<p>If you do any sexual act with someone under guardianship, protection or care, then it breaks the 3rd precept, regardless of the nature of the act. The party providing guardianship, protection or care can be oneself, partner, family, government, religious institution, etc.</p>

<p>The 1st precept is about killing and the 5th precept is taking intoxicants.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-01T06:19:37.620Z
2019-07-01T06:19:37.620Z
Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena
<p>It doesn't break the first precept because sperm is not a sentient being.</p>

<p>It doesn't break the fifth precept because anal sex is not an intoxicating substance like alcohol or recreational drugs.</p>

<p>It may break the third precept, but that depends on WHO the sex partner is, rather than WHAT the sex act is. You can read <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/1371/471">this answer</a> for details.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-08-02T01:11:54.527Z
2019-08-02T01:11:54.527Z
ruben2020
<p>In VinayaPitaka <a href="http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/read/roman_read.php?B=1&amp;A=995&amp;eng=suttacentral" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Pathamaparajika</a>, Pathamaparajika  precept will be perfectly completely broken when bhikkhu's penis <strong>immediately</strong> touching 3 holes, vagina, <strong>anal</strong>, and mouth.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Exposition part 2 </p>
  
  <p>Voluntary sexual intercourse </p>
  
  <p>If a monk has the intention of association and he lets his penis enter a human female
  through the anus … through the vagina … through the mouth, he commits
  an offense entailing expulsion. If a monk has the intention of
  association and he lets his penis enter a non-human female … a female
  animal … a human hermaphrodite … a non-human hermaphrodite … an animal
  hermaphrodite through the anus … through the vagina … through the
  mouth, he commits an offense entailing expulsion. If a monk has the
  intention of association and he lets his penis enter a sexually
  nonconformist human … a sexually nonconformist spirit … a sexually
  nonconformist animal … a human male … a male spirit … a male animal
  through the anus … through the mouth, he commits an offense entailing
  expulsion.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-08-01T03:54:17.723Z
What about for lay people?
ruben2020
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-08-01T04:04:48.357Z
Atthakatha specified the same for the 3th of 8 precepts. And for masturbation and the Abrahmmacariya (Acting like Brahmma), 3th of 8 precepts, brahmma can't masturbate themselves because they attained Jhana which is the opposite of masturbation and sex. So the masturbation is not allow for the 8 precepts as well, even the Atthakatha never explain to the masturbation.
Bonn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-08-01T03:48:50.573Z
2019-08-01T13:58:59.030Z
2019-08-01T13:58:59.030Z
Bonn
<p>Obviously, anal sex performed by a husband on a wife would not break the literal teaching found in the 3rd precept. However, its often voyeuristic nature tends to place it within the sphere of mere lust, which is unwholesome, unless the wife genuinely rather than begrudgingly consents to the act. </p>

<p>In certain societies, anal sex was a common way for men to have sex with their wives and avoid pregnancy. However, many wives resented it. If a wife resented this, it would be an unwholesome act, not based in real love. But if the wife enjoyed it &amp; was happy to do it, I suppose it would be OK (ignoring the fact the anus being something not really designed for sexual penetration). </p>

<p>Similarly, if committed homosexual partners sincerely wish to practise anal sex, it seems OK, I suppose (i.e., ignoring whatever risks are involved). But if anal sex is part of some <em>domination</em> or <em>aggression</em> motivation, it would not be OK. </p>

<p>Sex exists in nature for reproduction. However, it is acknowledged in religion that sexual desire is also something "oppressive"; that often needs to be "managed". When questions about sexual morality arise from the perspective of "sexual desire management", it becomes more complex &amp; less straightforward. But when sex is for reproduction, sexual morals is easier to define. </p>

<p>Naturally, ordinary male &amp; female relationships have children as a very strong factor that naturally binds the relationship. When people, be they homosexual or heterosexual, engage in childless relationships, this lacks the natural children factor that helps define ethics and also greatly helps maintain the relationship. </p>

<p>For example, when a <strong>wise</strong> man sees marriage &amp; children are the optimal life for a woman, a wise man can easily generate compassion towards women and even lose sexual desire towards women (and thus easily become a monk or enter samadhi). In the Buddhist suttas, wise men left the household family villlage life because they could see the business of reproduction &amp; family life was a burden &amp; bondage. For homosexuals, however, such a perspective is lacking. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-01T01:46:26.360Z
2019-07-01T02:19:15.133Z
2019-07-01T02:19:15.133Z
Dhamma Dhatu
<p>Would the Buddha have considered engaging in anal sex as breaking the 1st and/or 5th precepts?</p>

<p>I would like to know this as I am trying to better understand the 5 precepts. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-10-29T13:52:05.373Z
Noted. The 5 Silas. The five-precepts.
Angus
<the-buddha><ethics><five-precepts><sexuality><sexual-misconduct>
Would the Buddha have considered engaging in anal sex as breaking the 1st and/or 5th precept?
# Would the Buddha have considered engaging in anal sex as breaking the 1st and/or 5th precept?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-07-01)

Would the Buddha have considered engaging in anal sex as breaking the 1st and/or 5th precepts?

I would like to know this as I am trying to better understand the 5 precepts.

**Tags:** the-buddha, ethics, five-precepts, sexuality, sexual-misconduct

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Noted. The 5 Silas. The five-precepts.  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2019-07-01. Score: 3

Obviously, anal sex performed by a husband on a wife would not break the literal teaching found in the 3rd precept. However, its often voyeuristic nature tends to place it within the sphere of mere lust, which is unwholesome, unless the wife genuinely rather than begrudgingly consents to the act.

In certain societies, anal sex was a common way for men to have sex with their wives and avoid pregnancy. However, many wives resented it. If a wife resented this, it would be an unwholesome act, not based in real love. But if the wife enjoyed it & was happy to do it, I suppose it would be OK (ignoring the fact the anus being something not really designed for sexual penetration).

Similarly, if committed homosexual partners sincerely wish to practise anal sex, it seems OK, I suppose (i.e., ignoring whatever risks are involved). But if anal sex is part of some *domination* or *aggression* motivation, it would not be OK.

Sex exists in nature for reproduction. However, it is acknowledged in religion that sexual desire is also something "oppressive"; that often needs to be "managed". When questions about sexual morality arise from the perspective of "sexual desire management", it becomes more complex & less straightforward. But when sex is for reproduction, sexual morals is easier to define.

Naturally, ordinary male & female relationships have children as a very strong factor that naturally binds the relationship. When people, be they homosexual or heterosexual, engage in childless relationships, this lacks the natural children factor that helps define ethics and also greatly helps maintain the relationship.

For example, when a **wise** man sees marriage & children are the optimal life for a woman, a wise man can easily generate compassion towards women and even lose sexual desire towards women (and thus easily become a monk or enter samadhi). In the Buddhist suttas, wise men left the household family villlage life because they could see the business of reproduction & family life was a burden & bondage. For homosexuals, however, such a perspective is lacking.


---

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-07-01. Score: 1

If you do any sexual act with someone under guardianship, protection or care, then it breaks the 3rd precept, regardless of the nature of the act. The party providing guardianship, protection or care can be oneself, partner, family, government, religious institution, etc.

The 1st precept is about killing and the 5th precept is taking intoxicants.


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2019-08-02. Score: 1

It doesn't break the first precept because sperm is not a sentient being.

It doesn't break the fifth precept because anal sex is not an intoxicating substance like alcohol or recreational drugs.

It may break the third precept, but that depends on WHO the sex partner is, rather than WHAT the sex act is. You can read [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/1371/471) for details.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2019-08-01. Score: 1

In VinayaPitaka [Pathamaparajika](http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/read/roman_read.php?B=1&A=995&eng=suttacentral), Pathamaparajika precept will be perfectly completely broken when bhikkhu's penis **immediately** touching 3 holes, vagina, **anal**, and mouth.

> Exposition part 2
>
> Voluntary sexual intercourse
>
> If a monk has the intention of association and he lets his penis enter a human female
> through the anus … through the vagina … through the mouth, he commits
> an offense entailing expulsion. If a monk has the intention of
> association and he lets his penis enter a non-human female … a female
> animal … a human hermaphrodite … a non-human hermaphrodite … an animal
> hermaphrodite through the anus … through the vagina … through the
> mouth, he commits an offense entailing expulsion. If a monk has the
> intention of association and he lets his penis enter a sexually
> nonconformist human … a sexually nonconformist spirit … a sexually
> nonconformist animal … a human male … a male spirit … a male animal
> through the anus … through the mouth, he commits an offense entailing
> expulsion.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: What about for lay people?  
> **username_3**: Atthakatha specified the same for the 3th of 8 precepts. And for masturbation and the Abrahmmacariya (Acting like Brahmma), 3th of 8 precepts, brahmma can't masturbate themselves because they attained Jhana which is the opposite of masturbation and sex. So the masturbation is not allow for the 8 precepts as well, even the Atthakatha never explain to the masturbation.  

---

