Wednesday, April 05, 2006

Sex = Life ?

I was having a trawl as you do through some blogs (thanks to the good people at Crikey who blogwatch the exciting e-finds), and I came across a Daily Telegraph (uk) interview with the Dali Lama.

Basically he was giving a no no to sex without the purpose of life. Which alas included gay sex.

I think the words he used basically implied unless it was a life hole, it was a banned hole as far as Buddhists were concerned.

Interview located here

Now the sex for life only is a regular haunt on religious morality listings. And by that extrapolation certain policies by certain governments back that view – hence the criminalisation of non vaginal sex right up until very, very recently in the legal scheme of things. Even now some political parties feel the need to raise the standards of decency as far as marriage is concerned to make sure that only life hole using people need apply.

First up, let me say the life hole gets the thumbs up. Well, not in that sense. In the approval sense. As a heterosexual male, the life hole be the cat's pyjamas as far as all of that is concerned.

But this idea that sex = life for the purpose of creation is somewhat anachronistic. I'm sure both the non life holes have been used as long as man was able to string two words together. There's probably cave-man graffiti featuring this predilection in certain fashionable caves where like minded cave-people let others of that persuasion know about it.

The fact is sex is fun. It's probably the most fun two people can have without resorting to expensive narcotics. And it’s an evolutionary thing that it's fun. Because if it wasn't fun it would basically be doing frantic push ups in something a bit icky. Basically, not that an attractive pastime and hence a species killer. Maybe the dodo's weren't wiped out by rats and sailors? Maybe Mr Dodo just couldn't convince Mrs D that the ruttin' and a humpin' was worth her attentions?

So, Sex = Fun and Sex also = Life. Because you need the Sex for the Life. Hence I suppose the Dali Lama's point about the life holes.

But it's possible to have fun and sex without having to just use Mr Life Hole. Like I said, such recreational use of the other holes has been happening since the dawn of time. Much literature about certain societies preference for such activities abounds – with some cultures having gleefully enjoyed the attentions related to non life holeness. And still managed to propogate the species while doing so.

Sex is the physical act of innie meets outie for sure. It's also the act of being as close and trusting with a person as you can be. It's the ultimate surrender of one's personal space. Or the ultimate acceptance of another person being worthy. It's also about physical sensations of pleasure that have been enjoyed by boys and girls seeking that ever since puberty knocked on their door at 3 am and they awoke to find an uncomfortable situation that could only be resolved by shoving their PJs down the bottom of the hamper. Sensations that need not be delivered by someone of the opposite sex and need not involve cramming the life hole with 'only a penis need apply.'

And for some people their preference is not innie meets outie. It could be an outie employed to work on a non-life hole, or two innie's using a fake outie, or someone who has an outie, engaged verbally with an innie. Whatever way they do it, someone is going to get their rocks off. And their sexual congress may or may not use the life hole, and so what?

After-all, there's six+ billion of us. Sex for the creation of life only is not needed, hell environmentally it's probably not desired. There's an awful lot of us on this planet, and as our eco-footprints grow, along with our population, it's only going to get worse. I suspect one day in the future most people will be tooling around with contraceptive implants and need to get a licence to actually be able to have a baby lest the earth give one final gasp, reach for a post coital ciggie, and die with a whimper.

Maybe I've see too much sci-fi.


  1. Nice to see everyone can be wrong about something - even the Dali Lama.

  2. john saffron spent most of his "vs god" series to prove that the pope is more sexually liberated then the dali lama.

    dont forget the buddist sayin that desire is the basis of all disapointment.

    loved the life hole term mikey

    and totally agree with the idea that gay "mariage" is all about leagalities. on this point i think that gay advocates should challenge in the high court for their rights.

    i mean really marriage is just a human construct anyhow. historically western europeans have mainly co-habited until the church made it important to get gods blessing.

  3. The Dalai Lama looks a lot friendlier than the pope, but it all sounds the same in the end... the Dalai Lama is totally against masturbation, too.

    Monasteries of all kinds- medieval European or modern South-East Asian- have always been hotbeds of homosexual sex, and the other kind(s) too!

  4. Hooray for lifeholes!

    ... that sounds even weirder than I thought it would.

  5. Everyone seems to agree that it's messed up that you need a licence to drive a car, but that anyone can have a baby. So in that sense you'd think that contraceptive implants for everyone, with licences for qualifying parents, would make sense. Except that it is vastly unlikely to be accepted by a voting electorate. I mean - with all the civil liberties we've surrendered lately, how would you feel about letting the government decided whether *you* are fit to have a child? Fit enough to be included in the 'limited quota', I mean?

    Not that it really matters. Once countries develop to a certain standard of living, the birth rate starts to taper off. Some developed countries are decreasing in population in the birth/death ratio. As raising a child becomes more expensive, birth rates decline. We've avoided a Malthusian catastrophe, and it's clearly not right around the corner, despite the current record human population.

    And even if it did - too many people don't give a rat's about the environment, not if it's going to stop them getting laid. If fear of death, horrific infection, or double-decades of parental and/or fiscal responsibility for a child won't stop them, then concern for increasing human eco-footprint won't.


No comments needed, really.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.