Warning: Sexual References

[Andrew]

Hi sangha,
I thought that instead of continuing to post in 'that other thread', it would be better to expound my insight in a more general topic. I don't think I could get the thread subject any more 'safe' for those not interested, not ready or otherwise over it. (that's not a dig, just me taking the valid opinions of others into account)

OK, leaving out the story, I'll summarise the insight.

1) The concept of sex drive being a purely physical thing may well be false. Perhaps humanity has been going through it's collective teenage years in this regard, or maybe just me.   I have been ignorant of the possibility that sex isn't really one of our 'needs' but rather a 'want' we cultivate in our imagination. I use 'maybe', 'perhaps' and 'possibility' because it is very early days for me putting this into practice.

It would be a shame if it's only because I'm 35 that I have finally been able to 'hear' this. I would like to think that between this insight and mindfulness, humanity could move beyond it's current 'animalistic' preoccupation with sex. This post could save the world...hahaha ...hmm maybe not... .  If indeed aging is the only thing that brings freedom from sexual preoccupation, then truly, bring on extinction, cause I'm over the pain this has caused me and others. Hey, I allow myself some nihilism now and then...

2) lovemaking and orgasm are two separate things, it is better to approach the former without having the later as a goal..It is even better again to deliberately not orgasm, but rather leave your energy and brain chemistry invigorated, not depleted. This is something talked about in ancient Qigong texts.  It is beneficial to marriage to not have orgasm as the goal of lovemaking, but rather an optional extra. Stay in the moment, don't look forward at all. Besides, so many times 'climax' is an anti-climax, why put yourself through that? You don't actually need it. When the day comes and both are ready, then go for it.

3) because of point one, and with the strength of mind cultivated in point two, 'private release' is perhaps neither necessary or beneficial in marriage. I keep saying in marriage, as that's what this new idea for me is being tested in (see below). I'm stating it more like a hypothesis because at the moment I can't say it's that much more that this.

For the record and the scientists among us;  I was married at 21 and have had only 1 partner before that ( though in my mind the whole world has been my unsuspecting harem ). I tell you this so, if need be, you can easily dismiss this post and get on with things without any offence or confusion. I share it because I can. Tomorrow's post may well be about me dealing with my forum addiction....    

It is early days for me, but already my wife and I are more relaxed in daily life, mainly because I'm more relaxed and not looking to sex for fulfilment. It really would not have sunk in if it wasn't for shamatha sitting morning and night, which is the reason I'm sharing this at all.

Sounds like a Testimonial doesn't it?  I nearly deleted it twice...

love

andy

 

[lente]

Well I'm not a scientist yet, but my take on the whole sex thing is that we can only be free from sex if we somehow changed our genes so that we don't have the build in urge.

From an evolutionary standpoint sex is the whole point of life. Without sex, no life.

Pretty simple actually. So I would say that the basis of sex (urge) is definitely pure physical. As with anything our mind may run away with it.

[Morning Dew]

Observe the animal life and lots will be clear to you.

[Alexanderjohn]

Humans live with the peculiar phenomenon that their awareness is aware of itself, I cannot yet fully comprehend the magnitude of this but I accept the possibility that this may allow us to transcend our primordial sexual urges. If not then at least just keep them stable without the need to act on them or something to that extent. If we're talking evolution then it is over population that is causing the most problems for the world including the human race, would it not be a smart evolutinonary move right now to stop having sex?  Some EGOFOOD for the monkeymind

[rideforever]

What is the need to 'transcend' our animal urges ?

Where does this idea come from in the first place ?

Breathing, is also an animal urge.

These questions have answers.

[lente]

Humans live with the peculiar phenomenon that their awareness is aware of itself, I cannot yet fully comprehend the magnitude of this but I accept the possibility that this may allow us to transcend our primordial sexual urges. If not then at least just keep them stable without the need to act on them or something to that extent. If we're talking evolution then it is over population that is causing the most problems for the world including the human race, would it not be a smart evolutinonary move right now to stop having sex?  Some EGOFOOD for the monkeymind

I remains to be seem if overpopulation is really that big of a problem. But no, I don't think it is smart to stop having sex evolutionary wise, because no sex = no life. Or specifically, no human race.

[Andrew]

Well, Until last week, I would have readily agreed with any and all of these points of view. But I can't say I was happy with them at all.

I'm not taking the puritanical point of view; "thou shalt not etc" - if this doesn't work in the long term I won't be lying to myself or getting guilty over any of it. I guess I see the events of the last month as my karma leading me to this place to think about this,  my conclusions may well be off. I could be in a meditation 'honeymoon' period that has allowed my to experience some peace in this area, I won't know otherwise for a while I guess.

love

andy

[Andrew]

Humans live with the peculiar phenomenon that their awareness is aware of itself, I cannot yet fully comprehend the magnitude of this but I accept the possibility that this may allow us to transcend our primordial sexual urges. If not then at least just keep them stable without the need to act on them or something to that extent. If we're talking evolution then it is over population that is causing the most problems for the world including the human race, would it not be a smart evolutinonary move right now to stop having sex?  Some EGOFOOD for the monkeymind

Interesting point. I'm usually pessimistic about humanities chances, but perhaps if awareness spreads to enough people it could make a difference.

Why is everyone thinking I'm making a call to celibacy here though?! Infact, I would like it if everyone let this thread 'die' and I'll get back to you next month and let you know what I'm finding and resurrect it. If I was smart I would have done that in the first place....

love

andy

[Andrew]

Infact, I think I'll take a month off posting /reading so I can get my head together on this and other things. Establish some real mindfulness / equanimity etc etc etc 

thanks for all the help so far..

see you in a month.

love

andy

ps  i'm on email, I'm not saying I don't want to talk to anyone at all!!!

[torgeir]

It can be useful to distinguish between different types of ’love’. The english word ’love’ is very vague and means so many things to different people. ’Love’ can be divided into

a)   kama – sensual field, sexual satisfaction is included here and has the quality of firy hot and sticky, where the concern is only for oneself.
b)   sneha – dependency on family members (and society) to provide material and emotional support. Direction is back and forth. You scratch my back, I scratch yours. Also of a sticky, but more lukewarm type.
c)   metta – unconditional love, outwardly unidirectional. Concern is purely for others’ welfare. Cool and nonsticky nature.

In a human sexual relationship these three are usually present and mixed to various degrees. Unhealthy sexual relationships has a very unbalanced mix.

Someone with an undeveloped, base, animalistic mind is involved in spending most of the time in the a) kama-sphere.

Someone with a developed, pure mind, is spending most of the time in c) metta (and with compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity as well, other cool and nonsticky frames of mind.)

It is possible for us worldly people to develop our minds gradually so that we spend more time in metta, and less time in kama.

It is humanly possible for some exceptional people to be developed to such a great extent that the mind spends most of the time in unconditional love, compassion, sympathetic joy for others, and equanimity.

Thus endeth sermon.

[Jeeprs]

The concept of sex drive being a purely physical thing may well be false.

But this is the basis of Sigmund Freud's theory of human nature. He called it 'libido' and said it was an instinctive force behind basically everything we do. Later in life, he decided there was another drive also, the so-called death wish. Now Freud is not considered cutting edge any more, many would dispute that as science his work is still held in high regard, but there you have it. So I don't think the concept of the sex drive has even been a purely physical thing, especially not since Freud's days.

I will add a few things about my own experience. Personally, I never agreed with Freud on that, brilliant though he was. Neither did Carl Jung, who was much more spiritually aware than Freud could ever be. In fact I think Freud is largely responsible for the idea of modern western civilization, that our basic nature is geared towards uninhibited sexual expression, and that things that prevent this are causes of neurosis and repression. I think the technical term for this idea is 'bollocks'. Of course the human male is, especially when young, basically a slave to the hormones and genes. I was no different, although I will say I have been married for 27 years, nevertheless with a fairly typical fantasy life for a lot of it. However that has started to fall away as the various energies have been re-directed by the practice.

Anyway as we all know, there is a giant multi-national industry based around exploiting human sexual desires, which is trumpeted by those that are in it as 'liberation' and 'freedom'. It is only the freedom offered by addiction and bondage, in my view. These kinds of cravings can never be satisfied, that is their very nature.

On the one hand it is important not to feel guilty about sexuality in all its modern multimedia glory, but on the other, recognize that for all its superficial allure, it is the very essence of samsara, pleasure leading to dissatisfaction. A lot of Western buddhists are very conflicted over it, in my view, feeling that they can't be seen to be censorious or old-fashioned, but I am sure Buddhist sexual ethics are basically very conservative. But Buddhism does not have a huge amount to say about the subject. Whenever it is mentioned, as for example in the Lankavatara Sutra, it is directly comparable with orthodox Christian teachings on the same matter.

So that is my input on it. On the other forum I contribute to, I advocate a morally conservative viewpoint, and it is enormously unpopular. You would think I was endorsing terrorism or hate crimes. That is the way of the world nowadays.

[thelastrich]

No food = Starvation
No water = Thirst
No ejaculation = Prostate cancer

There is obviously a mental condition in sex, but there is also a physical condition recorded in our DNA.
You can run away from it, but why ?? Don't be attached to the fear of being attached, just let it be as it is.

[Andrew]

OK, so the month off  starts tomorrow then....

I guess it's the power of the imagination and it's exploitation that has had me going in circles. I will be back in a month, and I'll let you know what I have found.

love

andy

[torgeir]

So that is my input on it. On the other forum I contribute to, I advocate a morally conservative viewpoint, and it is enormously unpopular. You would think I was endorsing terrorism or hate crimes. That is the way of the world nowadays.

You are onto something here, Jeeps. The unpopular viewpoint warrants careful consideration.

After all, the misleading and hugely popular viewpoint has been to go with the flow: If it feels good, do it. If it feels natural, do it. Don’t suppress any human natural tendencies. This must be real freedom.

But is it?

Actually, this is in contrast with the teaching of the Buddha. He taught that careful restraint of the body, speech and mind will lead to true freedom, if followed together with concentration practice and wisdom development. This is one clear point where the Buddha's teaching differs from orthodox Christian suppression.

My observation is that those who are a little immature in their understanding of Buddhist practice try to convince themselves and others of the popular view. They tend to not have that much practical experience of the Buddha’s teachings.

Those who understand the Buddha at a little deeper level tend towards the more unpopular view that real freedom comes from restraint and development by careful cultivation of the mind over time.

[rideforever]

So that is my input on it. On the other forum I contribute to, I advocate a morally conservative viewpoint, and it is enormously unpopular. You would think I was endorsing terrorism or hate crimes. That is the way of the world nowadays.

You are onto something here, Jeeps. The unpopular viewpoint warrants careful consideration.

After all, the misleading and hugely popular viewpoint has been to go with the flow: If it feels good, do it. If it feels natural, do it. Don’t suppress any human natural tendencies. This must be real freedom.

But is it?

Actually, this is in contrast with the teaching of the Buddha. He taught that careful restraint of the body, speech and mind will lead to true freedom, if followed together with concentration practice and wisdom development. This is one clear point where the Buddha's teaching differs from orthodox Christian suppression.

My observation is that those who are a little immature in their understanding of Buddhist practice try to convince themselves and others of the popular view. They tend to not have that much practical experience of the Buddha’s teachings.

Those who understand the Buddha at a little deeper level tend towards the more unpopular view that real freedom comes from restraint and development by careful cultivation of the mind over time.

You say that the popular viepoint is to 'go with the flow, if it feels good do it' ... it sounds like the world is full of freedom.  Well yes the TV does say freedom, freedom, freedom ... all the governments say freedom, freedom, freedom.

But the TRUTH is repression repression repression.  For 15 years from 5 years old to 20, you mind is completely manipulated by the government's education system so that you are an obedient slave.  And what better way to make you a slave then by taking away your pleasure ... then you will be hungry.  (So they say sex is bad).

What better way to make you a slave then by breaking the contact you have with your body, with your penis, with your life energy ... what is it you think we are trying to repair through vipassana ?!

Religions say sex is bad ... its controls people ... which is what the government wants.  You see it in Egypt, Libya, Bahrain at the moment ... free people will overthrow the government so the government either controls people with the gun ... or better you control people by telling them sex is bad ... and then they are hungry they are controllable, they need something because the basic things are removed from them.

"this is in contrast with teachings of the Buddha" ... eh   Which Buddha are you talking about ?  You are being highly selective here.  The Buddha spoke many things to many people.  Your selection of teachings that are negative about sex is because of your conditioning of no sex - it's not a free choice is it.

You think this is a free choice of sutras to you are making ?  All those years of being told that sex is bad, and now you pick sutras that emphasis sex is bad ... and there is no connection ?

equanimity, that is all.   

A dog has sex and is not worried about it.  He is not crazy for it because it has not been denied to him.  He does not make a big thing or a small thing about it ... truly a dog lives the middle way.

Woof  !

... and yes, we know that the spiritual being does not crave sex.  But it DOES NOT FOLLOW that if you do not crave sex you are a spiritual being ...

... you can sit as still as a monk, but that doesn't mean you are a monk - who are you trying to convince

[Stefan]

Observe the animal life and lots will be clear to you.

Bonobos!    They don't give a damn ...

[Stefan]

Breathing, is also an animal urge.

  We shall overcome that one too!

[Stefan]

Why is everyone thinking I'm making a call to celibacy here though?!

Hei, I don't!!! Wait .... too late, he left for a month ...    Himalaya cave?

We should put clear wether we talk about sex as a natural part of life or about all the ... implications blocking life energy?

... never mind, tell us in march ... 

Have a good time! Metta, Stefan

[Jeeprs]

After all, the misleading and hugely popular viewpoint has been to go with the flow: If it feels good, do it. If it feels natural, do it. Don’t suppress any human natural tendencies. This must be real freedom.

But is it?

I have learned to recognize that voice in myself: 'c'mon, do it, it will be fun, there won't be any harm, it's natural, what are you waiting for'.

Took a long while though.

Buddhism has not had the same kind of taboo-mentality that developed in Christianity. I think a lot of this went back to the development of Christian theology, especially Augustine's equation of sexual relations with The Fall of Man. But it is also true that many Western Buddhists have a very laissez-faire attitude to questions of sexual ethics. The first-generation teachers, like Ajahn Chah, had a very traditionalist view of the matter. Buddhism as an institution has not sought to involve itself in the worldly affairs of society nearly so much as the Christian Church. It was after all begun by monastics, who by definition have renounced sexual relations.

You say that the popular viepoint is to 'go with the flow, if it feels good do it' ... it sounds like the world is full of freedom.  Well yes the TV does say freedom, freedom, freedom ... all the governments say freedom, freedom, freedom.

But the TRUTH is repression repression repression. 

You think? There is no way you can say liberal democratic society represses its citizens. We are all allowed to do exactly as we please, especially in regards to sex. The degree of sexual freedom in modern Western society, post the 60's, is unprecedented; there are hardly any taboos left.  But then, why are so many people miserable about it or fixated on it? I think it is because 'doing exactly as you please' doesn't necessarily make you happy. (Shock! Horror!) I don't think anything is being 'done to us' by 'them' or 'the government'; I think we are quite responsible for our own happiness. Blaming it on external forces is  a dodge. There is no 'them'.

Which Buddha are you talking about ?  You are being highly selective here.  The Buddha spoke many things to many people.   

Well:

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi, in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Now at that time, most of the people in Savatthi were excessively attached to sensuality. They lived delighting in, addicted to, infatuated with, fastened to, absorbed in sensuality. Then in the early morning, a large number of monks, having put on their robes and carrying their bowls and outer robes, went into Savatthi for alms. Having gone for alms in Savatthi, after the meal, returning from their alms round, they went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As they were sitting there, they said to the Blessed One: "Most of the people in Savatthi are excessively attached to sensuality. They live delighting in, addicted to, infatuated with, fastened to, absorbed in sensuality."

Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:

Clinging to sensuality, to sensual ties,
seeing no blame in the fetter,
never will those tied up in the fetter
cross over the flood so great & wide.

Kamesu Satta Sutta

You will not find any reference to sensuality in the Pali suttas except for in connection to it being 'a fetter'.

A dog has sex and is not worried about it.  He is not crazy for it because it has not been denied to him.  He does not make a big thing or a small thing about it ... truly a dog lives the middle way.

Only a human can live the 'middle way'. A dog has no ego but also no capacity to transcend ego. There was a link here on the site to a Barry Long article about this very question last week.

[kidnovice]

Nice job, Andy. I'm really enjoying the evolution of this thread. Its quite fruitful.  Change the name of a topic, and look what happens!  

Part of what I hear RF pointing to is this: it is very easy for the Buddha's path to be twisted into a practice of self-repression rather than freedom. I personally have to agree. Its a trap that many practitioners fall into (especially men?).

And yet, I absolutely agree that true freedom is not the "freedom" of pursuing all our fleeting desires.  That's a never-ending cycle that leads to misery.

Here is how I try to negotiate these two truths: "If it doesn't cause harm, I go ahead and enjoy it!" However, I also think much of the practice is about learning to truly see ever more subtle harms that we cause. I find that when I truly see the harm caused by a particular action, then I can abstain from it in a way that is neither puritanical nor repressive. Its simple common-sense. I don't want to cause suffering that way. As Andy put it, that's when kamma becomes "my friend."

On the other hand, if I  don't really see the harm caused by an action, and then I decide not to do it, I usually have a repressive intention. I am being driven by an "intellectual" idea OR more likely, there is an "ideal me" that I am trying to become. And that's no good.

So, I'm sticking with a rule I can live with: Try to see the different ways I cause harm, and then if I don't see any harm, go ahead!  

With metta,
KN

[rideforever]

You think? There is no way you can say liberal democratic society represses its citizens. We are all allowed to do exactly as we please, especially in regards to sex. The degree of sexual freedom in modern Western society, post the 60's, is unprecedented; there are hardly any taboos left.  But then, why are so many people miserable about it or fixated on it? I think it is because 'doing exactly as you please' doesn't necessarily make you happy. (Shock! Horror!) I don't think anything is being 'done to us' by 'them' or 'the government'; I think we are quite responsible for our own happiness. Blaming it on external forces is  a dodge. There is no 'them'.

"liberal democratic society".  What is democracy, is it when you make 20 decisions in your life between 2 candidates who are exactly the same ?  I make more decisions during one trip to the toilet.

Society thinks it is fine.  It thinks it is awake.  It thinks there is nothing further to find.

"We are allowed to do exactly as we please" ... just try, you will see.  In the UK for example we are not allowed to have a meeting of more than 12 people otherwise the police can disperse you.  And this is the home of democracy.  In the US, the CIA/NSA/FBI/ etc... will just disappear you, quietly.

UK - Riot Act Banning Gatherings of More than 12 People

But yes we are told "liberal democratic society", when basically poor people work their whole life and their money is given to millionaires.  Nice.

In the 60s there was some breakthrough, it was after WWII and people ... were wanting something different.  But that was 50 years ago and things have gotten far worse.

Now after having written all this I am wondering if you were making a joke ?  How can someone really believe they live in a liberal democratic society where you can do what you like ?  I think society must be also teaching you how to measure these things, and set the bar very low.

A dog has no ego

... okay, I am listening ... where is the evidence ?  Some dogs recognise themselves in a mirror for instance.  You have evidence ?

My experience is that nirvana is the nature of things; that is all, it is not that one thing is better than the other, because all things have their nature.

Selective quotation of the buddha

For some disciples he teaches a path of rules.  For others he teaches an experiencial path (I don't have it to hand) but it is something like 'when for you seeing is seeing and hearing is hearing ... then for you that is nirvana'.  

[Jeeprs]

The Buddhist view of animal nature is that only humans can traverse the path, not animals, and not even the 'deities'. Being born human in a time and place where one can learn the teachings is regarded as extremely good fortune, and extremely rare. Animals are treated with respect in Buddhism, in fact one of the motivating factors behind the whole movement was disgust at the sacrifice of animals as ritual acts. Buddhist monastics are not prohibited from eating meat, but the social rule is that they are never to eat meat that is killed for them. So on the whole, I think Buddhists have a balanced attitude towards animals.

The Riot Act was taken off the Statute Books in 1973 according to Wikipedia. Mind you I am not giving a carte blanche to modern society, there are many things about it that are in terminal decline. But I still don't think you can say that Western society is sexually repressive. In fact as I have noted, to advocate a conservative morality in this society is regarded as verging on anti-social. I would say that consumer society is aggressively sexual in its underlying attitudes. Of course sexuality is a highly contentious subject. No two people see it the same way. At this stage in life  - late 50's  - I am quite happy that the birds of appetite have flown. I do support the traditional view - call me old-fashioned, I really don't mind. I am not imposing it on anyone, but that is my view.

[Morning Dew]

The Buddhist view of animal nature is that only humans can traverse the path, not animals, and not even the 'deities'. Being born human in a time and place where one can learn the teachings is regarded as extremely good fortune, and extremely rare.

"Buddhist view" ... Science fiction my friend, science fiction    are you becoming a believer (reincarnation etc...) or are you actually "seeing" "your" "passed lives" ?
It is easy creating a "hobby" out of Buddhism. I mean unclingign from soooo MANY things leaves the ego with not much to do so BECOMING a buddhist is such a great sport    dont you think?
Please dont answer this to me  I dont need it

Also, taking the Buddhist side inevitably creates separation (buddhist, christian, hindu, popcorn).

Can you let go of all those views and just turn to living simply day to day? Can you be like the dog mentioned above, that doesnt NEED buddhist views or any views other than following natural instincts? Can you?

Did The Buddha follow other peoples views? Did he chant mantras, perform rituals, read sutras? Did he do anything else but observe the self as it is living very simply in nature, with nature?

Friendly
Che

[rideforever]

In fact as I have noted, to advocate a conservative morality in this society is regarded as verging on anti-social. I would say that consumer society is aggressively sexual in its underlying attitudes.

Hmmm ... I see this too.  It doesn't make much sense.  I would say that consumer society is not "sexual" but "sexual fantasy", because all contact with something quite straightforward is gone.

In the 60s maybe it was different, there was free expression and free love ... that was a good thing it seems to me, but maybe it was a blip ... and actually society (or the TV) progresses very  s l o w l y !!  Maybe we are in this very slow transition.

You are right about the Riot Act.  Sorry about that.  I did some protesting when I was younger like at the MayDay Riots ... and I remembered some legislation to break up protests of over 10 people or more - but it wasn't that one.  I just looked up some further references to the current uk legislation and it seems that much has changed and many new laws can be used, from terrorism laws, asbos etc...

[torgeir]

No ejaculation = Prostate cancer

There is obviously a mental condition in sex, but there is also a physical condition recorded in our DNA.

Having studied anatomy, physiology and pathology, it is clear that there is no evidence supporting the claim that ejaculation is a physiological necessity. There is no credible link between frequent ejaculation and low rates of prostate cancer, which is unfortunate for the many sexually active men who suffer from this terrific disease. The body regulates its own level of sperm in young men by nocturnal emission (wet dreams), as necessary. Medically speaking, there is absolutely no harm in celibacy for men, young or old.

The idea of free sexual expression comes as a counter reaction against moralistic religious sexual repression. This counter reaction states in part that repression of the sexual urge is harmful, psychologically, emotionally and/or physically. On level with the Victorian scare tactics like «masturbation causes blindness and hairy hands» etc, the counter reaction stating that «free sex with whomever and whenever you feel like it is necessary for physical and psycho-emotional health» is equally imaginative.

Deliberately refraining from intercourse or masturbation when the sexual urge sets in does not cause emotional harm to either women nor men. Medical research states an average man gets sexually aroused several times a day. Still, many men manage to refrain from intercourse and masturbation at such times of arousal. It is considered to be socially unacceptable and an exhibition of pathological behaviour to release oneself whenever and wherever one gets aroused. On the other hand, refraining from the sexual urge and instead determining an appropriate time and place for procreation/masturbation is part of what separates humans from animals, and is part of what defines sivilized society.

The Buddha's teaching is about freeing the mind, not the genitals! Keep those tucked away for later, please! Sex with one life partner is clearly what the Buddha advocated for lay-persons, not free sex with multiple partners because it feels so good. Careful restraint in body and speech is the first step to a liberated mind. To the uninitiated it sounds like being imprisoned, but to a practitioner, commitment and taking responsibility paradoxically leads to liberation.

This is not a controversial subject amongst Buddhist scholars. It is not unclear or diffuse in any way. The confusion some feel is when they mix in their own opinions and misunderstandings in the name of the Buddha, or knowingly try to water down the teachings in order to popularise Buddhism in their sub-culture.

There is nothing wrong that some people practice bigamy. It is not for anyone to condemn. Let them be happy with multiple sex partners.
But it is clearly not the Buddha's teaching.

This, I understand, is a hugely unpopular observation. Now let's enjoy the persecution!