What is religions hang up with sex

Zombrex

Just reading BreakingNews.ie and it seems when the Pope visits Poland they are going to bann all adverstiments that mention or suggest, amoung other things, sex. This, bizzarely includes sanitary towels.

Can someone please explain the rational the Judo/Christian churches use to justify the idea that sex is a sin, something dirty and depraved, unless used to produce children (then it is wonderful seemingly)?

I understand the real reasons something like this would evolve (who doesn't have some hangups and issues with sex), but I really haven't heard enough off or understood the offical line, beyond "Because God says it is"

Anyone shed some light on this?

Talliesin

Religions tend to have some view on sex, because sex is a very big part of who and what we are.

You can hardly say they all have the same view though, they vary considerably.

Crucifix

Wicknight wrote:

"Because God says it is"

In your average monotheistic religion that's the reasoning behind the majority of stuff.
Seems mad; only doing it because the pope is swinging by, and including non-sexual stuff like sanitary towels.

Dades

Maybe Il Papa had a bad experience with sex and/or sanitary towels and the Poles don't want to provoke his wrath.

robindch

As far as I'm aware, there aren't really very many biblically-derived notions which back up the general idea that sex is dirty, outside of the male-gay-is-abomination and don't-shag-lions texts. Most of it instead seems to come from believers themselves, frequently wracked with exotic guilt-complexes about having "impure" (adulterous, lecherous, etc ) thoughts of one kind or another, and forcing themselves to the simple conclusion that anything at all related to sex is simply horrible and ikky. Another way of looking at it is to notice that many religious people are pretty conservative so they're hardly likely to have very liberated or adventurous notions on sex, particularly if it's somebody else's.

btw, here's a link to that story:

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=182453698&p=y8z4544x4

Zillah

Im a big proponent of the idea that religion's only reason for surviving so long is as a social glue. From societies point of view, sex is incredibly powerful, too much or too little and it can break the society. Religions have evolved, as has religious thinking, to accomodate this.


Many biblical, Torah, Koran etc teachings make perfect sense, even if they are repressive. No sex with siblings? No inbred children. No sex before marraige? No bastards. No sex with the same sex? I suppose it means more babies? If a gay man is forced into having a family, then as long as he doesn't go crazy then the children should be fine...

Valmont

Zillah wrote:

Im a big proponent of the idea that religion's only reason for surviving so long is as a social glue. From societies point of view, sex is incredibly powerful, too much or too little and it can break the society. Religions have evolved, as has religious thinking, to accomodate this.


Many biblical, Torah, Koran etc teachings make perfect sense, even if they are repressive. No sex with siblings? No inbred children. No sex before marraige? No bastards. No sex with the same sex? I suppose it means more babies? If a gay man is forced into having a family, then as long as he doesn't go crazy then the children should be fine...

I suppose the fundamental religious viewpoint on sex started out practical but somewhere along the way it became a little crazy! sanitary towels?

Scofflaw

In the case of Christianity, this can be laid at the doors of Paul, Jerome, and Augustine. Jesus himself is, as usual, either ambiguous or silent on the matter.


cordially,
Scofflaw

lostexpectation

hmm do we know if jesus ever shagged anyone, I don't think so maybe thats got something to do with it.

Tar.Aldarion

I imagine he would have been godly.

Beruthiel

lostexpectation wrote:

hmm do we know if jesus ever shagged anyone, I don't think so maybe thats got something to do with it.

well one rumour has it that he shagged Mary Mag and their decendants now live in france

as for the ST's - aren't women supposed to be 'unclean' during that time every month?
muppets

seamus

Some of it derives from strange interpretations of the book of creation.
Other parts of it are caused by "Lust" being one of the seven deadly sins. Since sex is a lustful act, but is also necessary to preserve the human race, it's "allowed", so long as repentance is paid afterwards. Up until recently (70's), the Catholic church saw it as necessary that women get "cleansed" (spiritually) by a priest and repent after they gave birth to a child.

You'll find that most such "not right" things, tend to be a form of control. You'll find that many churches consider most pleasures (with the exception of enjoying that religion) to be amoral or "sinful". This mainly because people tend to be drawn to perform pleasureable acts. So if you can convince them that pleasure is wrong, then they'll have to come back to you to be saved all the time.

Personally, if I was God, I wouldn't want people to feel guilty about enjoying themselves. I wouldn't give them the ability to feel pleasure if I didn't want them to use it.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Sex makes people happy and if people are made perfectly happy by such worldly acts, then they will no longer look to religion for satisfaction.

It's religion covering its own ass

jtsuited

two words: population control.
Functionalism states that all cultural/religious values serves a function to the survival of that culture.
From this perspective, we see that religious constructs of sex are really an incentive against overpopulation and the problems it brings

But then you have some religions weirdness about artificial contraception?

stakey

Religion is probably the biggest mass control system apart from governance that humanity has created. It wasn't created a social glue but as a top down system by which humanity and all components of humanity can be controlled. It's no wonder then that when it comes to religion alot of time is spent defining the role of sexuality in its followers lives.

Sexuality is perhaps one of the most defining characteristic we carry. To control this is to control humanity which is the ultimate goal of ALL religions.

Crucifix

jtsuited wrote:

But then you have some religions weirdness about artificial contraception?

I would say that while the stuff with sex may have began with the 'officials' knowing it was about population control, they taught it to be immoral and so nowadays the higher-ups don't think of it as population control, just morals. Thus they have seemingly odd views on contraception.

seamus

Anti-contraception comes generally from a particular story in the Old Testament. The names of the protagonists escape me, but basically they have sex, he withdraws and "spills his seed upon the ground". At that point, God brings his wrath upon the two hapless lovers.

It all stems from the long-time belief that the woman was just a vessel for the child - that is, that is that the entire child was in the man's ejaculation, the woman purely kept it safe. This is one of the many cases where the Catholic church clings onto a misinforming parable in the bible, rather than to side with overwhelming, unrefutable scientific evidence. It's also been a tool in the oppression of women for centuries - women who failed to get pregnant or who spawned handicapped children were outcast and even killed because it was believed that they were the ones who were "damaging" the unborn child that was given to them.
A man in "possession" of such a woman had right to divorce her and marry another, leaving her childless, penniless and with no chances in life - no-one would marry her and her family wouldn't accept her back.

Scofflaw

seamus wrote:

Anti-contraception comes generally from a particular story in the Old Testament. The names of the protagonists escape me, but basically they have sex, he withdraws and "spills his seed upon the ground". At that point, God brings his wrath upon the two hapless lovers.

Onan, and his brother's widow, Tamar. The story as told by the Brick Testament.

It's actually quite open as to exactly what Onan did that offended God.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Onan, and his brother's widow, Tamar. The story as told by the Brick Testament.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/er_and_onan/gn38_02c.html

LOL ... lego sex

Also it kinda implies that if God doesn't kill you where you stand then you didn't offend God ... i'm still here, so I imagine I've never displeased God .. woohoo

Húrin

Wicknight wrote:

Can someone please explain the rational the Judo/Christian churches use to justify the idea that sex is a sin, something dirty and depraved, unless used to produce children (then it is wonderful seemingly)?

Don't forget Islam. Yes i think it usually is just because "God" says so. I imagine that God's orders have more credibility when you have faith in his existence.

Zillah wrote:

Im a big proponent of the idea that religion's only reason for surviving so long is as a social glue.

Are you a Neitzsche reader? Because that is one of his central ideas, that religion serves the purpose of being a noble myth that holds society together. Marx also praised religion for giving hope to poeple and societies through bad times.

Dirk Gently

H&#250 wrote: »

. Marx also praised religion for giving hope to poeple and societies through bad times.

I agree Marx made that observation but I don’t think he was praising religion. In fact was the opposite not true. Was he not actually critical of religion because of the fact that religion gave false hope to people and acted as a barrier to people seeking to change the social makeup of society. Hence, the quote "religion is the opium of the people".

In other words, why seek to change a bad system when we can just put our head in the sand, except the status quo and everything will be alright because after our sacrifice in this world we be rewarded in the afterlife. Marx argued for a change in the real world and saw religion as a way of distracting people from the realities of their situation, giving them a fantasy life as a way of coping through troubled times. He seen religion as having the same uses as a drug addiction, an un-real form of escapism and a not very practical way of changing the reality of oppressive social orders such as existed at his time with very little protection for workers and a very harsh environment for people generally.

Zillah

H&#250 wrote: »

Are you a Neitzsche reader?

I should be a Neitzsche reader...

robindch

Cross-posted from the christianity forum...:

It's probably a bit late to say it, but there's a documentary on this evening on Channel 4 at 2250h about that guy Warren Jeffs, the self-styled top prophet of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. A cautionary tale about how easy it is to corrupt yourself and others by publicly practicing your own particular interpretation of your own particular holybook:

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/index.html?hpos=LST

It's on in ten minutes...

Dades

robindch wrote:

It's on in ten minutes...

I missed that - to be fair it did clash with "Peter Benchley's - The Beast" on the sci-fi channel.

But I did see Phil Collins on "Room 101" earlier with Paul Merton giving out about TV Evangelists...

Funsterdelux

I still only have the 4 local channels, damn I miss BBC 2 and Channel 4

stevejazzx

Actually religon (christianity) and sex started out quite logically.
The human being was to repect his body and other peoples bodies as gifts.
Procreation brings us a child who are the most prescious gifts we recieve from life, therefore the act of sex which brings about such things should be respected.
From the 10 commandents of course we have 'thou shall covet thy neighbours wife' (neighbours here meaning all other people and wife meaning woman in most circumstances at least).
So the catholic church decided that any no man shall ever covet any woman else it be declared a sin.
So over the course of time(in particular before the 20th century) with religous dominance in some areas and the ever growing fear of gods retribution in the hearts of believers, a massive social repression of all thing s sexual began.
Then we have all the variant interpretation s from mainstream religous breakways and cults and what not until we've reached a situation where noone knows what right and whats wrong and a blanket ban on all things sexual as a result from the church, banning things like condoms and sanitary towels etc.
So essentially in the 20th century sex is turned into the largest merchandisable product ever and church freaks out and horribly overstates the evilness of sex and ends up by forcing more and more people away from religon.
Tragically such ugly repressive dogma operates inside the church especially impacting on preists etc. and we have sadly seen some of the consequences of this practice with sexually inept and defunct men living in fear of their own bodies and shameful of their feeling s and seeking secret gratification with the most vulnerable and innocent of society.
Finally we have an antiquated leader of the catholic church in such fear and disbelief at modern society and it's sexual apetite that he starts banning things like advertisements for sanitary towels......

HelterSkelter

H&#250 wrote: »

Don't forget Islam....

Islam doesn't teach that "sex is a sin, something dirty and depraved, unless used to produce children". In fact Islam is quite the opposite and encourages sex once it is between a married couple. Oral sex is also allowed (it does forbid anal sex though).

pH

stevejazzx wrote:

Tragically such ugly repressive dogma operates inside the church especially impacting on preists etc. and we have sadly seen some of the consequences of this practice with sexually inept and defunct men living in fear of their own bodies and shameful of their feeling s and seeking secret gratification with the most vulnerable and innocent of society.

You mentioned something which I've thought was true for a while, that the incidence of paedophilia among Catholic priests was too high.

What dawned on me was that maybe they weren't particulary attracted to children (any more than any man), but they needed some outlet for their sexual desires. Having sexual contact with adults was far riskier, and possibly children being available, easier to force their will on, and easier to make be quiet - made them targets, rather than any inate desire to have sex with children.

So in effect celibacy caused the child abuse, and the origins of celibacy it has long been claimed lie in the protection of church property rather than spiritual reasons.
http://www.libchrist.com/bible/catholiccelibacy.html

Dades

stevejazzx wrote:

Finally we have an antiquated leader of the catholic church in such fear and disbelief at modern society and it's sexual apetite that he starts banning things like advertisements for sanitary towels......

As far as I could gather it was the Polish authorities, under pressure from the Polish RC church that insisted ads for these and other items be pulled for the duration of the visit. (Not that I'm defending the Il Papa's own policies).

I'd have to agree that a lifetime of celebacy is not natural for any man - and has to take some blamed for some of the attrocities that have come to light.

Asiaprod

jtsuited wrote:

two words: population control.

We could probably edit that down to a single word, control. Short and simple, sex is a way to totally control any group. Tell them its sinful and and will lead to damnation, then tell them they can indulge safely only if they keep the faith and get married. Looks a lot more to me like the ultimate case of survival of the species, in other words, a self-sustaining mechanisim.

stevejazzx

pH wrote:

You mentioned something which I've thought was true for a while, that the incidence of paedophilia among Catholic priests was too high.
..... having sexual contact with adults was far riskier, and possibly children being available, easier to force their will on, and easier to make be quiet - made them targets, rather than any inate desire to have sex with children.

So in effect celibacy caused the child abuse, and the origins of celibacy it has long been claimed lie in the protection of church property rather than spiritual reasons.
http://www.libchrist.com/bible/catholiccelibacy.html

What's essential here in your post is there was no special attraction toward childern in particular, they were essentially victims of the disease of the celibacy.