-2

My girlfriend does oral sex and she likes to swallow my sperm during sex. Will these activities violate any precep?

Will swallowing of semen violate the no killing precet and are sperm cells considered sentient beings?

I would prefer simple answers since I have a little understanding of Buddhism as this point.

2

Sperm are not considered 'sentient beings' (Mahayana) or 'breathing beings' (Theravada). Therefore, the ejaculation of sperm is not killing in relation to the 1st Buddhist precept.

While it is not a literal violation, having a girlfriend without long term commitment violates the spirit of the 3rd Buddhist precept. The 3rd precept in Buddhism was taught together with the instruction to parents to ensure the marriage of their children when their children become sexually mature. Therefore, when the 3rd precept refers to a girl 'under the protection of her family', it means the girl is protected by her family until her family ensures she is married.

If your girlfriend lives with her parents and your having sex with your girlfriend is against the wishes of her parents, this is violating the 3rd precept.

if your girlfriend's parents agree to you & your girlfriend having sex, this does not literally break the precept; even though having sex without long term commitment violates the spirit of the Buddhist teachings because it is not compassionate.

| improve this answer | |
2

Western culture contradicts alot with respect to traditional eastern culture. At the time of Lord Buddha, celibacy was practiced with couples until marriage (it is still practiced in the present albeit not so commonly), which brings us to the 3rd precept of 'Abstaining from sexual misconduct' (mostly is translated to abstaining from adultery) but sexual acts before marriage does taint (doesn't exactly violate) the 3rd precept as your partner is still under the protection of his/her parents or siblings.

When it comes to the 1st Precept and your question, I believe as sperm doesn't exactly have a conciousness it doesn't exactly count as killing someone. I find it more dangerous is the attachment to the pleasure derived from the act of (oral) sex which leads to alot of akusala kamma, which leads to rebirth than the akusala kamma derived from the killing of sperm cells.

| improve this answer | |
-1

Semen is just water element, it's not a being. It is like hair, nails or closer yet to swapping saliva when kissing.

As for the 3rd precept. As others have said one could perhaps make an argument that all sexual activity outside of marriage is a no go, based on the 'under protection' references.

One can also say that all sexual activity is abrahmacariya and that 3rd precept is formulated in a way that would allow for some stumbling but eliminating the 'misconduct range'. Culturally it would be very difficult to draw parallels for 'under protection of someone'.

So the question is rather does sex outside of marriage violate 3rd precept. If one says it violates then one must hold that two unmarried people age 50 shouldn't have sex lest they are married as long as their parents are alive.

One would also hold that an unmarried orphan is fair game if not under protection of anyone.

In 40 years of teaching the expression 'unmarried people should't have sex' was never uttered and is not found in the tipitaka.

What is found are statements like 'one shouldn't consort oneself with another's wife', 'discontented with one's wife one keeps company with other women (context is that it is a bad state)' and 'one should be loyal to one's spouse'

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.