Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

No, the term and the associated cult is really involved with the earth sexually. Please search on internet and you will see ecosexuals doing sexual ritual-kind things with the earth. Their love is not as love to a brother or sister, but as to a mate with whom you can get sexually intimate.

OK. There are many things humans do that cause a great deal more harm than this, so I have no reason to condemn these people. But I have no interest in it. I consider myself a strong environmentalist, but this is too weird for me.

Different people can have different opinions, and I respect what you believe. Yes, we can still love the earth without going to the extent of an ecosexual. But we do not have to condemn these people as they simply follow another cult, and may actually protect the environment as well.

[Sushan]

This topic is about the April 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, 2X2 on the Ark: Five Secrets of a Great Relationship by Mary J Giuffra, PhD



Since the author is discussing about relationships, I thought to discuss about a novel term and a concept that I recently heard; ecosexuality.

For those who have not heard about it (Wikipidea)

I see it as another sexual fantasy with some sort of a 'legitimization' with its relation to the concept of 'saving mother earth'.

What do you think about it? Is it a totally natural thing, or is it a mental illness? Does it really help to save the earth?

The closest I have come to anybody embracing ecosexuality was a comment by a female artist friend. She described herself as asexual because she doesn't really want a relationship with a man, woman or anyone. She went on to say that she sometimes has fallen in love with trees. I smiled and told her that she must be
treesexual.

I think we all can say we love earth , environment, flora, fauna, etc. But many of us do not give that statement a sexual value. These ecosexuals say the same thing, but with an added sexual touch and feel to it.

I am not sure why some people here seem to find the idea of ecosexuality so weird. My own feeling is that this is not really based on ecology but on an underlying model of sexuality as mere physicality. Sexuality can have a spiritual component. Also, eros is about the idea of aesthetic appreciation of the body.

People are used to lable those who go against or out of the accepted cultural norms as 'wierdos'. There was an era when lesbians and gay people were treated like that. It takes some time for the people to accept different practices. If these people last for some time they and their practices too will be accepted by the society.

[JackDaydream]

o


The closest I have come to anybody embracing ecosexuality was a comment by a female artist friend. She described herself as asexual because she doesn't really want a relationship with a man, woman or anyone. She went on to say that she sometimes has fallen in love with trees. I smiled and told her that she must be
treesexual.

I think we all can say we love earth , environment, flora, fauna, etc. But many of us do not give that statement a sexual value. These ecosexuals say the same thing, but with an added sexual touch and feel to it.

I am not sure why some people here seem to find the idea of ecosexuality so weird. My own feeling is that this is not really based on ecology but on an underlying model of sexuality as mere physicality. Sexuality can have a spiritual component. Also, eros is about the idea of aesthetic appreciation of the body.

People are used to lable those who go against or out of the accepted cultural norms as 'wierdos'. There was an era when lesbians and gay people were treated like that. It takes some time for the people to accept different practices. If these people last for some time they and their practices too will be accepted by the society.

It is too easy to label those who are outside the norms as weird. There are especially so many people on the internet who are so opposed to transgender people in particular. This is projection mainly and about the security of the binary and a lack of willingness to accept an inherent androgyny of all humans. The threat of gay sexuality is opposed to the spirit of the homoerotic aspect of life. Here, I am not speaking about gay sex at all but the appreciation of same sex bodies and persons.

Also, in what I have written I am not wishing to derail the thread but embrace a larger philosophy of sexuality than is often portrayed in media sites, in order to open up a perspective which can accommodate the idea of ecosexuality rather than reject it outrightly. Perhaps, it may be useful as a stepping stone for thinking about environmental issues, seeing human beings in the scheme of nature rather than as kings of the earth.

[Pattern-chaser]

No, the term and the associated cult is really involved with the earth sexually. Please search on internet and you will see ecosexuals doing sexual ritual-kind things with the earth. Their love is not as love to a brother or sister, but as to a mate with whom you can get sexually intimate.

OK. There are many things humans do that cause a great deal more harm than this, so I have no reason to condemn these people. But I have no interest in it. I consider myself a strong environmentalist, but this is too weird for me.

Different people can have different opinions, and I respect what you believe. Yes, we can still love the earth without going to the extent of an ecosexual. But we do not have to condemn these people as they simply follow another cult, and may actually protect the environment as well.

Who is "condemning" them? Not me.

[JackDaydream]

No, the term and the associated cult is really involved with the earth sexually. Please search on internet and you will see ecosexuals doing sexual ritual-kind things with the earth. Their love is not as love to a brother or sister, but as to a mate with whom you can get sexually intimate.

OK. There are many things humans do that cause a great deal more harm than this, so I have no reason to condemn these people. But I have no interest in it. I consider myself a strong environmentalist, but this is too weird for me.

Different people can have different opinions, and I respect what you believe. Yes, we can still love the earth without going to the extent of an ecosexual. But we do not have to condemn these people as they simply follow another cult, and may actually protect the environment as well.

Who is "condemning" them? Not me.

It may be about finding connections which existed in paganism and Wicca because there are ecopagan movements, which draw upon rituals. These aspects may have become lost due to Christendom, and the Catholic approach to sexuality and nature may have
played a critical role in this.

[Sushan]

I think we all can say we love earth , environment, flora, fauna, etc. But many of us do not give that statement a sexual value. These ecosexuals say the same thing, but with an added sexual touch and feel to it.

I am not sure why some people here seem to find the idea of ecosexuality so weird. My own feeling is that this is not really based on ecology but on an underlying model of sexuality as mere physicality. Sexuality can have a spiritual component. Also, eros is about the idea of aesthetic appreciation of the body.

People are used to lable those who go against or out of the accepted cultural norms as 'wierdos'. There was an era when lesbians and gay people were treated like that. It takes some time for the people to accept different practices. If these people last for some time they and their practices too will be accepted by the society.

It is too easy to label those who are outside the norms as weird. There are especially so many people on the internet who are so opposed to transgender people in particular. This is projection mainly and about the security of the binary and a lack of willingness to accept an inherent androgyny of all humans. The threat of gay sexuality is opposed to the spirit of the homoerotic aspect of life. Here, I am not speaking about gay sex at all but the appreciation of same sex bodies and persons.

Also, in what I have written I am not wishing to derail the thread but embrace a larger philosophy of sexuality than is often portrayed in media sites, in order to open up a perspective which can accommodate the idea of ecosexuality rather than reject it outrightly. Perhaps, it may be useful as a stepping stone for thinking about environmental issues, seeing human beings in the scheme of nature rather than as kings of the earth.

Yes, people often get into groups and label those who are different just to get the feeling of security. So when those labeled got itno groups they do the exact opposite. Though this is not much seen in sexuality related matters we see that happen in matters related to races and religions.

Sexuality itself is a vast subject, and I am sure there are many areas that are still not have been touched thoroughly. Ecosexuality too can be such an area, and also as you said, it can be a good way to look at environmental issues and protect it.

[Sushan]

No, the term and the associated cult is really involved with the earth sexually. Please search on internet and you will see ecosexuals doing sexual ritual-kind things with the earth. Their love is not as love to a brother or sister, but as to a mate with whom you can get sexually intimate.

OK. There are many things humans do that cause a great deal more harm than this, so I have no reason to condemn these people. But I have no interest in it. I consider myself a strong environmentalist, but this is too weird for me.

Different people can have different opinions, and I respect what you believe. Yes, we can still love the earth without going to the extent of an ecosexual. But we do not have to condemn these people as they simply follow another cult, and may actually protect the environment as well.

Who is "condemning" them? Not me.

Yes, I see that. I just agreed with you regarding not condemning them. We should be open minded to look at different personal preferences. But at the same time we should be aware about the margins of difference and actual harmful acts. Otherwise even serial killing would be taken as a preference .

[Sushan]

OK. There are many things humans do that cause a great deal more harm than this, so I have no reason to condemn these people. But I have no interest in it. I consider myself a strong environmentalist, but this is too weird for me.

Different people can have different opinions, and I respect what you believe. Yes, we can still love the earth without going to the extent of an ecosexual. But we do not have to condemn these people as they simply follow another cult, and may actually protect the environment as well.

Who is "condemning" them? Not me.

It may be about finding connections which existed in paganism and Wicca because there are ecopagan movements, which draw upon rituals. These aspects may have become lost due to Christendom, and the Catholic approach to sexuality and nature may have
played a critical role in this.

I think Wicca is more towards witchcraft and stuff though its origins are related to pre Christian era. Yet, Pagans actually have eco-friendly beliefs and practices, which may very well have been humiliated and suppressed by the Christendom in the process of spreading the religion. Christians even introduced monogamy to cultures which had free thoughts and practices related to sexual rrelationships, where I think the former goes against the laws of the nature .

[Pattern-chaser]

We should be open minded to look at different personal preferences. But at the same time we should be aware about the margins of difference and actual harmful acts. Otherwise even serial killing would be taken as a preference .

Agreed. This is the core issue: unusual 'preferences' that harm no-one (except perhaps other consenting adults?) are perfectly OK. But those which cause unacceptable harm must be, er, constrained, for the good/protection of all.

[Elephant]

For those who have not heard about it

Sexecology, also known as ecosexuality, is a radical form of environmental activism based around nature fetishism, the idea of the earth as a lover. It invites people to treat the earth with love rather than see it as an infinite resource to exploit.

(Wikipidea)

I see it as another sexual fantasy with some sort of a 'legitimization' with its relation to the concept of 'saving mother earth'.

What do you think about it? Is it a totally natural thing, or is it a mental illness? Does it really help to save the earth?

So now they're shifting from scientific love of Earth (the logical, rational relationship) to erotic love of Earth?

It's a writer's or poet's conception of loving Earth. Novelty wears off though. It there is such a movement, it might just be confined to a small commune. If you don't make it a main stream idea that the Earth needs to be respected, then we will forever search for a new novelty to revive our motivation.

[Sy Borg]

One obviously does not seek a personal relationship with a planet. One feels either awe or nothing, the latter based on planets being too big to matter, just as oceans are for fish. Few people deeply consider their existential position as short-lived dynamic topographical variations on the surface of a gigantic and extremely complex, concentration of matter in space.

Bottom line (so to speak), erotic interaction with a nonresponsive entity would technically constitute masturbation.

[Tegularius]

Silly idea! The term is tantamount to incest since earth is the mother of all. It's also the kind of mother you don't want to piss off!

[Sculptor1]

For those who have not heard about it

Sexecology, also known as ecosexuality, is a radical form of environmental activism based around nature fetishism, the idea of the earth as a lover. It invites people to treat the earth with love rather than see it as an infinite resource to exploit.

(Wikipidea)

I think humans have been "screwing" nature from the moment we first planted a seed in the ground.
So, nothing new here.
It is definitely an abusive relationship, and nature might give back but does not love back. Maybe that is why humans are so abusive?

[JackDaydream]

One obviously does not seek a personal relationship with a planet. One feels either awe or nothing, the latter based on planets being too big to matter, just as oceans are for fish. Few people deeply consider their existential position as short-lived dynamic topographical variations on the surface of a gigantic and extremely complex, concentration of matter in space.

Bottom line (so to speak), erotic interaction with a nonresponsive entity would technically constitute masturbation.

If the idea of ecosexuality was translated into literal sex with nature, even if understood as masturbation, it would be problematic. For example, if I went out into the woods and wilderness and began trying to have sex with plants, flowers, rocks or the earth and was caught, I am sure that I would be charged with extreme public indecency. Just imagine trying to explain such an act to an official person, such as a policeman. The consequences would probably be being seen as a pervert, or so bizarre as to warrant being detained in psychiatric hospital.

Ecosexuality makes more sense as a symbolic concept rather than about literal expression of sexual desires. It may be a concept for embracing aesthetics and awe of nature. In some cultures this may be embodied in rituals as a celebration of the power of nature. Such an appreciation of nature may have become lost in Western culture and the idea of ecosexuality may be about involving an appreciation of nature, as a starting point for respecting it as an aspect of life.