user7751: Until and unless I become enlightened I will be driven by my needs. At times I am aware and these urges do not overpower me but not always. What is wrong here according to Buddhism? Enjoyment? If yes that is the case then with all people who are enjoying writing in this forum. Desire to help others masquerades as compassion. I find desires as the central point of origin of actions. I have my doubts whether compassion is the real force. I think compassion is mixed with desire in all our actions till we are liberated. Please enlighten me. 
For the sake of clarity I am just a regular Joe not a monk.

user5191: There is nothing wrong with enjoying sex, so long as you don't mind suffering.
Let me turn the question around on you: If you were never able to have sex again, even though your desire and drive to do so remained, how would that make you feel?
Judging by your question and the comments you have made, I would assume this would cause you suffering.
This is all that the Buddha is saying. Such a mind-state of clinging and craving will plant the seed for potential future suffering. You cannot suffer because you can't have sex, if you don't want to have sex to begin with.
Likewise, a mind free from craving, free from anger, and free from delusion, seeing clearly the transient, unsatisfying nature of all impermanent phenomena, is a mind with no potential to suffer.
This is the Buddha's teaching: This leads to this, that leads to that. That is all.
It really is true, I can tell you from my own experience. If you give the Buddhas teaching a fair chance and put it into practice, you will likely see very quickly in meditation how perturbed the mind becomes by the constant craving for sensuality.
I am very much like you, in fact. Before my first meditation course last year, I loved having sex, and indulging in sensuality. I thought it was great, and the more I got, the happier I was.
When I attended the course, at first it was very nice, sitting in silence. It was very peaceful. For the first day, at least.
After this, for the next few following days, my mind was bombarded with lust.
All day, for several days, my mind cried out for the object of its desire, and every time it did, I brought it back to the present moment. This was true suffering. My mind was inflamed. Not because I needed to have sex; clearly not having sex will not kill you, but instead, because in this meditative state, I could clearly see how this craving was inflaming my mind.
I can tell you this, this lust is like a thirst that is never quenched. The object of your desire can never quench your thirst; as soon as you have it, it is gone, like sand falling through your fingers. As soon as you get it, it's gone, and before long you need more.
This is why we are always in search for more, never knowing peace, always wanting. We're chasing a mirage of water that will never quench our thirst.
A simile by Ajahn Chah illustrates this well:

Maggots
When we give rise to right view in our hearts, we can be at ease wherever we are. It's because we still have wrong views, still hold onto ideas that are poisonous, that we're not at ease. Holding on in this way is like being a maggot. Where it lives is filthy; its food is filthy. Its food isn't fit to be food — but it seems fitting to the maggot. Try taking a stick and flicking it out of the excrement where it's feeding, and see what happens. It'll wiggle and wriggle, eager to get back to the pile of excrement where it was before. Only then does it feel right.
It's the same with you monks and novices. You still have wrong views. Teachers come and advise you on how to have right view, but it doesn't feel right to you. You keep running back to your pile of excrement. Right view doesn't feel right because you're used to your old pile of excrement. As long as the maggot doesn't see the filth in where it's living, it can't escape. It's the same with us. As long as we don't see the drawbacks of those things, we can't escape from them. They make it difficult to practice.

We can sit here all day discussing the Dhamma, but in the end, the only thing that will truly convince you of the Buddhas teaching is to give it a fair chance yourself and put it into practice. Seeing first hand that what the Buddha says is in fact the way that the mind and body work together is the only way to know for yourself the path that leads to the cessation of suffering.

user-1: "Until and unless i become enlightened I will be driven by my needs. At times I am aware and these urges do not overpower me but not always. What is wrong here according to Buddhism?"
The essential problem in Buddhism are all phenomena which are characterized as dukkha (and our craving for them, more on that bellow). Bhikkhu Bodhi explains that dukkha is:

The unsatisfactoriness of the conditioned due to impermanence, its vulnerability to pain and its inability to provide complete and lasting satisfaction.
-- Majjhima Nikāya, intro (Bodhi)

In a gist, dukkha is everything that is impermanent.
On the subject of "needs", there are many kinds of needs and desires. In Buddhism, they can be seen as wholesome or unwholesome.  Wholesome is that which leads to well-fare, non-suffering, pleasing destinations after death, or ultimately, Nirvana. Unwholesome is that which does not.
According to Buddhism, desires associate to the senses [hearing, sight, touch, smell, taste and thoughts/ideas/emotions], are defined as sensual pleasures. These are unwholesome.
The Buddha acknowledges a range of characteristics about sensual pleasures: that there is some gratification in them, that there is danger in them, that they have origin, that they are impermanent, and that they can be escaped from. As such, he defines our bond to sensuality:

(1) “And what, bhikkhus, is the bond of sensuality? Here, someone does not understand as they really are the origin and the passing away, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in regard to sensual pleasures. When one does not understand these things as they really are, then sensual lust, sensual delight, sensual affection, sensual infatuation, sensual thirst, sensual passion, sensual attachment, and sensual craving lie deep within one in regard to sensual pleasures. This is called the bond of sensuality.
-- AN 4.10

The sensual bond and it's nurturing is, in essence, problematic for two reasons:

Obtaining sensual pleasure may not be satisfying, or the satisfaction from them is always temporary (thus, they are dukkha) -- leading for craving more or something else in an eternal cycle to appease lust.

“Bhikkhus, the body is impermanent. What is impermanent is dukkha.
-- SN 35.1

Not obtaining what we need/desire is a source of pain and suffering:

"Lord, might there be agitation over what is externally not present?"
  "There might, monk," the Blessed One said. "There is the case where someone thinks, 'O, it was mine! O, what was mine is not! O, may it be mine! O, I don't obtain it!' He grieves & is tormented, weeps, beats his breast, & grows delirious. It's thus that there is agitation over what is externally not present."


Obtaining the sense pleasures one wants (and further developing craving, because it's satisfaction is temporary) or failing to obtain them / failing to find satisfaction is a potential for further serious problems:

"Again, with sensual pleasures as the cause, sensual pleasures as the source, sensual pleasures as the basis, the cause being simply sensual pleasures, people indulge in misconduct of body, speech, and mind."
-- MN 13 (Bodhi trans.)

Furthermore, these misconducts lead to bad outcomes -- more suffering here & now -- and/or bad destinations (more suffering after death).
Now, the fundamental/existential "desire" that keeps us bound to the cycle of birth and death subject to suffering is called craving (pali tanha). Craving is the second noble truth -- the origin of dukkha -- and it's permanent cessation yields permanent/everlasting freedom from dukkha, from suffering, Nirvana (third noble truth).
Therefore, delighting in forms, in touch, in smells, in sounds, in tastes...are unwholesome. They are unwholesome because such delights do not bring craving to an end, but essentially just nurture it. In it's worse form, it can further cloud our minds and make us do things that bring more suffering to ourselves and others (as summarized above). Because of it's danger and because renunciation to them is a safer (and arguably faster) path to Nirvana, the Buddha taught the monks to abstain and not look for such delights. However, he did not taught lay people to not have sex, but just to not have sexual misconduct. 
Also, there are some schools that seem to try to use sex in a way to develop oneself in the path -- but that's beyond my knowledge.
On the other hand, there are desires that are beneficial (that helps one in his training to attain Nirvana) but they are not associated with sensual desires. They are desires for renunciation, desires for harmlessness, desire for the well-fare of beings, desire for their non-suffering, desires for attaining Nirvana.

"And what is right effort? There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen... for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen... for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen... (and) for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This is called right effort.
-- MN 141

These desires orient our action towards wholesome actions. 
While unwholesome actions  are defined as those rooted in greed, hatred and delusion:

greed being all sorts of craving and lust
hatred being all forms of negative mental states of aversion and ill will
and delusion being the non understanding of the impermanent nature of phenomena (e.g. wish that something pleasuring was permanent) and non understanding of our thirst and how it plays our minds (e.g. creating illusion of a permanent self). 

...wholesome actions are defined in the negative: actions rooted in non-greed, non-hatred and non-delusion. These actions are said to lead to better outcomes, and better destinations (after death) or Nirvana.
"Enjoyment? If yes that is the case then with all people who are enjoying writing in this forum."
There are many kinds of enjoyment. The Buddha compares sensual pleasures with other forms of happiness in the following passage:

[...] The pleasure and joy arising dependent on these five strands of sense desire, that is called sensual pleasure.
"Now, if someone were to say: 'This is the highest pleasure and joy that can be experienced,' I would not concede that. And why not? Because there is another kind of pleasure which surpasses that pleasure and is more sublime. And what is this pleasure? Here, quite secluded from sensual desires, secluded from unwholesome states of mind, a monk enters upon and abides in the first meditative absorption (jhana), which is accompanied by thought conception and discursive thinking and has in it joy and pleasure born of seclusion. This is the other kind of pleasure which surpasses that (sense) pleasure and is more sublime.  
"If someone were to say: 'This is the highest pleasure that can be experienced,' I would not concede that. And why not? Because there is another kind of pleasure which surpasses that pleasure and is more sublime. And what is that pleasure? Here, with the stilling of thought conception and discursive thinking... a monk enters upon and abides in the second meditative absorption... in the sphere of the infinity of space... of the infinity of consciousness... of no-thingness... of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. [...] the cessation of perception and feeling. [...] This is the other kind of pleasure which surpasses that pleasure and is more sublime.
"It may happen, Ananda, that Wanderers of other sects will be saying this: 'The recluse Gotama speaks of the Cessation of Perception and Feeling and describes it as pleasure. What is this (pleasure) and how is this (a pleasure)?'
"Those who say so, should be told: 'The Blessed One describes as pleasure not only the feeling of pleasure. But a Tathagata describes as pleasure whenever and whereinsoever it is obtained.'"
-- Pañcakanga Sutta, SN 36.19

In another exposition, the Buddha distinguishes between worldly joys and unworldly joys. For example:

"Now, O monks, what is worldly joy? There are these five cords of sense desire [...]. It is the joy that arises dependent on these five cords of sense desire which is called 'worldly joy.
"Now what is unworldly joy? Quite secluded from sense desires, secluded from unwholesome states of mind, a monk enters upon and abides in the first meditative absorption [...]. This is called 'unworldly joy.
-- Niramisa Sutta: Unworldly, SN 36.31

It can be seen in the suttas that, in general, happiness, joy, contentment (or, specifically, the wholesome kinds) are at the very heart of the teachings. 
In that case, reading and posting texts of buddha-dhamma here can produce a kind of joy. Provided such joy is associated with the well-fare for beings and with the desire for beings to attain freedom from suffering, then it is understood to be of a wholesome kind.
"Desire to help others masquerades as compassion."
Compassion is, indeed, a desire.
"I find desires as the central point of origin of actions."
Rightly so.

(in a comment): "You need to give me a sutta which clearly defines when sex has karmic repercussions for householders. No sutta of Buddha talks about sex for householders explicitly." 
The only teaching for householders I know on this subject is on the five precepts which includes "abstaining from sexual misconduct".
I'm also not aware of any sutta elaborating on karmic repercussions of sex specifically for householders. I would actually find it odd to find such distinction, as if the nature of action/karma would be different depending if a person is householder or monk.
In general, regardless of who engages in sex (householder or monk),  what most people infer from passages such as AN 9.7 is that sexual intercourse is rooted on taṇhā:

It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to engage in sexual intercourse.

Also, a sutta that has been analyzed in light of this issue is the Alagaddūpama sutta (MN 22, The Simile of the Snake). In it, the monk Ariṭṭha professes his understanding of the buddha dhamma as 

"As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those things called obstructions by the Blessed One are not able to obstruct one who engages in them."

and is strongly debunked by the Buddha. It seems the commentary explains that his issue is about sex. Nyanaponika Thera notes:

he conceived the view that sex indulgence was not necessarily an obstruction for a monk. Arittha is said to have used a rather sophistic argument, saying, "If some of the five sense enjoyments are permissible even for lay adherents who are stream-enterers (sotaapanna), etc., why is an exception made as to the visible shape, voice, touch, etc., of women?" According to Comy, Arittha goes so far as to charge the Buddha with exaggerating the importance of the first grave offence (paaraajikaa) for a monk (i.e., sexual intercourse), saying that the emphasis given to it is like the effort of one who tries to chain the ocean.
The similes about sense-desires, given in the following section of the discourse, seem to support the commentarial reference to sexual intercourse.

Gombrich (in How Buddhism began, 1996) and Pyia Tan have also mentioned this episode associated to sex. Pyia Tan writes:

In fact, Ariṭṭha comes up with this clever argument: “If some of the sensual pleasures are permissible to lay-followers who are streamwinners, etc, why is an exception made regarding form, voice, touch, etc,
  of women?”  or of men, for that matter! The Commentary states that Ariṭṭha goes so far as to charge the Buddha of exaggerating the importance of the first grave offence (pārājikā), that of sexual intercourse, claiming that this urgency is like trying to “chain the ocean.” (MA 2:103)

Also, in the Saññoga sutta the Buddha explains how bondage in the context of sexuality arises:

"A man attends inwardly to his masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voice, masculine charms. He is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, he attends outwardly to feminine faculties, feminine gestures, feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voices, feminine charms. He is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, he wants to be bonded to what is outside him, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Delighting, caught up in his masculinity, a man goes into bondage with reference to women. This is how a man does not transcend his masculinity.

It reasonably follows (from text and insight) that a sexual impulse is, by very nature, sensual desire -- the delight in it has the same fundamental characteristics as any other sensual delight, and attempt of depriving oneself from such act raises the same mental effects (e.g. the pain of not having what one desires) as the attempts of depriving oneself from any other sensual desire. It is indeed a "bondage with reference to man/woman".
It's reasonable to conclude, than, that any impulse for sexual intercourse that is not viewed as sensual desire (e.g. seeing it as a kind of desire that is distinct from sensual desire that ought to be "pure" or wholesome) is a faulty view on the nature of that impulse.

user7049: desire is the driving force even behind the strive for awakening and nibbana, the difference is that it's a NOBLE and a WHOLESOME desire, leading towards goals of corresponding quality and ultimately beyond the desire itself, whereas worldly desires are and do the direct oppostite
compassion is genuine as much as our mental hindrances and defilements are gotten rid off, the further one is positioned on a spiritual path the more refined and sublime their wholesome qualities are
compassion, being a wholesome and a noble quality, is certainly to be cultivated

user985: Until and unless I become enlightened I will be driven by my needs. At times I am aware and these urges do not overpower me but not always. What is wrong here according to Buddhism? Enjoyment?
As I can see in the comments of your question, you are obviously aware that the rules of monk and laypeople are different. Laypeople are allowed to have sex and are just refrained from engaging in sexual misconduct. These are the distinctions drawn by the Buddha so that practitioners might develop as much as possible in the practice, considering their 'conventional' realities. Although the ultimate reality is same for one and all and it is the prerogative of the individual to determine how much one could immerse oneself in the practice.
Buddha did not condemn enjoyment. The whole Noble Eightfold path is the way to eternal happiness. But what might be wrong in the process of enjoyment is our 'Ignorance'. Ignorance is considering something that is Anicca (Impermanent), Dukkha (Source of Suffering), Anatta (Non-Self) as Permanent, Source of Happiness and Self. Ignorance is the root cause of all miseries. Ignorance is eradicated by cultivating Wisdom.
So what could be wrong with enjoyment? You could get addicted to it considering it to be permanent, source of happiness and self. And why is addiction wrong? Here is an answer by U Tin Lwin from this paper, Vipassana and Vedana as Understood by a Novice:

Avijja is the origin of upadana, which is the developed form of tanha (craving). It is this tanha that gives rise in its turn to every fresh rebirth. For instance, when a man covets something belonging to another person, he tries to get it by some unlawful means which may be theft or even robbery. Such an act is akusala-kamma (evil deed). On the other hand, he gives alms hoping to enjoy wealth in the next existence. Such an act, though it may be labelled kusala-kamma (good deed), is also led by tanha. He is then bound to be reborn in another existence to enjoy or to suffer in accordance with his kamma (deeds). Even if he knows enjoyment only in that existence, he cannot escape dukkha, he remains subject to old age, illness, death and other suffering. Never does one's enjoyment last forever, because nothing in the world is permanent; everything is indeed transitory and certain to change. It is the same old story, each time his rebirth takes place he encounters all kinds of dukkha and struggles with them. So one's samsara (cycle of births) goes on and on without any prospect of coming to an end. Samsara in a way resembles an enormous whirlpool in an ocean in which innumerable beings, including divine, go round and round, sometimes submerging and at other times surfacing, but never finding any way out.

The whole article is really beautiful and covers many common misconceptions. The ultimate truth is the same for one and all. Ignorance might be bliss but the ultimate truth liberates from the cycles of Samsara.

user151: Sex(1) is unwholesome(2) according to the Buddha's teaching. 
If one is on this forum just to enjoy oneself then that is probably unwholesome. If the real intention to be on this forum is to learn and/or help people then that is most likely a wholesome intention and is good kamma.
Wanting to be compassionate is a wholesome intention. Not everything we want is unwholesome.
(2) Unwholesome actions lead to suffering. Unwholesome actions are usually entangled with a wrong view of self, nonacceptance of reality and/or not letting go of reality.
(3) Wholesome actions are usually in harmony with acceptance of reality, letting go of reactions to reality  and/or the correct view of self
(1) Why is sex between consenting adult laypeople unwholesome? I don't know precisely but I do have faith in the Buddha's teaching. Even just wanting to exist is also unwholesome, so I wouldn't get my feathers ruffled over it.

7751: <p>Until and unless I become enlightened I will be driven by my needs. At times I am aware and these urges do not overpower me but not always. What is wrong here according to Buddhism? Enjoyment? If yes that is the case then with all people who are enjoying writing in this forum. Desire to help others masquerades as compassion. I find desires as the central point of origin of actions. I have my doubts whether compassion is the real force. I think compassion is mixed with desire in all our actions till we are liberated. Please enlighten me. 
For the sake of clarity I am just a regular Joe not a monk.</p>
 5191: <p>There is nothing wrong with enjoying sex, so long as you don't mind suffering.</p>
<p>Let me turn the question around on you: If you were never able to have sex again, even though your desire and drive to do so remained, how would that make you feel?</p>
<p>Judging by your question and the comments you have made, I would assume this would cause you suffering.</p>
<p>This is all that the Buddha is saying. Such a mind-state of clinging and craving will plant the seed for potential future suffering. You cannot suffer because you can't have sex, if you don't want to have sex to begin with.</p>
<p>Likewise, a mind free from craving, free from anger, and free from delusion, seeing clearly the transient, unsatisfying nature of all impermanent phenomena, is a mind with no potential to suffer.</p>
<p>This is the Buddha's teaching: This leads to this, that leads to that. That is all.</p>
<p>It really is true, I can tell you from my own experience. If you give the Buddhas teaching a fair chance and put it into practice, you will likely see very quickly in meditation how perturbed the mind becomes by the constant craving for sensuality.</p>
<p>I am very much like you, in fact. Before my first meditation course last year, I loved having sex, and indulging in sensuality. I thought it was great, and the more I got, the happier I was.</p>
<p>When I attended the course, at first it was very nice, sitting in silence. It was very peaceful. For the first day, at least.</p>
<p>After this, for the next few following days, my mind was bombarded with lust.</p>
<p>All day, for several days, my mind cried out for the object of its desire, and every time it did, I brought it back to the present moment. This was true suffering. My mind was inflamed. Not because I needed to have sex; clearly not having sex will not kill you, but instead, because in this meditative state, I could clearly see how this craving was inflaming my mind.</p>
<p>I can tell you this, this lust is like a thirst that is never quenched. The object of your desire can never quench your thirst; as soon as you have it, it is gone, like sand falling through your fingers. As soon as you get it, it's gone, and before long you need more.</p>
<p>This is why we are always in search for more, never knowing peace, always wanting. We're chasing a mirage of water that will never quench our thirst.</p>
<p>A simile by Ajahn Chah illustrates this well:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Maggots</p>
<p>When we give rise to right view in our hearts, we can be at ease wherever we are. It's because we still have wrong views, still hold onto ideas that are poisonous, that we're not at ease. Holding on in this way is like being a maggot. Where it lives is filthy; its food is filthy. Its food isn't fit to be food — but it seems fitting to the maggot. Try taking a stick and flicking it out of the excrement where it's feeding, and see what happens. It'll wiggle and wriggle, eager to get back to the pile of excrement where it was before. Only then does it feel right.</p>
<p>It's the same with you monks and novices. You still have wrong views. Teachers come and advise you on how to have right view, but it doesn't feel right to you. You keep running back to your pile of excrement. Right view doesn't feel right because you're used to your old pile of excrement. As long as the maggot doesn't see the filth in where it's living, it can't escape. It's the same with us. As long as we don't see the drawbacks of those things, we can't escape from them. They make it difficult to practice.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We can sit here all day discussing the Dhamma, but in the end, the only thing that will truly convince you of the Buddhas teaching is to give it a fair chance yourself and put it into practice. Seeing first hand that what the Buddha says is in fact the way that the mind and body work together is the only way to know for yourself the path that leads to the cessation of suffering.</p>
 -1: <p><strong>"<em>Until and unless i become enlightened I will be driven by my needs. At times I am aware and these urges do not overpower me but not always. What is wrong here according to Buddhism?</em>"</strong></p>

<p>The essential problem in Buddhism are all phenomena which are characterized as <em>dukkha</em> (and our craving for them, more on that bellow). Bhikkhu Bodhi explains that <em>dukkha</em> is:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The unsatisfactoriness of the conditioned due to impermanence, its vulnerability to pain and its inability to provide complete and lasting satisfaction.</p>
  
  <p>-- Majjhima Nikāya, intro (Bodhi)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In a gist, <em>dukkha</em> is everything that is impermanent.</p>

<p>On the subject of "needs", there are many kinds of needs and desires. In Buddhism, they can be seen as wholesome or unwholesome.  Wholesome is that which leads to well-fare, non-suffering, pleasing destinations after death, or ultimately, Nirvana. Unwholesome is that which does not.</p>

<p>According to Buddhism, desires associate to the senses [hearing, sight, touch, smell, taste and thoughts/ideas/emotions], are defined as <em>sensual pleasures</em>. These are unwholesome.</p>

<p>The Buddha acknowledges a range of characteristics about sensual pleasures: that there is some gratification in them, that there is danger in them, that they have origin, that they are impermanent, and that they can be escaped from. As such, he defines our bond to sensuality:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(1) “And what, bhikkhus, is the bond of sensuality? Here, someone does not understand as they really are the origin and the passing away, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in regard to sensual pleasures. When one does not understand these things as they really are, then sensual lust, sensual delight, sensual affection, sensual infatuation, sensual thirst, sensual passion, sensual attachment, and sensual craving lie deep within one in regard to sensual pleasures. This is called the bond of sensuality.</p>
  
  <p>-- <a href="https://suttacentral.net/en/an4.10" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 4.10</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>The sensual bond and it's nurturing is, in essence, problematic for two reasons:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>Obtaining sensual pleasure may not be satisfying, or the satisfaction from them is always temporary (thus, they are <em>dukkha</em>) -- leading for craving more or something else in an eternal cycle to appease lust.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>“Bhikkhus, the body is impermanent. What is impermanent is <em>dukkha</em>.</p>
  
  <p>-- <a href="https://suttacentral.net/en/sn35.1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 35.1</a></p>
</blockquote></li>
<li><p>Not obtaining what we need/desire is a source of pain and suffering:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Lord, might there be agitation over what is externally not present?"<br>
  "There might, monk," the Blessed One said. "There is the case where someone thinks, 'O, it was mine! O, what was mine is not! O, may it be mine! O, I don't obtain it!' He grieves &amp; is tormented, weeps, beats his breast, &amp; grows delirious. It's thus that there is agitation over what is externally not present."</p>
</blockquote></li>
</ul>

<p>Obtaining the sense pleasures one wants (and further developing craving, because it's satisfaction is temporary) or failing to obtain them / failing to find satisfaction is a potential for further serious problems:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Again, with sensual pleasures as the cause, sensual pleasures as the source, sensual pleasures as the basis, the cause being simply sensual pleasures, people indulge in <strong>misconduct of body, speech, and mind.</strong>"</p>
  
  <p>-- MN 13 (Bodhi trans.)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Furthermore, these misconducts lead to bad outcomes -- more suffering here &amp; now -- and/or bad destinations (more suffering after death).</p>

<p>Now, the fundamental/existential "desire" that keeps us bound to the cycle of birth and death subject to suffering is called <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca2/tanha.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">craving</a> (pali <em>tanha</em>). <em>Craving</em> is the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca2/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">second noble truth</a> -- the origin of <em>dukkha</em> -- and it's permanent cessation yields permanent/everlasting freedom from <em>dukkha</em>, from suffering, Nirvana (<a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca3/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">third noble truth</a>).</p>

<p>Therefore, delighting in forms, in touch, in smells, in sounds, in tastes...are unwholesome. They are unwholesome because such delights do not bring craving to an end, but essentially just nurture it. In it's worse form, it can further cloud our minds and make us do things that bring more suffering to ourselves and others (as summarized above). Because of it's danger and because renunciation to them is a safer (and arguably faster) path to Nirvana, the Buddha taught the monks to abstain and not look for such delights. However, he did not taught lay people to not have sex, but just to not have sexual misconduct. </p>

<p>Also, there are some schools that seem to try to use sex in a way to develop oneself in the path -- but that's beyond my knowledge.</p>

<p>On the other hand, there are desires that are beneficial (that helps one in his training to attain Nirvana) but they are not associated with sensual desires. They are desires for renunciation, desires for harmlessness, desire for the well-fare of beings, desire for their non-suffering, desires for attaining Nirvana.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"And what is right effort? There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds &amp; exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen... for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen... for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen... (and) for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, &amp; culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This is called right effort.</p>
  
  <p>-- <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.141.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 141</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>These desires orient our action towards wholesome actions. </p>

<p>While <em>unwholesome actions</em>  are defined as those rooted in <em>greed</em>, <em>hatred</em> and <em>delusion</em>:</p>

<ul>
<li>greed being all sorts of craving and lust</li>
<li>hatred being all forms of negative mental states of aversion and ill will</li>
<li>and delusion being the non understanding of the impermanent nature of phenomena (e.g. wish that something pleasuring was permanent) and non understanding of our thirst and how it plays our minds (e.g. creating illusion of a permanent self). </li>
</ul>

<p>...<em>wholesome actions</em> are defined in the negative: actions rooted in non-greed, non-hatred and non-delusion. These actions are said to lead to better outcomes, and better destinations (after death) or Nirvana.</p>

<p><em>"<strong>Enjoyment? If yes that is the case then with all people who are enjoying writing in this forum.</strong>"</em></p>

<p>There are many kinds of enjoyment. The Buddha compares sensual pleasures with other forms of happiness in the following passage:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>[...] The pleasure and joy arising dependent on these five strands of sense desire, that is called sensual pleasure.</p>
  
  <p>"Now, if someone were to say: 'This is the highest pleasure and joy that can be experienced,' I would not concede that. And why not? Because there is another kind of pleasure which surpasses that pleasure and is more sublime. And what is this pleasure? Here, quite secluded from sensual desires, secluded from unwholesome states of mind, a monk enters upon and abides in the first meditative absorption (jhana), which is accompanied by thought conception and discursive thinking and has in it joy and pleasure born of seclusion. This is the other kind of pleasure which surpasses that (sense) pleasure and is more sublime.  </p>
  
  <p>"If someone were to say: 'This is the highest pleasure that can be experienced,' I would not concede that. And why not? Because there is another kind of pleasure which surpasses that pleasure and is more sublime. And what is that pleasure? Here, with the stilling of thought conception and discursive thinking... a monk enters upon and abides in the second meditative absorption... in the sphere of the infinity of space... of the infinity of consciousness... of no-thingness... of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. [...] the cessation of perception and feeling. [...] This is the other kind of pleasure which surpasses that pleasure and is more sublime.</p>
  
  <p>"It may happen, Ananda, that Wanderers of other sects will be saying this: 'The recluse Gotama speaks of the Cessation of Perception and Feeling and describes it as pleasure. What is this (pleasure) and how is this (a pleasure)?'</p>
  
  <p>"Those who say so, should be told: 'The Blessed One describes as pleasure not only the feeling of pleasure. But a Tathagata describes as pleasure whenever and whereinsoever it is obtained.'"</p>
  
  <p>-- <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.019.nypo.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Pañcakanga Sutta, SN 36.19</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>In another exposition, the Buddha distinguishes between worldly joys and unworldly joys. For example:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Now, O monks, what is worldly joy? There are these five cords of sense desire [...]. It is the joy that arises dependent on these five cords of sense desire which is called 'worldly joy.</p>
  
  <p>"Now what is unworldly joy? Quite secluded from sense desires, secluded from unwholesome states of mind, a monk enters upon and abides in the first meditative absorption [...]. This is called 'unworldly joy.</p>
  
  <p>-- <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.031.nypo.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Niramisa Sutta: Unworldly, SN 36.31</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>It can be seen in the suttas that, in general, happiness, joy, contentment (or, specifically, the wholesome kinds) are at the very heart of the teachings. </p>

<p>In that case, reading and posting texts of buddha-dhamma here can produce a kind of joy. Provided such joy is associated with the well-fare for beings and with the desire for beings to attain freedom from suffering, then it is understood to be of a wholesome kind.</p>

<p><em>"<strong>Desire to help others masquerades as compassion.</strong>"</em></p>

<p>Compassion is, indeed, a desire.</p>

<p><em>"<strong>I find desires as the central point of origin of actions.</strong>"</em></p>

<p>Rightly so.</p>

<hr>

<p>(in a <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/14405/i-enjoy-sex-just-like-i-enjoy-good-movie-what-is-wrong-about-it#comment24300_14421">comment</a>): <em>"<strong>You need to give me a sutta which clearly defines when sex has karmic repercussions for householders. No sutta of Buddha talks about sex for householders explicitly.</strong>"</em> </p>

<p>The only teaching for householders I know on this subject is on the five precepts which includes "abstaining from sexual misconduct".</p>

<p>I'm also not aware of any sutta elaborating on karmic repercussions of sex specifically for householders. I would actually find it odd to find such distinction, as if the nature of action/karma would be different depending if a person is householder or monk.</p>

<p>In general, regardless of who engages in sex (householder or monk),  what most people infer from passages such as <a href="https://suttacentral.net/en/an9.7" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 9.7</a> is that sexual intercourse is rooted on <em>taṇhā</em>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to engage in sexual intercourse.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Also, a sutta that has been analyzed in light of this issue is the <a href="https://suttacentral.net/en/mn22" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Alagaddūpama sutta</a> (MN 22, The Simile of the Snake). In it, the monk Ariṭṭha professes his understanding of the buddha dhamma as </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those things called obstructions by the Blessed One are not able to obstruct one who engages in them."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>and is strongly debunked by the Buddha. It seems the commentary explains that his issue is about sex. Nyanaponika Thera <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.nypo.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">notes</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>he conceived the view that sex indulgence was not necessarily an obstruction for a monk. Arittha is said to have used a rather sophistic argument, saying, "If some of the five sense enjoyments are permissible even for lay adherents who are stream-enterers (sotaapanna), etc., why is an exception made as to the visible shape, voice, touch, etc., of women?" According to Comy, Arittha goes so far as to charge the Buddha with exaggerating the importance of the first grave offence (paaraajikaa) for a monk (i.e., sexual intercourse), saying that the emphasis given to it is like the effort of one who tries to chain the ocean.</p>
  
  <p>The similes about sense-desires, given in the following section of the discourse, seem to support the commentarial reference to sexual intercourse.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Gombrich (in <em>How Buddhism began</em>, 1996) and <a href="http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/3.13-Alagaddupama-S-m22-piya.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Pyia Tan</a> have also mentioned this episode associated to sex. Pyia Tan writes:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In fact, Ariṭṭha comes up with this clever argument: “If some of the sensual pleasures are permissible to lay-followers who are streamwinners, etc, why is an exception made regarding form, voice, touch, etc,
  of women?”  or of men, for that matter! The Commentary states that Ariṭṭha goes so far as to charge the Buddha of exaggerating the importance of the first grave offence (pārājikā), that of sexual intercourse, claiming that this urgency is like trying to “chain the ocean.” (MA 2:103)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Also, in the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.048.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Saññoga sutta</a> the Buddha explains how bondage in the context of sexuality arises:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"A man attends inwardly to his masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voice, masculine charms. He is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited &amp; delighted by that, he attends outwardly to feminine faculties, feminine gestures, feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voices, feminine charms. He is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited &amp; delighted by that, he wants to be bonded to what is outside him, wants whatever pleasure &amp; happiness that arise based on that bond. Delighting, caught up in his masculinity, a man goes into bondage with reference to women. This is how a man does not transcend his masculinity.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It reasonably follows (from text and insight) that a sexual impulse is, by very nature, <em>sensual desire</em> -- the delight in it has the same fundamental characteristics as any other sensual delight, and attempt of depriving oneself from such act raises the same mental effects (e.g. the pain of not having what one desires) as the attempts of depriving oneself from any other sensual desire. It is indeed a "bondage with reference to man/woman".</p>

<p>It's reasonable to conclude, than, that any impulse for sexual intercourse that is not viewed as sensual desire (e.g. seeing it as a kind of desire that is distinct from sensual desire that ought to be "pure" or wholesome) is a faulty view on the nature of that impulse.</p>
 7049: <p>desire is the driving force even behind the strive for awakening and nibbana, the difference is that it's a NOBLE and a WHOLESOME desire, leading towards goals of corresponding quality and ultimately beyond the desire itself, whereas worldly desires are and do the direct oppostite</p>

<p>compassion is genuine as much as our mental hindrances and defilements are gotten rid off, the further one is positioned on a spiritual path the more refined and sublime their wholesome qualities are</p>

<p>compassion, being a wholesome and a noble quality, is certainly to be cultivated</p>
 985: <p><strong>Until and unless I become enlightened I will be driven by my needs. At times I am aware and these urges do not overpower me but not always. What is wrong here according to Buddhism? Enjoyment?</strong></p>
<p>As I can see in the comments of your question, you are obviously aware that the rules of monk and laypeople are different. Laypeople are allowed to have sex and are just refrained from engaging in sexual misconduct. These are the distinctions drawn by the Buddha so that practitioners might develop as much as possible in the practice, considering their 'conventional' realities. Although the ultimate reality is same for one and all and it is the prerogative of the individual to determine how much one could immerse oneself in the practice.</p>
<p>Buddha did not condemn enjoyment. The whole Noble Eightfold path is the way to eternal happiness. But what might be wrong in the process of enjoyment is our 'Ignorance'. Ignorance is considering something that is <em>Anicca</em> (Impermanent), <em>Dukkha</em> (Source of Suffering), <em>Anatta</em> (Non-Self) as Permanent, Source of Happiness and Self. Ignorance is the root cause of all miseries. Ignorance is eradicated by cultivating Wisdom.</p>
<p>So what could be wrong with enjoyment? You could get addicted to it considering it to be permanent, source of happiness and self. And why is addiction wrong? Here is an answer by U Tin Lwin from this paper, <a href="http://www.vridhamma.org/Vipassana-and-Vedanaas-Understood-by-a-Novice" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Vipassana and Vedana as Understood by a Novice</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Avijja is the origin of upadana, which is the developed form of tanha (craving). It is this tanha that gives rise in its turn to every fresh rebirth. For instance, when a man covets something belonging to another person, he tries to get it by some unlawful means which may be theft or even robbery. Such an act is akusala-kamma (evil deed). On the other hand, he gives alms hoping to enjoy wealth in the next existence. Such an act, though it may be labelled kusala-kamma (good deed), is also led by tanha. He is then bound to be reborn in another existence to enjoy or to suffer in accordance with his kamma (deeds). Even if he knows enjoyment only in that existence, he cannot escape dukkha, he remains subject to old age, illness, death and other suffering. Never does one's enjoyment last forever, because nothing in the world is permanent; everything is indeed transitory and certain to change. It is the same old story, each time his rebirth takes place he encounters all kinds of dukkha and struggles with them. So one's samsara (cycle of births) goes on and on without any prospect of coming to an end. Samsara in a way resembles an enormous whirlpool in an ocean in which innumerable beings, including divine, go round and round, sometimes submerging and at other times surfacing, but never finding any way out.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The whole article is really beautiful and covers many common misconceptions. The ultimate truth is the same for one and all. Ignorance might be bliss but the ultimate truth liberates from the cycles of Samsara.</p>
 151: <p>Sex(1) is unwholesome(2) according to the Buddha's teaching. </p>

<p>If one is on this forum just to enjoy oneself then that is probably unwholesome. If the real intention to be on this forum is to learn and/or help people then that is most likely a wholesome intention and is good kamma.</p>

<p>Wanting to be compassionate is a wholesome intention. Not everything we want is unwholesome.</p>

<p>(2) Unwholesome actions lead to suffering. Unwholesome actions are usually entangled with a wrong view of self, nonacceptance of reality and/or not letting go of reality.</p>

<p>(3) Wholesome actions are usually in harmony with acceptance of reality, letting go of reactions to reality  and/or the correct view of self</p>

<p>(1) Why is sex between consenting adult laypeople unwholesome? I don't know precisely but I do have faith in the Buddha's teaching. Even just wanting to exist is also unwholesome, so I wouldn't get my feathers ruffled over it.</p>
