SuttaCentral
In a certain sense, from an ultimate/end-goal perspective, there should actually be a kind of aversion* towards childbirth —
to never come to lie in any womb ever again.
I think this is hard for many of us laypeople to grok, the EBT perspective that any kind of birth is dukkha.
*aversion in the same sense as the Buddha allowing only one kind of killing, the killing of āsavas
AN 7.46 is interesting (accesstoinsight and suttacentral point to different suttas here for some reason). Excerpt:
[1] "‘The perception of the unattractive, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit. It gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its final end’: Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said?
"When a monk’s awareness often remains steeped in the perception of the unattractive, his mind shrinks away from the completion of the sexual act, bends away, pulls back, and is not drawn in, and either equanimity or loathing take a stance.
Just as a cock’s feather or a piece of tendon, when thrown into a fire, shrinks away, bends away, pulls back, and is not drawn in; in the same way, when a monk’s awareness often remains steeped in the perception of the unattractive, his mind shrinks away from the completion of the sexual act, bends away, pulls back, and is not drawn in, and either equanimity or loathing take a stance.
If, when a monk’s awareness often remains steeped in the perception of the unattractive, his mind inclines to the completion of the sexual act, or if non-loathing takes a stance, then he should realize, ‘I have not developed the perception of the unattractive; there is no step-by-step distinction in me; I have not arrived at the fruit of [mental] development.’ In that way he is alert there.
But if, when a monk’s awareness often remains steeped in the perception of the unattractive, his mind shrinks away from the completion of the sexual act, bends away, pulls back, and is not drawn in, and either equanimity or loathing take a stance, then he should realize, ‘I have developed the perception of the unattractive; there is a step-by-step distinction in me; I have arrived at the fruit of [mental] development.’ In that way he is alert there.
So it seems there may be such a thing as “skillful negativity” when it comes to e.g. sexual intercourse.
For the sake of the earlier discussion in this thread; clearly there is nothing suggesting that this loathing is or should be directed at women; which also would not be congruent with the previous sutta on viewing women as mothers, sisters and daughters regarding lessening lust.
Part of the issue of gender is that the Sutta is written from the perspective of a monk. So we are all drawn to thinking that it ia about monks, and that" disgust at completing the sexual act" must be about women. It is real pity that there is no neutral term for people, neither male nor female, just people.
If it was modified then it would read as:
"When a Bikkhuni’s awareness often remains steeped in the perception of the unattractive, her mind shrinks away from the completion of the sexual act, bends away, pulls back, and is not drawn in, and either equanimity or loathing take a stance.
Just as a cock’s feather or a piece of tendon, when thrown into a fire, shrinks away, bends away, pulls back, and is not drawn in; in the same way, when a Bikkhuni’s awareness often remains steeped in the perception of the unattractive, her mind shrinks away from the completion of the sexual act, bends away, pulls back, and is not drawn in, and either equanimity or loathing take a stance.
If, when a Bikkhuni’s awareness often remains steeped in the perception of the unattractive, her mind inclines to the completion of the sexual act, or if non-loathing takes a stance, then she should realize, ‘I have not developed the perception of the unattractive; there is no step-by-step distinction in me; I have not arrived at the fruit of [mental] development.’ In that way he is alert there.
But if, when a Bikkhuni’s awareness often remains steeped in the perception of the unattractive, her mind shrinks away from the completion of the sexual act, bends away, pulls back, and is not drawn in, and either equanimity or loathing take a stance, then she should realize, ‘I have developed the perception of the unattractive; there is a step-by-step distinction in me; I have arrived at the fruit of [mental] development.’ In that way she is alert there."
I must admit I don’t like that version either. But it is interesting to see how obvious the 'exclusiveness" of language is.
There was time in our lives when as children we saw sex, kissing etc as ‘gross’ before the testosterone distorted our thinking long term. Buddha’s teaching is that this change isn’t permanent but that it can reversed for our wellbeing now, if that is what the person wants.
Unintentional English pun?!
With metta
Wow!
I got this thread in my inbox yesterday and wanted to respond immediately but hadn’t the time, so I came back today. Needless to say, in the interim, the thread had morphed into something else. The controversy seems to have died down, and I don’t want to stir a hornet’s nest back up again, so feel free to ignore some or all of this. Nevertheless, after reading the Ajahn Chah excerpt and the storm of comments which followed, I am left with some thoughts and a question or two:
When I left was right after Pasanna responded to the Ajahn Chah quote. I really dug what she said–wait, let me clarify that: I thought what she said was a bit one-sided, but I liked what I thought was behind it. Anyhow, I was anxious to see what would be waiting for me when I got back to the thread. I, too, wished the discussion to be more balanced, gender-inclusive, and so on; but my idea of that was that there might be some more inter-gender discussion. I was looking for more women’s voices. (I’m a man, btw.)
Honestly, I hoped I would find more women talking about negative visualization of male bodies. (Regarding the Ajahn Chah excerpt, while I did think the imagery in that specific case was weird, personally, I do see the utility in a negative visualization of what would otherwise be attractive, even if it gives rise to aversion: the Buddha does instruct us, after all, to view pleasurable feelings as painful!) Asubha has done well for me as a married man: while I am not trying for complete liberation from kama just yet, asubha has kept me from kamesu micchacara (which, judging from the world around me, is a serious danger for many!). Also, as we grow old together, asubha has allowed me to see a beauty in my wife which is certainly different from the beauty society tells me I should look for in her. I don’t know if it has decreased my lust for her, but it certainly has increased my metta (karuna, etc.) towards her. And I think the same goes for her. We point out how unattractive our bodies are becoming as we age (compared with how beautiful we [thought] we once were). Sometimes it’s of a sexual nature; and sometimes it hurts to hear. But each will definitely be compassionate because it’s mutual, and each wants some compassion from the other.
(On that note, I have noticed that, for the most part, in the EBTs, as a practice, asubha is almost always coupled with metta (Brahmavihara, appamana) practice–and probably not without good reason.)
Obviously, as a married man, for me, any effort at Brahmacariya is necessarily a team effort, and one which always involves male-female interchange. However, I think this is also important for single Brahmacari–though I think they probably lose sight of that as they are single. I’m big on the Samyoga Sutta (AN 7.51) which says that our attraction for the opposite sex is grounded in our attraction to our own bodies; and, further, that that attraction towards the other turns around and reinforces our attachment tour own sexuality. (I know people recognize more than two genders, but I don’t want to make this discussion more complicated than it already is.) And, though the sutta itself does not state this, alot of this takes place below the radar. So, no, I don’t think the lust is “all in my own mind,” rather it is the result of an interaction between the sexes in which we all play a role. As far as lust, I’d offer that we’re more “in it” than it’s “in us.” This is not called the kama-loka for nothing: it’s like a big sex soup that we’re all stewing in, and have been since before we were born (this time, at least).
That being said, it seems to me that everyone, every time, everywhere, everyone is making a sexual statement, is taking a stance on sexuality. And, with that, I don’t think that a discussion on Brahmacariya would yield as much fruit if we didn’t all participate equally in it: male, female, married, single, lay, monastic. But, perhaps, we’re not ready for that yet.
Still, though, this discussion raised some questions for me:
what differentiates seeing the asubha (what we all agree is kusala) in something from seeing it as disgusting (what some are saying is akusala)?
“objectifying” is a word I never completely understood; in any case, isn’t cold objectification exactly what we do alot of the time in Buddhist practices?
Again, maybe no one wants to re-open that can of worms, so go ahead and ignore those questions if you want to. But, on a more practical note:
Maybe I’m naive, but I have never interpreted these texts as being about how men should view women, or having anything to do with gender at all.
Of course, now after having had this discussion in this thread, I can understand how they can be understood to do that.
It’s really helpful for me to know this, because then I can avoid being misunderstood in the future 
I think that is a strange perspective. Testosterone is a natural part of human physiology. It does produce changes in the way males perceive the world and respond to it, but there is no reason to think that the disgust perceptions and responses that might occur before the increased production of testosterone, are any less “distorted” than the arousal responses that occur afterward. Both responses are rooted in brain structures and chemistry.
Seeing the asubha as beautiful is specifically called a distorted perception though, and seeing the asubha as asubha is specifically called a correction of perception, see AN 4.94.
Edit: There are also interesting studies like this:
“Feelings of Disgust and Disgust-Induced Avoidance Weaken following Induced Sexual Arousal in Women” (link). Excerpt:
In addition, the stimuli involved in sexual encounters are in general (at least out of context) strongly perceived to hold high disgust qualities, with saliva, sweat, semen and body odours qualifying among the strongest disgust elicitors [3].
…
…but it also raises the critical question of how people succeed in having pleasurable sex at all. One possible explanation could be that sexual engagement temporarily reduces the disgust eliciting properties of particular stimuli.
The idea that some things are disgusting in there very nature doesn’t seem to me to have much to be said for it. Disgust is an emotional and physiological response of an organism to certain kinds of objects. The object itself is only deemed disgusting to the degree that it generally causes a disgust response in us. To project the qualities of our own emotional or aesthetic reactions onto the object itself is an anthropocentric distortion.
Most organisms, for example, are strongly disposed to avoid feces and vomit, whether produced by members of their own species or other species. They experience a powerful disgust response on encountering these things. But some animals will eat feces or vomit, and so presumably they experience them as tasty. Neither response is a representation of the nature of the feces and vomit themselves.
"Monks, these seven perceptions, when developed & pursued, are of great fruit, of great benefit. AN7.46
“There’s the case, friend Ananda, where beings do not discern, as it actually is present, that ‘This perception has a share in decline’; ‘This perception has a share in stability’; ‘This perception has a share in distinction’; ‘This perception has a share in penetration.’ This is the cause, this is the reason, why some beings do not become totally unbound in the present life.” AN4.179
So its clear the Buddha had an idea about which perceptions were helpful in developing the path to nibbana. Some perceptions weren’t helpful. However these perceptions were all true to the object under scrutiny, that is, they weren’t false perceptions -they were valid perceptions. These are mostly vipassana or wisdom based practices, but the perception of light etc were more samatha based.
with metta
I think this thread would be better titled as “Brahmacariya, celibacy survival guide: it’s only as hard as you rub it”. That was meant to be funny, BTW. 
This comment is aimed at males, not females. I added this post because I think people need to lighten up a bit in this thread.
Can we at least agree that aversion is a defilement? If so, then if one is instructed to use and cultivate aversion to counteract craving, that can only be a temporarily skillful mind trick that uses one defilement to resist another defilement. In the end, one needs to let go of all of these passions, emotional responses and aesthetic responses. They are all ripples of distress in a mind that needs to be stilled.
Consider: suppose a novice begins like many of us by finding butterflies, songbirds, and lotuses lovely and attractive, and finding feces, crawling animals, rotting muck and carrion repulsive. If one trains oneself to reflect on the fact that the butterflies, songbirds and lotuses have been nourished by feces, crawling animals, rotting muck and carrion, one might succeed in mentally transferring some of one’s disgust responses and repulsion to the things one formerly found lovely and attractive.
However, one could also reflect on the fact that the feces, crawling animals, rotting muck and carrion are made out of things like butterflies, songbirds and lotuses. And then one might end up transferring one’s attraction responses to the the things one formerly found disgusting and repulsive!
Both of these are mental tricks designed to transfer one kind of passionate response to objects which formerly elicited a different passionate response. Neither technique is giving you a more correct view of the object. So why does the training tend to emphasize the first technique rather than the second, and regard the first technique as more skillful? Because the natural starting state for the trainee is to be beset by lusts, cravings, hungers, thirsts, etc., and so step one is to neutralize their power. But if you then end up in a state of mind in which your are bedeviled by painful disgust and repulsion responses, that’s no good either.
The charnal ground trainees’ initial response to sitting and reflecting in a charnal ground might be to learn to view their own bodies as revolting and disgusting. But the goal eventually is to achieve equanimity toward forms. A body is just a body; decay is just decay; pus is just pus; a bone is just a bone; a smell is just a smell.
Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress.
Ud 1.10
The origin story for the title
“it’s only as hard as you make it”
It’s a line from a movie.
The first inappropriate naughty movie I saw, when I was a young teenager, has a scene where the protagonist guy, is alone cleaning the swimming pool at the house when two young lovely ladies approach him. They ask him, “is cleaning the pool hard work?”
He responds, “It’s only as hard as you make it.”
So there’s definitely a double entendre and maybe 3 or more deeper meanings one can get from the title. The one intended to stick however, is that brahmacariya is difficult at first but doesn’t need to be, and if done properly becomes effortless.
The taoist immortals have a saying, when qi is full, one feels no hunger, when shen is full, one feels no need to sleep, when jing is full, one feels no sexual desire.
brahmacariya done well is what leads to jing energy becoming full.
Guys, guys, guys, this thread has come to be dominated by men. Let’s take some time to reflect, are any of us erasing the experience of women? Demonizing vaginas? Are we taking androcentric approaches? I see many of us trying to be as inclusive as possible.
That’s good, but where are the female voices?
This thread is turning into a junior high school boys’ locker room. I’m certain the gentlemen on this forum are able to find levity without being juvenile.
Almost a year ago I experienced strong lust for a real person while engaged in intensive spiritual practice. And just like the suttas say, the feeling invaded my mind and remained, and my mind and body burned with the fever of lust and I could hardly read a sutta, let alone meditate. In fact, I felt like I was going to go crazy since I just could not drop the obsession. This has never been such a problem for me before so the suttas on lust never really went deep, but I guess it takes the right person to come along, that special one that ticks all your boxes, combined with not guarding the sense faculties and your practice is over. It seriously feels like being mortally wounded from the Dhammic perspective. What I think happened was that my mind had increased awareness and focus from the meditation but there wasn’t enough sampajañña, or as Ven. Sujato has just recently aptly translated as situational awareness to recognize that the feeling was actually creeping up on me quite slowly at first, but then it grew and grew like a cancer.
Anyway, in that time I had made a list of all the suttas that helped me with this and would like to share it here in case it could be use to someone’s practice if they run into this particular quite serious stumbling block. I particularly recommend Pancasikha’s verses from DN21 as they are representative of many lyrics in modern songs that if we listen to carelessly, creep in slowly and distort our world view, and also how utterly bound he is.
Anguttara Nikaya
1.1-10 Obsessions of mind
4.122 Waves (fierce fish)
5.5 Training
5.55 Mother and son
5.75-76 Warriors
5.192 Dona (5 types of Brahmin)
7.50 Sexual intercourse
7.51 Union and disengagement
8.17-18 Bondage
Majjhima Nikaya
13
22 Arittha’s wrong view
45
54 Sense pleasure similies
67 Sharks
82 Ratthapala’s verses directed to his wives and family
106 Sense pleasures are Mara’s bait
Samyutta Nikaya
35.127 Mothers, sisters, daughters
8 Vangisasamyutta
Digha Nikaya
21 Pañcasikha’s verses
Atthakavagga from Sutta Nipata
1 Kama sutta
7 Tissametteyya sutta
Theragatha
4.1 Nagasamala
4.4 Nandaka
4.9 Candana
7.1 Sundarasamudda
16.2 Telakani
20.1 Mahāmogallāna
Jātakas
Saṅkapparāga Jātaka, Ja251
Mudulakkhaṇa Jātaka, Ja66
Niḷinikā Jātaka, Ja526
Lomasakassapa Jātaka, Ja433
Haritaca Jātaka, Ja431
Cūḷapalobhana Jātaka, Ja263
Mahāpalobhana Jātaka, Ja507
Alambusā Jātaka, Ja523
Indriya Jātaka, Ja423
Kuṇāla Jātaka, Ja536
If anyone has more, please post them here so it could be a useful resource. I haven’t read the Therigatha for example, maybe there’s useful stuff there from the female perspective.
Nobody has mentioned onions and garlic yet. I personally find Bramacariya much, much easier when I avoid them. Some people have a sensitivity to these, some don’t.
Ethnic Sri Lankan curries (which are not unpleasant in the flavour department) are usually exploding with both onion and garlic (especially raw red onion, the most Satanically potent of them all), and are especially important to dodge in my case.
Just my personal opinion -
I think that a lot of women have learned to be very careful in sharing such stuff. Because they are often held accountable for inciting lust (wrongly or rightly) we are very circumspect in mixed company. We find it much easier to share in all female company.
I also know from personal experience how quickly things can flip over when openly discussing such “hot” topics - and go from control to a sense of loss of control.
As an example @ERose has a post going about (among other things) rape, sexual slavery and prostitution and systematised abuse. A very uncomfortable topic. But as a woman, one has to tread very carefully because most of us have experienced negative, unwanted sexual behaviours from others. All these things and many others contribute to this. Many women do not feel ‘safe’ or comfortable discussing these things.
I’m sure this comment will elicit a range of responses - but it is how I have experienced life.
Just to share for the interested males here. I am a strong confident woman (the last you would expect to be subject to this - yet I have experienced more than 6 horrible, interactions of this nature, in my life so far. Just to be clear I’m talking serious sexual misconduct eg rape, attempted rape by stangers, by someone in home circle, a terrible situation that was less than a hairs breadth away from pack rape by the militia in Thailand, and serious incident in primary school, aged 6 etc etc… I’m lucky (kamma) that I am left unscarred (just the nature of samsara)- many many others cannot cope with these things and develop protective mechanisms or a skewed view. These situations could have been much worse if I was less skillful, if I was immobilised by fear, etc etc. Actually, I’m surprising myself by remembering more ‘serious’ instances. And this is in a ‘safe’ and culturally ‘equal’ society in Australia.
So I hope this brings a better understanding of why issues are so sensitive - it is a result of experiencing life in a womans body.
I realise this is far from the OP but it is only in direct response to a sincere request for greater understanding that has come through this thread - Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu for that desire 
I apologise for bringing discomfort to anyone - I have tried to be circumspect in posting - but it is very difficult to address in only a couple of paragraphs.
NB this is only my opinion based on my personal experience, with NO sutta references, so please accept it as it is given.
Metta, and happy exploring and adventures in pursuing liberation
Mods. Feel free to delete or move etc if you feel this is not a beneficial post. M
Another tip, that perhaps might help others: I would say the reading material that helped me escape lust the most was, suprisingly, Richard Dawkins’ “The Selfish Gene”. I know, it sounds strange, but darn it if it didn’t work really well.
When I read about all the manifold nefarious ways that the genes “trick us” (I’m speaking loosely here, as they have no consciousness or intentionality of their own) into doing their bidding of procreation, it made me want to do my best to not be “taken advantage of” by them.
I wouldn’t have guessed in a hundred years even one tenth of all the “crafty” and “underhanded” tricks they play to get their way.
Here is something from the Therigatha from the female perspective. It’s from the arahant Ambapali who was a courtesan known widely throughout the land for her beauty in her household life.
Black was my hair
— the color of bees —
& curled at the tips;
with age, it looked like coarse hemp.
The truth of the Truth-speaker’s words
doesn’t change.Fragrant, like a perfumed basket
filled with flowers:
With age it smelled musty,
like animal fur.
The truth of the Truth-speaker’s words
doesn’t change.Thick & lush, like a well-tended grove,
made splendid, the tips elaborate
with comb & pin.
With age, it grew thin
& bare here & there.
The truth of the Truth-speaker’s words
doesn’t change.Adorned with gold & delicate pins,
it was splendid, ornamented with braids.
Now, with age,
that head has gone bald.
The truth of the Truth-speaker’s words
doesn’t change.Curved, as if well-drawn by an artist,
my brows were once splendid.
With age, they droop down in folds.
The truth of the Truth-speaker’s words
doesn’t change.Radiant, brilliant like jewels,
my eyes:
With age, they’re no longer splendid.
The truth of the Truth-speaker’s words
doesn’t change.Like a delicate peak, my nose
was splendid in the prime of my youth.
With age, it’s like a long pepper.
The truth of the Truth-speaker’s words
doesn’t change.Like bracelets — well-fashioned, well-finished —
my ears were once splendid.
With age, they droop down in folds.
The truth of the Truth-speaker’s words
doesn’t change.Like plaintain buds in their color,
my teeth were once splendid.
With age, they’re broken & yellowed.
The truth of the Truth-speaker’s words
doesn’t change.Like that of a cuckoo in the dense jungle,
flitting through deep forest thickets:
sweet was the tone of my voice.
With age, it cracks here & there.
The truth of the Truth-speaker’s words
doesn’t change.Smooth — like a conch shell well-polished —
my neck was once splendid.
With age, it’s broken down, bent.
The truth of the Truth-speaker’s words
doesn’t change.Like rounded door-bars — both of them —
my arms were once splendid.
With age, they’re like dried up patali trees.
The truth of the Truth-speaker’s words
doesn’t change.Adorned with gold & delicate rings,
my hands were once splendid.
With age, they’re like onions & tubers.
The truth of the Truth-speaker’s words
doesn’t change.Swelling, round, firm, & high,
both my breasts were once splendid.
In the drought of old age, they dangle
like empty old water bags.
The truth of the Truth-speaker’s words
doesn’t change.Like a sheet of gold, well-burnished,
my body was splendid.
Now it’s covered with very fine wrinkles.
The truth of the Truth-speaker’s words
doesn’t change.Smooth in their lines, like an elephant’s trunk,
both my thighs were once splendid.
With age, they’re like knotted bamboo.
The truth of the Truth-speaker’s words
doesn’t change.Adorned with gold & delicate anklets,
my calves were once splendid.
With age, they’re like sesame sticks.
The truth of the Truth-speaker’s words
doesn’t change.As if they were stuffed with soft cotton,
both my feet were once splendid.
With age, they’re shriveled & cracked.
The truth of the Truth-speaker’s words
doesn’t change.Such was this physical heap,
now:
A house with its plaster all fallen off.
The truth of the Truth-speaker’s words
doesn’t change.
—Thig 13.1 (Venerable Thanissaro translation)