Sex and sexuality in Satyism

Satyism has a longstanding tradition of discourse and analysis on the matters of sex and sexuality, and excerpts from the life of Adripathi Adhikari address the topic in some detail. His immediate successors, some of whom feature in these excerpts, both solidified and expanded the official stance of Satyism towards these topics, and helped to mend perceived doctrinal inconsistencies in a series of rulings and dialogues resulting from an early form of the Phuli Tea Ceremony. Overall, Satyism has been considered a sex-positive religion, and is considered progressive in its official stances towards sexual and gender expression.

In the Jivani, Adripathi Adhikari writes at several points about the nature of love and sex, as well as its positive and negative expressions. An advocate of monogamy, against the polygamy and polyandry of his time, he wrote that to have multiple partners or loose relations was a sign of a weak spirit, and labeled lust, or desire for flesh, one of the Four Great Temptations. By contrast, he states that monogamous love is a sign of control and pure intention. He compares polygamy to addiction, and denounces the practice in public debates.

On the topic of gender expression, Adripathi took a notably favorable stance toward the Four Genders, conventionally translated as Male, Female, Intersex, and Eunuch. This translation has been debated by scholars of the First Phuli Empire and prehistoric Phula, and is often considered to require more context in explanation or otherwise improved terminology. Details on the Four Genders will be provided in this article.

The topic of sexuality in the Jivani is intimate to Adripathi Adhikari himself, whose eldest child was homosexual. His response is said to be a critical moment in the formation of Satyist ideology, and laid the foundation from which Satyist ideals of love, romance, respect, and familial piety. The resulting events would also help to define the rules of the Adhikari Succession and the barriers which it may transgress physically without losing validity. Adripathi Adhikari is said to have initially rejected his daughter, but after a debate, changed his mind and began to accept her unconditionally.

In the Jivani

Adripathi Adhikari was forced to confront several issues of sex and sexuality within his own life. Within his biography, he addresses both his view of sex and sexuality in a physical and earthly sense, as well as their relation to spiritual awakening and spiritual wellness. In the modern day, Adripathi Adhikari has been praised as a sex-positive and gender-progressive philosopher, although many of his views are extensions of the Satric and Tinzetic cultures of his day rather than unique to his own philosophy. Others have criticized his stances as being antithetical to free love, and have accused him and Satyism broadly of slut-shaming. Scholars of Satyism state that Adripathi Adhikari's views were complex, and deeply rooted in his spiritual tradition and personal experiences.

On sex

In the Jivani, sex is portrayed as a largely positive interaction. Adripathi Adhikari considers it a means to bliss and clarity, and an acceptable form of recreation even when without procreative intent. The Jivani claims that the 'joyous union of souls' that occurs during sexual intercourse is a path toward spiritual fulfillment under the proper circumstances of a single, consensual, and long-term partner. The climax of such a union is described as a 'weightlessness' acting as a microcosm of enlightenment. The point that both partners must equally enjoy the experience to achieve true fulfillment and enlightenment is emphasized heavily, although there is also discussion about more one-sided enjoyment elsewhere.

One-sided enjoyment is defined in two categories, surrounding consent. Sexual assault is strictly forbidden under Satyism. Adripathi Adhikari wrote several chapters discussing his experience as part of Avanidhara raiding parties during his teenage years. He observed that the conduct of the raiders was fueled by excess, that its enjoyment was merely temporary, and that it left the soul of the raiders yearning for more and trapped in a cycle. On the part of the victims, he wrote that the acts of raiding and assault exchanged feeble and fleeting pleasure for lasting trauma and violence against fellow humans. The exchange, he said, was imbalanced, unfair, and unethical.

In the case that consent is provided, Adripathi calls this Intercourse of Compassion. He states that it is an act of compassion for one partner to willingly sacrifice their enjoyment for the sake of their partner, and considers it a type of charity. The consequence of this classification is that such acts are considered inherently non-reciprocal, only done out of compassion or love rather than in exchange for something else. Various sexual acts are listed among the types of Intercourse of Passion, such as oral sex and manual sex. If these are done mutually, they are not considered Intercourse of Compassion.

Bearing some similarity to other traditional South Coian philosophies, Adripathi Adhikari considers intercourse to be a form of bonding, sharing, or exchanging soul or life energy. The Jivani considers regular intercourse to be healthy between dedicated partners, and states that the level of intimacy experienced and the exchange of life energies is only suitable for partners in a dedicated and long-term relationship. To be too loose with one's intimacy is to partake in unhealthy excess and addiction of the flesh, and is considered to be lacking in respect and love for the self. Moreover, the philosophy that free love participants exchange energies with many short-term partners is considered by Adripathi Adhikari to be a form of vampirism, as well as spreading one's vitality too thin to be healthy. He compares the process to adding honey to tea, stating that tea is appreciable, and honey is appreciable, but together in balance and moderation they are better together - but if one adds too much of any ingredient, even if they like that ingredient, the mixture is ruined. Some modern scholars believe Adripathi Adhikari may have been referring to Phuli Red Honey, which is lethal in high doses, and which Jyoho practitioners of his day would consume in unhealthy doses to weaken the veil between the spiritual and physical worlds.

On sexuality

Adripathi Adhikari was initially hesitant, or intolerant, towards homosexuality and atypical forms of sexual and gender expression. In his hostility towards the institutions that raised him, and the perceived excesses of both his native Avanidhara culture and the Jyoho cultures he was familiar with, he considered two of the four identified genders to be forms of excess, greed, lust, or temptation. His initial argument stated that the Intersex gender was covetous and envious of the sex they were not born as, and acted out of greed. He also claimed that the Eunuch gender was selfish and greedy, unwilling to share their energies and either too proud or too hateful to engage in sexual activity.

Adripathi Adhikari is said to have changed his mind when, during a debate over sacred tea, his daughter, Dzyoti Adhikari, bested him. Dzyoti Adhikari was a homosexual and engaged in a secret relationship with her girlfriend, and when Adripathi Adhikari discovered the relationship, she pleaded with him for a reasoned debate instead of a condemnation. He granted her a single opportunity for debate the next day at evening. If she could convince him of her virtue by nightfall, then she would be permitted to continue her relationship. Under the filial piety laws of the time, Adripathi Adhikari was granted significant liberty over the affairs of his children, although not absolute control.

Dzyoti Adhikari met Adripathi Adhikari in the evening of the following day, as promised, and he poured her a cup of tea. They exchanged their arguments. Adripathi Adhikari argued that she was committing herself to seeking pleasure instead of seeking love, and was becoming addicted to flesh and petty desires. Dzyoti Adripathi replied that he loved her girlfriend as much as her father loved his wife. Adripathi Adhikari asked if she was of the Intersex gender, who he accused of greed and claimed was a symptom of the old orders of excess; he followed by sorrowfully asking if she had learned nothing from him. She replied that she was not, and cited his own philosophies about the benefits of sexual intercourse as recreation and even when lacking procreation to explain herself. Adripathi Adhikari is said to have finished half of his cup in silence after this, before replying if she would be happy with a man. She replied that she would not, and that she would be unwilling to even perform Intercourse of Compassion for one. Adripathi Adhikari accused her of selfishness, but she instead cited his treatise on raiders. He asked if she liked her tea with honey, and she replied that many people drink their tea with milk or butter instead of honey, but it does not spoil the drink.

Dzyoti Adhikari accused her father of being trapped by his hatred for old ways instead of freed by his love for his daughter. Adripathi Adhikari is said to have remained silent after this. She asked if he loved her, and he replied that he did. She asked if he thought her girlfriend was impure, and he said that he did not. She asked if he would have rejected the relationship if she or her girlfriend were born male, if all other circumstances were the same. He said he would not. She asked if he only loved her if she were to be of the Eunuch gender and were to be celibate, to which he replied that the Eunuch gender was selfish because it did not share its energy. She asked if sex was the most important part of a relationship, and he said no. She stated that a relationship can exist without sex, and souls can bond in different ways. She asked if he considered his wife to be his best friend, and he replied that he did. She asked if his wife, her mother, would still be his best friend if they did not have sex, and he replied that she would.

By the time that night fell, Adripathi Adhikari and Dzyoti Adhikari had reached a consensus. He admitted that his love for her was unconditional, and that this was the purest form of love, and should be striven for. He admitted that same-sex relationships were as valid as different-sex ones, and that this was a separate phenomenon from the Intersex gender. He acknowledged that love could exist without sexual intercourse, just as intercourse could exist without love, and stated that he would prefer the former and now considered it acceptable. He admitted that if non-procreative sex could be legitimate between a man and woman, it could be legitimate between a man and a man, and a woman and a woman, as well as with members of the Intersex or Eunuch genders, and that love could be expressed nonsexually in these cases as well. In reconciliation with his revelation and meditation on his daughter's question of the limits of gender and biological sex in a relationship, he stated that human nature is universal and not subject to the whims of castes, gender, or physical form. He expressed that when he drank Red Honey Tea with his wife, he saw a full-bodied person in her spiritual form despite her missing an arm physically. This has been considered by modern scholars to be one of the earliest instances of the notion that gender is a social construct, circa the 6th century BCE.

The Four Genders

Satyism identifies four genders, which Adripathi Adhikari considers to be largely physical and social categories that have no bearing on spirituality and the nature of the soul. These are traditionally translated as Male, Female, Intersex, and Eunuch, although this translation scheme was come under scrutiny from scholars of Satyism as well as of Ancient Phula. They are said to need further clarification, or better phrasing. An outline of the four genders will be given below.

Male and female

The first of the four genders identified is that of masculinity. The masculine gender is defined as being often taller, deeper-voiced, and with more body hair. The most distinguishing mark of the masculine gender is considered to be the proud or accepted ownership of the male genitals, which can act as a signal even when other typically masculine features are lacking. The second of the four genders, the female, is considered to be tied to the proud ownership of female genitals, a higher-pitched voice, most typically shorter, with larger breasts, and less body hair. Adripathi Adhikari's definitions of masculinity and femininity tend to be in-line with traditional Euclean ideas for these groups, and he elaborates that men and women tend to have different behaviors and social conditions, but clarifies that these are surface-level and are social instead of necessarily tied to their gender, noting that men growing up among women will act in a feminine way, and women growing up among men will act in a masculine way.

Intersex

The Intersex gender is a broad umbrella, and Adripathi Adhikari's wording that the ownership of genitals must be one of pride or acceptance largely concerns this group. While traditionally thought by Euclean observers to reference hermaphroditism, the Intersex gender is largely based on ancient phenomena of gender nonconformity. Adripathi did not believe gender and biological sex influence one's soul and spirituality, and therefore offered a more liberal stance regarding the classification of the Intersex gender. Before him, it was commonly thought to be behavioral, the prime example being a 'tomboy' who still identified as a woman despite behaving in a masculine way, or people engaged in same-sex relationships. After Adripathi Adhikari, the definition narrowed to include those who were ambiguous in appearance and whose identity did not conform to the previous two categories. Adripathi Adhikari mentioned habitual crossdressers as an example of the Intersex gender, as well as individuals of the Jyoho clergy who had been granted special status to act in a way opposite their birth gender. He also listed some extreme cases that he knew of where men had castrated themselves and women had cut off their breasts, so that they may live as the opposite sex. The modern term "Transgender" has, in some circles, come to replace the term "Intersex gender", although the classification also includes those who are intersex by a modern definition.

Eunuch

This gender category consists of those who are unable to reproduce either mentally or physically. While it does include most eunuchs, it also extends to individuals who would otherwise be male or female but who experience difficulty in bonding their soul to others. This, like the Intersex gender, is considered to be something that is likely to be revealed during puberty or later, rather than known at birth - only particular deformities could qualify an individual for either at birth. The Eunuch gender functionally covers asexuality, celibacy, impotence, being barren, and those who have undergone castration. Monastic vows of celibacy emulate this condition but monks who undertake such vows are not considered to fall under this category. The Eunuch gender ultimately covers those who cannot be satisfied with sexual activity or those who cannot reach climax, rather than those who choose not to. It is for this reason that the translation as "Eunuch" has been contested by scholars, as it includes a variety of non-sexual or non-performing individuals who have intact genitals.