds for random people in a day, or 100 for a smaller group of people. It is within our hearts to give love to everyone on earth, but time limits us, and acts as a constraint, we might feel love for everyone in the world but in order for that to project outwards, others need to feel it through action.

But I understand what you mean, anything is possible, reality is unreality etc, I fully understand that, but I am speaking technically from a standpoint where you might only do a set number of actions in one day, with the limit of time which I understand isn't a real thing, holding us back.

 

[Iceman1978]

You talk about this as though abstinence is a choice. For some people it isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_celibacy