Is it true that there is nothing interesting in women?

Beloved Osho, I thought I heard you say that if one goes deeply into sex it will eventually drop off by itself. I have thought long and hard about this, desperately trying to penetrate its hidden meaning, but all I got was a headache.

No medical researcher has come to the conclusion, but I say it from my own discoveries that I go on and on making -- I'm an incurable discoverer -- and sooner or later science will have to agree with me. The sex center exists in the head, not in the genitals -- that much science has come to know. And if the sex center exists in the head and not in the genitals, then sex deprivation can create a headache. It will not create genital ache because there is nothing... it is only an extension of a certain center in your mind. Why have people started thinking -- and doctors have started even advising their patients -- that sex is good for your mental health? And they are right: all the people who have repressed sex in the past in the name of religion, have suffered tremendously with headaches. Even…

When a child is born, his first contact with the world is the mother’s breast. The first “other” is the mother’s breast. Through it he begins his journey. Hence the male’s fascination with the breast. It is the first imprint—no other imprint is deeper. That is why images, statues, films, stories all circle around the breast. In a woman’s body, it is the breast that most bewitches a man’s mind. Women busy themselves in covering them; men, in uncovering. Both know where the juice lies. The more “civilized” a society becomes, the more acute this difficulty. In primitive tribes there is little fascination with breasts; women are bare, and children may nurse as long as they wish. Even at ten, if he drinks, no one objects. In civilized societies the wish is to wean as early as possible. The earlier the weaning, the more fascination remains.

Osho, why do women like to be attractive to men when they also resent their sexual desires?

Now that is simple logic. If she says yes, you reduce her to a mechanism; you use her. And nobody wants to be used. It is the other side of the same power politics. Power means the capacity to use the other, and when somebody uses you your power is gone, you are reduced to powerlessness. So no woman wants to be used. And you have been doing that down the ages. Love has become an ugly thing. It should be the greatest glory, but it is not -- because man has been using woman and the woman resents it, resists it, naturally. She does not want to be reduced to a commodity. That's why you will see husbands just wagging their tails around their wives and their wives in such an attitude that they are above all this nonsense -- holier-than-thou. The wives go on pretending that they are…

Osho, yesterday you spoke about the feminine mystery of existence. Kindly shed more light on this subject in greater detail.

All the dimensions of existence can be divided into the feminine and the masculine. The division of woman and man is not merely a sexual division. In Lao Tzu’s vision, the division into feminine and masculine is the very dialectics of life, an essential part of life’s dialectical evolution. Man and woman differ not only at the level of the body; they also differ at the level of the mind. Wherever existence manifests, there the polarity of feminine and masculine will appear. But in understanding Lao Tzu, keep one thing in mind: the masculine is the transient form of existence, and the feminine is its eternal form. Like the wave that rises on the ocean—its rising is momentary. The ocean was there before the wave, and will be there after the wave. Femininity is the ocean of existence; the masculine is a passing wave. Hence the Judaic tradition that narrates…

Osho, I’ve become intoxicated, drinking again and again the wine poured in your tavern. Osho, the world burns at the sight of lovers, but even the other drinkers in your own tavern are so opposed to love—especially fifty percent of the Indians who have been with you for the last ten or twelve years. Our foreign friends feel happy seeing lovers, but the Indians not only burn with jealousy, they look at them with a criminal eye and gossip sarcastically for hours. This crowd knows only one meaning of love—“sex.” Why is that? Is there no other dimension of love, especially in the relationship betw

I would like these friends to drift away little by little. Even their questions that come to me are not worth answering—trash questions with no purpose or value. In the relationship of man and woman, the Indian mind has held only one notion: there can be only one bond—sexual. That friendship can exist between man and woman has never been part of Indian tradition. Indian tradition has never had the courage to conceive friendship between man and woman. Sex is one relationship. It is not the whole. Friendship is also possible—and it should be. A beautiful, cultured person should have enough capacity to befriend a woman or a man. Friendship means there is no question of bodily give‑and‑take; it is a connection of souls. In the West this happens: a man and a woman can have a friendship like that between two men or two women. The basis can be…