The fact that millions of people share the same vices does not make these vices virtues, the fact that they share so many errors does not make the errors to be truths, and the fact that millions of people share the same forms of mental pathology does not make these people sane.

Indeed, the tremendous energy in the forces producing mental illness, as well as those behind art and religion, could never be understood as an outcome of frustrated or sublimated physiological needs; they are attempts to solve the problem of being born human.

It follows...that mental health cannot be defined in terms of the "adjustment" of the individual to his society, but, on the contrary, that it must be defined in terms of the adjustment of society to the needs of man, of its role in furthering or hindering the development of mental health.

Wow. Powerful. And, as Chris Ryan (www.SexatDawn.com) comments, "a lot of men certainly know from experience that variety is an important element in their sexual response and that a lifetime of monogamy—even with the woman of their dreams—is an intimidating prospect. Whether this represents “fear” [of commitment] or self-knowledge is an.. open question." I suspect, though, it in fact represents both. The prisons we have made for ourselves are really sad.

http://www.nerve.com/content/a-ladies-man-and-shameless

It is the pleasure of the bee to gather honey of the flower. But it is also the pleasure of the flower to yield its honey to the bee. To both, the giving and receiving of pleasure is a need and an ecstasy. (Gibran)

The Mulla was riding his donkey into town one day when he was stopped by a famous philosopher of morality traveling through the village to give a talk in a larger town nearby. The philosopher introduced himself and asked the Mulla if he knew a good place to have lunch. The Mulla suggested one of his favorite places, and the scholar, both thankful for the suggestion and hungry for a good conversation, invited the Mulla to join him. The Mulla happily agreed, since he wanted to know what a philosopher of morality was really all about.

When they arrived at the restaurant, the waiter came to the table and told them about the special of the day, which happened to be fresh fish.  ”Bring us two specials,” they told the waiter. Within minutes, the waiter brought out a large platter with two delicious-looking fish, one of which was much larger than the other. Without a moment’s hesitation, the Mulla grabbed the larger fish for himself, placing it quickly on his plate.

The philosopher couldn’t believe his eyes and sat there in disbelief for several minutes without touching the smaller fish remaining on the large platter. Finally, when he just couldn’t restrain himself any longer, he told the Mulla in an indignant and morally self-righteous way that taking the larger fish was not only selfish but also violated the moral and ethical laws of every known spiritual tradition. The philosopher then went on to explain these laws in great detail, and why one should always allow others to choose first.

The Mulla listened carefully and patiently to everything the philosopher said, and then simply asked him what he would have done.

“Well, I, being a considerate and moral person, would have taken the smaller fish,” the philosopher replied without a thought.

The Mulla then asked him: “Would being considerate and moral and choosing the smaller fish make you happy?”

“Yes, of course,” the philosopher quickly responded. “The moral action brings us the deepest levels of happiness.”