Except from the erotic-factor, what else is there? Buddha left home, and after he gained Enlightenment, advised everybody to say away from women ... .... was he another blind man establishing his subjective prejudice upon the world?
Remember that women were specially design and prepared for the enjoyment of men, yes women do make men to be high just like drugs. But when you want to do away with the addiction that comes via women, you abstain totally from them otherwise you'll be consumed by them.
There is a gigantic difference between loving someone and being in love with someone. Being in love should translate to being in "LUST" with someone. It is not until we can get past the lust, that real love comes into the picture.
Good reply...scientific...though we still don't know what 'biological life' is. But does your point make Buddha's ideas invalid? That is...what if a man chooses to remain celibate throughout his life - isn't that a good choice?
Buddha was very simply denying the flesh so he could concentrate on the higher plane of the spirit. Nothing weird or mysterious there. However, as the saying goes, it's easy to be a holy man sitting on top of a mountain.
Yes, IMO the higher plane of spirit exists. The reference to the mountain means that Buddha separated himself from others so as to meditate on what is. It would have been far more difficult to do this had he stayed within the community surrounded by people who might otherwise influence his quest.
In addition to sex, food, and offspring,I think men appreciate being needed in ways that balance the attributes of women. A man will often feel emasculated by an extremely strong-willed woman or trapped by a constant nag. Erotically, men love women because we are warm, soft, curvaceous, and mysterious. Women also have complex natural scents/tastes that attract men.
The 'christian' or 'religious' view on this is simply that that is the way God intended it to be; that he made woman for man, to entertain him (so to speak) and be his partner.
The 'physics' view on this has to do with pheremones and hormones and the biology of humans as animals. When everything boils down to the basics, we may be 'higher thinking' and 'higher functioning' (the credit so often belonging to that all-important opposable thumb) but we are indeed animals. Men love women for the same reason women love men, it is necessary for species survival.
The question you seem to be asking has less to do with attraction then in attempting to find validity in celibacy. With a population threatening to overwhelm this Earth and a rampant spreading of so many viruses and STDs there are more pros to remaining sexually innocent than there are cons. Whether or not that is a 'good choice' is a matter of personal opinion.
That said there is a reason so many monks, or other celibate societies, tend to establish living compounds in remote locations. It is due to an effort to distance themselves from the temptations natural within themselves. In other words, there is nothing wrong celibacy but your body will betray your mind when given the proper circumstances.
*disclaimer~there are plenty of men whom embody the characteristics of a 'siren', leading astray an innocent woman despite herself.
An animal by definition is any living organism, excluding plants and bacteria. Specifically, we are mammals whick, by definition, are any of a large class of warm blooded, sometimes hairy, verebrates whose offspring are fed with milk secreted by the female mammary glands.
All animals essentialy follow the sam basic perameters when reproductive maturity has been reached, that being the standard goal of find a suitable mate and repopulate the species. The only difference with humans is that we have the luxury of higher thinking though we do not always use it. And in regards to the time delay in geting back to you, it was not due to lack of understanding of what I wrote, as you seem to be insinuating, rather a call to responsiblity as I had work to do. Additionally, an a brutish, debased, or inhuman person is referred to as an animal.
I would say that a basic definition of living organism would be any living creature or being with an internal structure of organs and parts that work together to maintain it's life, without which it would cease to live.
Life is the property that distinguishes plants and animals from inrganic manner, specifically the cellular biochemichal activity characterized by the ingestion of nutrients, the storage anduse of energy, the excretion of wastes, growth, repeoduction, etc. And yes, this time I decided to get you the Webster definition
Organic being the chemical or carbon makeup of a being of living organisms. Inorganic, according to my english teacher, is the opposite. And we have already discussed the defintion of ohrganism. In regards to the stone, which is the solid, nonmetalic mineral matter rock is made of, is scientificadlly incapable of spontaniously creating energy. Read SPONTANIOUSLY. It may be organic but it does not meet any of the criteria to be considered live/alive.
They absolutely meet the criteria for being organic but not for being living. They may be used to produce energy but they do not store or create energy sans assistance from any outside source nor do they consume nutrients ergo no waste production either.
Well I will have to be honest and say that I have never before heard of a dead body 'consuming nutrients' but in a way they do 'produce waste' via the process of decomposition. However, none of the internal organs or parts are working at all, they are certainly not creating or using energy, nor are they capable of reproduction anymore. The two defining characteristics that do exist are no more than by-products of decomposition, not proof of life.
The definition of life was already divulged, the existence of the sum of it's parts are required to ascertain that a thing is live thus providing proof. Accordingly, the absence of the sum of the parts no longer sustains the definition thus the characterisation of death, not life. Now that we have come full circle on this topic I believe it is time to lay this thread to rest.
Many women find me sexually attractive and exciting. I have no explanation for this as I consider myself just an ordinary guy. But I am a master of the art of seduction and satisfaction. I understand what women want,...
I just wanted to spin this differently unless its been done.The "Women need men like a fish needs a bicycle." Has been anin joke for years especially since fish don't ride bicyclesmen and women do. Its like a...
I know this is a problem that comes up every now and then with women. It's always justified as "men are visual creatures, they're always looking," and the female partner shouldn't be so insecure. But I tend to...
If Weinstein was a handsome "ladies man"would there be as many (or indeed any) complaints about sexual harrasment?Indirect proof of this is the total silence about harrasment issues with any "ladies...
Hello I am bisexual and I have the most interesting conversations with males...... it is like I am the inside look to the female mind or something. "You are like one of US that is cool.... we can talk about...