What is Sex?

It will be generally agreed that the following are sexual acts on a decreasing scale of sexuality:

• anal penetration (and/or vaginal penetration in the case of straight sex)
• blowjobs
• mutual handjobs
• hugging in the nude
• hugging not in the nude
• hands-holding
• looking into each other's eyes
• masturbation
• fantasising
  

(Kissing is somehow difficult to fit into this continuum. In an ONS parties would rather be penetrated than kissed.)

Now somewhere along this continuum these acts become sex; but where this happened is seemingly a long unanswered question, from what I have read and heard.

There are possibly three categories of people in this respect.

• only penile penetration to be sex, anything else is merely 'foreplay'.

• any form of genital contact, with any other part of the body - yours or another's - through the clothes or in the nude, is sex.

• finally at the other extreme there are those who would consider even looking into the eyes as sex. And to think about sex is also sex.

But then is a doctor fondling your testicles to check for testicular cancer or fingering you to check your prostate, sex? And also it is certainly not sex if a nurse - even a gay handsome hunky male one - is to see you in the nude, and you get an erection thus being seen, although you may wished it is. And what if your male office colleague, whom you have a crush, accidentally brushed against your crotch, or you brushing his, and you felt his shape, size and position underneath? That is not sex too, although you may exploit the opportunity and let your hand linger a little longer than justified as accidental.

We must then conclude then, that sex is not entirely physical, ie it not merely physical acts. The motives or intentions behind such acts do matter too. So sex is not merely what you do, but also, if not entirely, why you do, ie you can apparently be having lunch with someone but because of what you both have in mind of each other, you both are actually having sex instead of lunch.

Sex is thus some sort of physical act - which may or may not involved the genitals - but more importantly, for which deliberate sexual arousal or pleasure is desired or intended.

And thus my view of sex is this: sex is the physical expression of love.

But I beg the question.

For what is love? and what if it is a physical expression of lust instead? And surely lusty sex is more sexy and sexual than merely love can ever arouse. And also what is the difference between love and lust?

Now, of course, there is love and there is love.

There is the love of your parents, your parents' love of their children, love between siblings, friends and neighbours, the love for your pets, your job, your cars, etc etc. And then there is the love between lovers.

So is the physical expression of love between parents and children, or between siblings sex? Most will, without hesitation, say no. But then there are such things as incest too.

And certainly it is also not sex when you expressed love for inanimate objects like your car and your hobbies (or your dildos), or to non-humans, like your cat or dog. It is also clear that bestiality is another topic, and is another type of 'sex' altogether.

Then what about physical expression of love between friends, such as handshakes, hugs and even kisses? Is it sex? Well things can become grey here I suppose, but to a larger extent they are non-erotic, ie does not and not intended to evoke sexual arousal and therefore not sex (but this is really a little circular argument).

So we are left with only the expression of love between lovers. Now what is this love that is different from all the other kinds of love?

And here I will introduce another concept, namely that of Eros: the love between parts of the same; the emotions, the sensations, the feelings, when two persons are made complete in each other. And Eros is that which propels people to seek their other part (or parts?) to complete each other.

Eros is the love one has for the flesh of your flesh, the bone of your bone, between one of the same soul.

Such a notion is not only implied and present in the bible - namely that between Adam and Eve, David and Jonathan, and also, some have argued, between Naomi and Ruth - but also articulated by Plato in one of his dialogue - Symposium - in which a speaker by the name of Aristophanes expounded this concept. Here Eros is the desire to regain wholeness, a wholeness that existed in the beginning, and the desire to be merged with the other to become whole.

A fresco taken from the north wall of the Tomb of the Diver
featuring an image of a symposium

And thus sex is the physical expression of such a love, namely Eros.

It sounds like I am stating the obvious, but it is not, for now we can make a distinction between Love and Lust, and perhaps also between 'sinless' sex and 'sinful' sex.

Lovers' love is that arising from true Eros, ie between two people that belongs to each other.

Lust on the other hand is the desire for the physical pleasures of genital stimulation, as aroused physically by the thoughts, sight, smell, touch, taste, etc of genitalia or other parts of the body, of your own, or of others, of human or otherwise, or even of inaminate objects like shoes, shorts, socks, etc, or psychologically, such as being in a position of vulnerability or surrender, or conversely of domination and of ownership, and thus you have S&M. Such stimulation do not need Eros to be stimulating. And thus you can lust and have sex with strangers and people you don't know. But these people must be of your 'types' physically or psychologically.

'Sinless' sex is the physical expression of pure genuine Eros, and sinful sex anything else.

But Eros, like everything good, is corruptible, and you may, if you are cynical, say, thoroughly corrupted too these days. And Eros corrupted is a desire to make your own what is not yours or what you think is yours. And examples of sex arising from corrupted Eros are such as rape, incest, molest, etc.

Now, if you think about it, Eros actually is gender-neutral.

It is merely the love between parts that 'belongs' to each other. The gender of these parts is merely incidental.

And also, if you think further, in an ironic twist, Eros really has nothing to do with sex. It is the sinful corruption of the world that have associated it with everything erotic and sexual.

For Eros need not be expressed physically at all. It is merely that which is the reason for the unity and oneness of parts. Whether such a oneness is expressed or not, does not change the fact of the unity and of the Eros that exist between these parts. And Eros can be expressed in ways other than physical too. The awareness of being of one mind, of one spirit, and acting as one man with the same purpose are also expressions of Eros.

Physical expression or sex is thus not necessary. It is also inadequate for the fullest expression of this oneness we feel for another. For as long as we are in this physical body, no amount of 'physical expression' can really unite us to another, even if we are biologically made for it, as between male and female. Life as it is will not allow us to be constantly together physically. And then one day we all die. Thus the only true union, or rather reunion, is in the spiritual realm, and we can be apart in space, and even in time, and in body, and yet be of one spirit, eternally.

And finally, kissing: To me it is perhaps the most sublime physical expression of two souls being one.

Appearances

From a letter ...

I wanted to conclude our chat last night.

I think it is good that you know what is reality.

I just want to add that it is also reality that you cant 'force' love.

It is also reality that gay relationship often starts in the heat of lust, and is sustained for a while by that same lust, and then reality sets in.

Some confront the reality and call a spade a spade, and both parties acknowledge the lust and call it a day, with no regrets or hangups, each go away having enjoyed the sex.

Others, perhaps overcome by guilt, or some unreasoned value or belief system, try to make it work, with or without acknowledging the initial lust as lust.

Some still continue to pretend it was 'love'. And in these cases people try to make love, in the real sense of the word, but then love cannot be made or forced.

The so-called love that is created is artificial,fake and unnatural, again in the very real sense of the word.

And so the parties hang on to the relationship on pure committment in the worst case - the fire in sex no longer burns, and if it still does, don't drive the relationship as it did intially.

And this is the nature of physical stuff. Just as food: once satiated the choicest food is no longer appealing.

And committment is literally a committment to keep up pretences.

Well true love may indeed happened in such a process of 'working it out'.

But then the chances are no different from starting anew with some stranger, for that's what the parties were, all along, even from the beginning: strangers.

And the sex, called it what you like, is still an ONS, and extended one albeit.

So gay relationships are unnatural in the sense that it is founded on a mirage, an unsustainable foundation. Whereas any relationship founded on true love, is natural and true, regardless of gender.

But then such love cannot be searched for nor created.

It is something that is given to us, from what I know, by God; and it is something that looks for you and not you to look for it.

For what you looked for can only be something you are aware of and think or know about.

But love is not something you have known until you are there. So if you looked for it and found it, it is most likely, ironically, not what you seek.

Just my thoughts ... There are more, but thats for another time ... Bye

Life's for Life

A seed lies buried, unseen, and unknown, in an desert whose sands no human foot have walked. It have been buried for ages in the hot dry sands of this forsaken place on earth.

Then came a brief thunderstorm.

It happens only once in many many years. And suddenly a flood innudates the desert.

And the seed came to life.

And frantically the seed takes root, shoots and blooms.

And not too soon.

For the flood soon subsided, the water soaked into the very thirsty dry sand, disappearing deep and fast underneath. And it is unimaginable that there was a flood just hours ago, but for the extensive field of flowers now blooming, which, even with satellite imaging, no eyes have seen.

And the sun is shining, bright, very brightly and very hot.

And the flower, its beauty seen by no human eyes, its fragrance and scent a mystery to the human race, its species unknown to science, has begun to die from the very moment it came to life.

But from apparently nowhere comes flies, beetles and ants, busy seeking the sweet food in the flowers and fertilising them in return. And by the time the sun is high the sky, the flowers are already wilting.

But the flowers have fulfilled their purpose for life. They have justified their reason for coming into being. The have created the next generation. Their seeds are fertilised. Now they are ready to die.

Come evening and the field of flowers is all but a brown mess. When the sun rises the next day, it is a desert once again, as it has been for ages, giving no suspicions of the life hidden under its lifeless sands.

But the buried seeds, the hidden life of the next generation, await, patiently, for as long as it takes, for the next thunderstorm at some unknown long future.

What is the meaning of all this?

And again what about the insect who spend months or even years in the water, or in the ground, undergoing a slow convoluted metamorphosis to become a winged insect, but only to live a week in the air, or in the tree.

And in that week it has one goal and purpose only: to mate and to mate and to mate, even every moment of its brief sex-crazed life. And then it dies. For the female it lived a while longer, just to lay its eggs, which will start the meaningless cycle all over again and perpetuating itself endlessly.

Again what is the meaning of all this?

Is this what life is about? Is life just to continue life in endless and meaningless cycles?

And we see the same thing in human lives too. All the things we do as a child and in school is to learn how to earn a living, to feed and house ourselves, and to start a family of our own.

And not that it is a bad thing; in fact it is a very good thing.

For there are such as love and sex and marriage, that give sense and meaning and an ecstacy unexperienced and unknown elsewhere in any relationship.

And then there are children. They are joy, pain, turmoil, delight, sadness and happiness all bundled into one. And raising children is so consuming that you may never have time to ask the question, what is life. Even if you do, the very question may seem meaningless and irrelevant, when you are in the midst of your happy family.

Indeed life's for life!

For is it not true, that the greatest blessing anyone can give is to give life to another being?

And such a blessing is far greater than to bless by not destroying or to preserve an existing life. And everyone is blessed with this blessing to create life!

But then this simple, natural and instinctive behaviour is not accessible and available for all. For some are born handicapped, physically or psychologically; and unlike life's propagation in the other biological species, the human process is apparently flawed. For non biological factors, like the human spirit, lusts, desires, and other longings and yearnings, interfere with the process, and as a result, you have marriage breaking up, adulterous affairs, and people just avoiding marriage altogether. Is there such a thing as adultery in the animal world? No, only humans committ adultery.

And so is life indeed for life, when there are some who cannot participate in this cycle?

We can make two conclusions.

The first is, it is just too bad, if you are precluded from this natural happy cycle. And some may explain this by evolution or some by religion, like sins in past lives, or whatever countless theories.

But whatever is said, my soul cries out against such 'explanations'. They all do not speak to my soul. They are all unjust and unjustifiable. Deep within me, my soul refuses to be pacified or consoled. I am inconsolable and unjustified, and I cry for justice.

The second however is the more natural and obvious conclusion, ie life's not just for life, and we must conclude that there must be more to life than mere life.

But what is this? What can life be if not for life itself? What's life beyond life?

If we are but another biological species, there is nothing much to argue for life beyond life. As the birds and the bees and the chimps do, so do humans.

But then we are not merely animals nor just the mindless outcome of impersonal biology, are we?

One Life

You want to be free, but you become a slave.
You want happiness, but you suffer without knowing if you get it.
You want life, but you have to give it away.
You want purpose and meaning in life, but everything is meaningless.

The monkey plays in his food, the fish swims in it,
Cats and dogs get fed by being cute,
And sparrows grow fat and numerous,
And no one knows how.

But humans must work just to get money.
We sell ourselves to exchange for money
We call boss anyone who controls our money
But when we get the money, it is not enough.

And when we reached the end,
We realised we sold everything,
And have no more time to spend the money,
To buy the freedom and the life we wanted.

And everyone walks the same road of life
We can see it is a dead end,
But the young will not listen, they have hope,
And the old got nothing to offer, they have no hope.

The happiest creatures are the animals, who did not look for it
They are born, eat, grow up, have sex, and make babies, and die
And the next generation follow after them,
an endless cycle, that is life.