the sex center plays a very great part in our life

The sex center plays a very great part in our life. 75% of our thoughts come from this center, and they color all the rest.

Views from the Real World p. 126

the chasteness of the monks

Why do religions forbid the sexual act?

Gurdjieff: Because originally we knew the use of this substance, whence the chasteness of the monks. Now we have forgotten this knowledge and there only remains the prohibition which attracts to the monks quantities of specific disorders and illnesses. Look at the priests where they grow "fat like pigs" (the concern about eating dominating them), or they are "skinny as the devil" (and they have inside little love for their neighbor); the fat are less dangerous and certainly more gentle.

Gurdjieff Meeting Paris 8.April 1943

Sex is necessary for health and the equilibrium of the body

For the same reason that you go to the bathroom for this maintenance, you must go to the bathroom for the second excrement which is rejected from you by the sexual function. It is necessary for health and the equilibrium of the body; and certainly it is necessary in some to do it each day, in others each week, in others again every month or every six months. It is subjective. For this you must choose a proper bathroom. One that is good for you.

It is not necessary to mingle the acts of sex with sentiment. It is sometimes abnormal to make them coincide. The sexual act is a function. One can regard it as external to him, although love is internal. Love is love. It has no need of sex. It can be felt for a person of the same sex, for an animal even, and the sexual function is not mixed up there. Sometimes it is normal to unite them, this corresponds to one of the aspects of love. It is easier to love this way. But at the same time it is then difficult to remain impartial as love demands. Likewise if one considers the sexual function as necessary medically, why would one love a remedy, a medicine? The sexual act originally must have been performed only for the purpose of reproduction of the species, but little by little men have made of it a means of pleasure. It must have been a sacred act. One must know that this divine seed, the Sperm, has another function, that of the construction of a second body in us, from whence the sentence, Happy he who understands the function of the exioehary for the transformation of his being. Unhappy he who uses them in a unilateral manner.

Gurdjieff Meeting Paris 8.April 1943

energy for a high purpose

He said that sex, being basically the source of all energy and therefore, potentially, the well-spring, for example, of art, had also become for most people nothing more than the most titillating diversion of the many forms of amusement known to modern man. Because of this, energy that could be used - and was destined to be used - for a serious, and high purpose, was simply wasted; thrown away in a frantic chase after pleasure. While he did not specifically condemn other ordinary, civilized habits, he criticized it from the point of view that any waste is improper to man.

My Jouney with a Mystic p.231

Sex - the source of all energy

In the primary sense, the purpose of sex was reproduction, which was actually only a synonym for creation. Love, therefore, in any sense - whether physical or not - had to be creative. He also said that there was a proper form of what might be called "sublimation" of sexual energy; that sex was the source of all energy and when not used reproductively could still be used in an equally creative sense when sublimated and used as energy for other types of creativity. One of the misuses of sex that had arisen through bad training, the wrong type of education, and improper habits, was that it had become almost the only vital form of human communication. It was possible for people to "join actively" in other ways than physically, to, as he put it, "touch each other's essences", but human beings had lost this faculty many, many years - many centuries - ago.

My Jouney with a Mystic p.178

uncanny sexual power

Regardless of Gurdjieff´s pronounced views of women and sexual activities that condemned onanism, homosexuality and prostitution - exercise of sex for pleasure alone - Gurdjieff´s own sexual relations with women confused pupils and observers alike.

To some pupils he appeared immoral, exhibiting what Samuel Johnson characterized as the morals of a turkish pasha.

Gurdjieff wielded uncanny sexual power over women.

When Jessie Orage complained to Orage about Gurdjieff´s advances, he replied that, ordinarily, he would take offense at such a man´s comportment with his wife, but he didn´t consider Gurdjieff a man.

Gurdjieff, a New Life (Chapter: Gurdjieff and Women)

Sex as a shock factor

Gurdjieff frequently used sex as a kind of shock-factor in dealing with individuals, I remember the case of one young woman, a dancer, whose principal attraction to Gurdjieff's work was that she was allowed to teach his dances to newcomers because she was a good dancer and a reasonably good teacher. Her interest in his work did not, however, seem to go beyond this pleasure in having a position of some
authority. When she once challenged some statement he had made during the course of a lecture, he told her that he would have to give her a personal answer to the questions she was raising and would arrange for someone to give her a definite appointment to see him alone.
That night, after the lecture, he told me to go to her and invite her to come to his room at three o'clock in the morning—alone. He also told me to tell her that he would show her some wonderful things—things that she could not even imagine. When I gave her the message, she listened scornfully and with a show of a good deal of righteous shock and anger told me to tell him that she recognized a "proposition" when she heard one and that not only would she not come to his room but that she would no longer have anything to do with his work.
He was very amused when I relayed this reply to him and said that she had made an unfortunate, for her, but good, for him, choice. He said that her preoccupation with sex was such that she was no longer a good teacher of his dances and that he had chosen this means—face-saving for her—of dismissing her as a teacher. He added, however, that there were times when he was not above "diverting" himself in the
current American fashion and that they might both have been rewarded had she agreed to visit him. Then he went on to say that it was just as well since he did not really have the time to deal with the reverberations that would undoubtedly have followed had she accepted his "proposition". He also said that her refusal would serve her as a topic of conversation and imaginative thought for the rest of her life. On the one hand, she could say that she had "rejected" the great Gurdjieff's advances, and on the other hand she could spend her life wondering what it would have been like had she accepted.
I remember the reaction of one female group member on learning—from the dancer herself, of course, who lost no time in spreading the story—of the incident. With a pained look on her face, she said to me: "If it had only been me! What an opportunity! Can't you get me an appointment?" I suggested that she might approach him directly and let him know of her availability but, again sadly, she had to admit that she "didn't have the nerve".

Fritz Peters - My Journey with a Mystic p.232-233

a Gurdjieff orgy in New York

When we had finished our work, he sat down at the table, told me to sit next to him and then began asking me questions about the English language. It turned out that he wanted to learn, before the guests arrived, all the words for the various parts and functions of the body “that were not in the dictionary”. We spent perhaps two hours repeating every four-letter word that I knew, plus every obscene phrase I could think of. By about seven o’ clock he felt that he was reasonably proficient with our “slang” vocabulary which he, apparently, needed for his dinner. Inevitably, I began to wonder what sort of people would be coming to dinner. At the conclusion of this “lesson” he told me that it was for that lesson that he had been trying to find me, because I was the first person who, some years before in Chicago, had given him the real flavor and meaning of the words “phony” and “leery”; it seems that these words, in the interim, had become very useful in his conversations with his American students. “These very good words,” he said, “raw?... like your America.”
When the guests did arrive, they turned out to be a group of well-dressed, well-mannered New Yorkers, and, since Gurdjieff had gone to “prepare” himself for dinner, I greeted them and, according to his pre­cise instructions, served them drinks.
He did not appear until most of them had been there for about half an hour, and when he greeted them, he was very apologetic for the delay and ex­tremely effusive about how beautiful the ladies looked and how much they were all honouring him by con­senting to be the guests of a poor, humble man like himself. I was actually embarrassed by what seemed to me a very crude form of flattery and by his presen­tation of himself as an unworthy and very obsequious host. But, to my surprise, it seemed to work. By the time they were seated at the dinner table, all the guests were in a very mellow mood (they had had only one drink so it was not due to liquor) and they began, in a somewhat jocular and superior way, to ask him questions about his work and his reasons for coming to America. The general tone of the questions was bored—many of the people present were reporters or jour­nalists—and they behaved as if they were carrying out an assignment to interview some crank. I could already see them making mental notes and could imagine the sort of “funny” interview or feature story they might write. After some questioning by this group, I noticed that Gurdjieff’s voice changed in tone, and as I watched him he gave me a sudden, sly wink.
He then proceeded to tell them that since they were all very superior people that they of course knew—since a simple person like himself knew it, then obviously they did—that humanity in general was in a very sad state and could only be considered as having degenerated into real waste matter, or to use a term that was familiar to all of them, pure “shit”. That this transformation of humankind into something worthless was especially apparent in America—which was why he had come there to observe it. He went on to say that the main cause of this sad state of affairs was that people—especially Americans—were never motivated by intelligence or good feelings, but only by the needs—usually dirty—of their genital organs, using, of course (as he talked) only the four-letter words which he had practised with me earlier. He indicated one very well-dressed, handsome woman, complimented her on her coiffure, her dress, her perfume, etc., and then said that while she, of course, might not want everyone to know her motives or her desires, he and she could be honest with each other—that her reasons for turning herself out so elaborately were because she had a strong sexual urge (as he put it “wish to fuck”) for some particular person and was so tormented by it that she was using every means and every wile she could think of in order to get that person into a bed with her. He said that her urge was parti­cularly, especially strong because she had a very fertile imagination and could already picture herself performing various sexual acts with this man—”such as, how you say in English? ‘Sixty-nine’?”—so that, aided by her imagination, she was now at the point where she would do anything to achieve her aim. While the company was somewhat startled with this disser­tation (not to say “titillated”), before anyone had time to react, he began a description of his own sexual abilities and of his highly imaginative mind, and described himself as capable of sustained sexual acts of incredible variety—such as even the lady in question would not be able to imagine.
He then launched into a detailed description of the sexual habits of various races and nations, during the course of which he pointed out that while the French had a world-wide reputation for amorous prowess, it would be well for the people present to make a note of the fact that those highly civilized French used such words as “Mama” and “Mimi” to describe some of their unnatural and perverted sexual practices. He added, however, that in all justice to the French they were, in reality, very moral people and sexually mis­understood and misrepresented.
The guests had all been drinking heavily during dinner—good old Armagnac as always—and after about two hours of unadulterated four-letter word conversation, their behaviour became completely un­inhibited. Whether they had all come to believe and accept that they had been invited to an orgy, or for whatever reasons, an orgy—or the beginning of one—was the result. Gurdjieff egged them on by giving them elaborate descriptions of the male and female organs, and of some imaginative uses for them, and finally most of the guests were physically entangled in groups in various rooms of the apartment, and in various states of undress. The handsome lady had manoeuvred herself into a small bar with Gurdjieff and was busily making “passes” of a rather inventive nature, at him.
As for me, I was cornered in the kitchen by an overblown, attractive lady who told me that she was outraged that Gurdjieff should use such words in my presence—I did not look more than about seventeen. I explained, quite honestly, that I had taught them all to him—or at least most of them, and she found this suddenly hilarious and promptly made a pass at me. I backed away and told her that, unfortunately, I had to do the dishes. Rebuffed, she glared at me, called me various dirty names and said that the only reason I had turned her down was because I was “that dirty old man’s little faggot”, and only wanted him to “screw” me. I was somewhat startled at this, but remembered Gurdjieff’s reputation for sexual depravity and made no response.
While the other guests were still hard at it, Gurd­jieff suddenly disentangled himself from the lady and told them all, in loud, stentorian tones, that they had already confirmed his observations of the decadence of the Americans and that they need no longer demon­strate for him. He pointed at various individuals, mocked their behaviour and then told them that if they were, thanks to him, now partly conscious of what sort of people they really were, it was an important lesson for them. He said that he deserved to be paid for this lesson and that he would gladly accept cheques and cash from them as they left the apart­ment. I was not particularly surprised, knowing him and having watched the performance of the evening, to find that he had collected several thousand dollars. I was even less surprised when one man told me—as it were, “man to man”—that Gurdjieff, posing as a philosopher, had the best ideas about sex, and the safest “cover” for his orgies, of anyone he had ever known.
When everyone had left, I finished washing the dishes, and to my surprise Gurdjieff came into the kitchen to dry them and put them away. He asked me how I had enjoyed the evening and I said, youthfully and righteously, that I was disgusted. I also told him about my encounter with the lady in the kitchen and her description of my relationship with him. He shrugged his shoulders and said that in such cases the facts were what constituted the truth and that I should never consider or worry about opinions. Then he laughed and gave me a piercing look. “Is fine feeling you have—this disgust, ” he said. “But now is necessary ask yourself one question. With who you disgusted?”
When I was ready to leave the apartment, he stopped me and referred again to my experience with the lady. “Such lady have in self many homosexual tendencies, one reason she pick on you—young-look­ing boy, seem almost like girl to her. Not worry about this thing she say to you. Gossip about sex only give reputation for sexiness in your country, so not important, maybe even feather in hat, as you say. Some day you will learn much more about sex, but this you can learn by self, not from me.”

http://www.bardic-press.com/fourthway/peters2.htm