there is a reason, i think, why ancient spiritual/religious systems emphasized asceticism in the ascent of the soul.

the nature of spiritual systems is in the discovery of the spirit. the spirit is, in these systems, innately antithetical to the corporeal. (keep in mind that there is not one ultimate way of looking at things; there are, in fact, many systems that see spirit and matter as being intrinsically linked, with the line between the two being grey or entirely nonexistent.)

so, in ancient spiritual systems where spirit is to body as yin is to yang — innately opposites — it is the denial of the body that aids in the discovery of the spirit.

what could be more carnal than raw lust? what act could be more bodily and affirming to the existence of the physical body than sexual activity based on raw physical desire alone? it is innately animal if the act is not infused with “higher” emotions such as genuine love and spiritual connection. those old systems perceive danger in acts that make our experience so enmeshed with physicality due to the risk of us losing perception of the immaterial spirit.

for the record, all forms of “sin” in old systems — consider the seven deadly sins — follow this exactly. sin is any act that removes us from the spirit and enmeshes us in the physical realm. the lower worldly and material realm is validated in “sinful acts” as opposed to the virtues of the immaterial spirit being honored. greed values wealth of material over wealth of spirit; lust values connection of bodies rather than connection of hearts. they’re like inverted, dark mirror images of the higher.

so, the reason why those old systems would advocate for abstinence is because, through the denial of the body, we come to realize the existence of the spirit within. the spirit, incorporeal, is without sexual desire. it has no need for physical reproduction. raw lust is entirely physical. it points “downward” into the animal self, anchoring us into physicality, rather than nurturing an upward ascent into the spirit.

however, i do have criticisms of this.

i believe it is possible that the highest and best way to go about relations to sexuality is in non-attachment. there is danger in rigid asceticism based on fear and shame. if the goal of abstinence for spiritual purposes is to discover our identity as spirit beyond the body, does not celibacy out of shame and fear force those practitioners to still yet base their identity on something physical?

i am saying there is just as much danger in an excessive focus on abstaining and fearfully basing one’s value on how well that’s been done as there is to being completely lost and awash in lust.

our existence as spiritual beings means that our identity is not based on the body. we are not measured by our “body count” at all, whether it is 0 or 1,000.

still, however, i do tend to, at this point in my life, only wish to be sexual with another being if there is genuine love there. this is where the act becomes spiritual. if sex is purely bodily and based on lust alone, then it is affirming only to the physical senses, to the body alone.

however, sex can become an act of beauty if the physical union reflects the union of hearts. this is where it becomes lovemaking, an act of art. is not art based in symbol, when some form becomes a reflection of a higher spiritual or emotional reality? sexuality can be artistic if the union of physical bodies reflects the union of spirits.

this, i think, is tantra. this is affirming to the spirit.

this is basically just me saying that i need an emotional connection to truly feel comfortable having sex. this isn’t something that was necessarily a change within me so much as something that was discovered. through maturity, i simply began to realize that i needed that all along, and was harming my emotional wellbeing through sexuality without an emotional and spiritual connection.