Does religious anti-sex hysteria boil down to sexual frustration?

dilbert2

I've been thinking about the obsession that many religious people have with sex, including the church itself. Or more to the point, their obsession with demonising sex despite sex been a completely natural process. And it got me wondering if perhaps much of the argument made by the anti-sex religious brigade (who often insist on using words such as promiscuous and immorality) boils down to sexual repression, or maybe not getting sex all that often, if at all as a result of religious beliefs?

Take the church itself for instance, its members have sworn to a life of chastity. While many religious people do not commit to a life of chastity (obviously they have kids), many do not do it very often, if at all and often view sex as a necessary evil in the process of procreation. Considering such factors, is it possible that a lot of religious people's obsession with sex boils down to sexual repression through indoctrination since childhood that "sex is bad", and perhaps even sexual frustration lurking underneath, coming out as raging arguments against sexuality and perceived promiscuity?

I would not blame such people for been so frustrated, to me sex is something completely natural, something all animals do and have done since the dawn of time, and that includes sleeping about without a care in the world. Could it be that a lot of religious people through repressing their completely natural sexual needs, and as a result of perhaps sexual frustration attempt to demonise sex at all possibilities, and particularly demonise those they consider to be "promiscuous" or immoral because they are sexually frustrated themselves?

hondasam

How many times did you type sex, are you frustrated?

freeze4real

They could always have a ****

efb

They just need a good ride!

padd b1975

dilbert2 wrote: »

I've been thinking about the obsession that many religious people have with sex, including the church itself. Or more to the point, their obsession with demonising sex despite sex been a completely natural process. And it got me wondering if perhaps much of the argument made by the anti-sex religious brigade (who often insist on using words such as promiscuous and immorality) boils down to sexual repression, or maybe not getting sex all that often, if at all as a result of religious beliefs?

Take the church itself for instance, its members have sworn to a life of chastity. While many religious people do not commit to a life of chastity (obviously they have kids), many do not do it very often, if at all and often view sex as a necessary evil in the process of procreation. Considering such factors, is it possible that a lot of religious people's obsession with sex boils down to sexual repression through indoctrination since childhood that "sex is bad", and perhaps even sexual frustration lurking underneath, coming out as raging arguments against sexuality and perceived promiscuity?

I would not blame such people for been so frustrated, to me sex is something completely natural, something all animals do and have done since the dawn of time, and that includes sleeping about without a care in the world. Could it be that a lot of religious people through repressing their completely natural sexual needs, and as a result of perhaps sexual frustration attempt to demonise sex at all possibilities, and particularly demonise those they consider to be "promiscuous" or immoral because they are sexually frustrated themselves?

Humans and dolphins are the only ones who do it for pleasure. The rest do it just to reproduce.

Sex for pleasure is just not the done thing in the animal world.

ejmaztec

hondasam wrote: »

How many times did you type sex, are you frustrated?

He's very religious, and sex-obssession goes with the territory apparently.

Saila

padd b1975 wrote: »

Humans and dolphins are the only ones who do it for pleasure. The rest do it just to reproduce.

Sex for pleasure is just not the done thing in the animal world.

what .the f.uck

dilbert2

hondasam wrote: »

How many times did you type sex, are you frustrated?

Not at all.

farna_boy

Or could it be to help prevent the spread of disease?

Historically, the priests and leaders of any religion would have been far more educated than the general population, and by saying that God commanded that you only had one sexual partner, the spread of disease could be prevented.

Like so many other things, this reasoning could have been lost throughout the ages and the teaching that "sex is bad" could have replaced it.

chin_grin

dilbert2 wrote: »

I've been thinking about the obsession that many religious people have with sex, including the church itself. Or more to the point, their obsession with demonising sex despite sex been a completely natural process. And it got me wondering if perhaps much of the argument made by the anti-sex religious brigade (who often insist on using words such as promiscuous and immorality) boils down to sexual repression, or maybe not getting sex all that often, if at all as a result of religious beliefs?

Take the church itself for instance, its members have sworn to a life of chastity. While many religious people do not commit to a life of chastity (obviously they have kids), many do not do it very often, if at all and often view sex as a necessary evil in the process of procreation. Considering such factors, is it possible that a lot of religious people's obsession with sex boils down to sexual repression through indoctrination since childhood that "sex is bad", and perhaps even sexual frustration lurking underneath, coming out as raging arguments against sexuality and perceived promiscuity?

I would not blame such people for been so frustrated, to me sex is something completely natural, something all animals do and have done since the dawn of time, and that includes sleeping about without a care in the world. Could it be that a lot of religious people through repressing their completely natural sexual needs, and as a result of perhaps sexual frustration attempt to demonise sex at all possibilities, and particularly demonise those they consider to be "promiscuous" or immoral because they are sexually frustrated themselves?

Repetition of any word makes any article\rant unbearable to sex. Dammit!

ejmaztec

Saila wrote: »

what .the f.uck

There was probably a Daily Mail article on sexed-up dolphins.

Paparazzo

Saila wrote: »

what .the f.uck

The bible is just against it when you do it in the blowhole. It's the best way though :mad:

hondasam

ejmaztec wrote: »

He's very religious, and sex-obssession goes with the territory apparently.

I don't want to go to heaven, I will keep sinning.

dilbert2 wrote: »

Not at all.

Glad to hear it, are you sure?

cruiser178

padd b1975 wrote: »

Humans and dolphins are the only ones who do it for pleasure. The rest do it just to reproduce.

Sex for pleasure is just not the done thing in the animal world.

I thought monkeys did the deed in all types of positions, for the craic.

Irish Guitarist

padd b1975 wrote: »

Humans and dolphins are the only ones who do it for pleasure. The rest do it just to reproduce.

Sex for pleasure is just not the done thing in the animal world.

The bonobo has sex for pleasure too. They even like oral sex. The males have a great time with each other too.

Bonobo males occasionally engage in various forms of male-male genital behavior.[43][44] In one form, two males hang from a tree limb face-to-face while "penis fencing".[45][46] This also may occur when two males rub their penises together while in face-to-face position. Another form of genital interaction, called "rump rubbing", occurs to express reconciliation between two males after a conflict, when they stand back-to-back and rub their scrotal sacs together. Takayoshi Kano observed similar practices among bonobos in the natural habitat.

Saila

these things are about sex before marriage, not sex itself. why do you think people got married so young back in the day 19 was normal and so was having 5-8+ kids! :eek:

contraception changed all that though!

dilbert2

hondasam wrote: »

Glad to hear it, are you sure?

Yes I am sure. I got the idea for starting this thread after reading posts made by a Christian on another thread harping on about promiscuity in modern Ireland.

ejmaztec

Paparazzo wrote: »

The bible is just against it when you do it in the blowhole. It's the best way though :mad:

They're still looking for you in Dingle, ya pervert.:(

padd b1975

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

The bonobo has sex for pleasure too. They even like oral sex. The males have a great time with each other too.

I salute your superior knowledge of gay animal sex.
It is clear you are very well read on this subject...... for some reason.

Irish Guitarist

padd b1975 wrote: »

I salute your superior knowledge of gay animal sex.
It is clear you are very well read on this subject...... for some reason.

The date stone beetle, or button beetle, is even more fascinating. They don't engage in gay sex but there's plenty of incest and cannibalism.

When a flying unfertilized female reaches a target such as a date stone, sweet almond, betel nut, nutmeg, cinnamon bark[3] or a button made from vegetable ivory, hence the name "button beetle"), she bores a hole in it and excavates a chamber. (Males cannot penetrate the stone.[2]) Inside, she produces a brood of four or five males. She mates with the first son that reaches maturity, then proceeds to eat them all. She then enlarges the chamber and lays a brood of about 70 offspring. Some of the females mate with their brothers.[4][5]

padd b1975

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

The date stone beetle, or button beetle, is even more fascinating.

Sure is.

*smiles politely*

philologos

dilbert2 wrote: »

I've been thinking about the obsession that many religious people have with sex, including the church itself. Or more to the point, their obsession with demonising sex despite sex been a completely natural process. And it got me wondering if perhaps much of the argument made by the anti-sex religious brigade (who often insist on using words such as promiscuous and immorality) boils down to sexual repression, or maybe not getting sex all that often, if at all as a result of religious beliefs?

Take the church itself for instance, its members have sworn to a life of chastity. While many religious people do not commit to a life of chastity (obviously they have kids), many do not do it very often, if at all and often view sex as a necessary evil in the process of procreation. Considering such factors, is it possible that a lot of religious people's obsession with sex boils down to sexual repression through indoctrination since childhood that "sex is bad", and perhaps even sexual frustration lurking underneath, coming out as raging arguments against sexuality and perceived promiscuity?

I would not blame such people for been so frustrated, to me sex is something completely natural, something all animals do and have done since the dawn of time, and that includes sleeping about without a care in the world. Could it be that a lot of religious people through repressing their completely natural sexual needs, and as a result of perhaps sexual frustration attempt to demonise sex at all possibilities, and particularly demonise those they consider to be "promiscuous" or immoral because they are sexually frustrated themselves?

I think you're right in many ways that unfortunately many religious people are obsessed with sexuality. I think we need to reel this back in a minute though.

Christians aren't opposed to sexuality. Christians believe that sexuality has been given to humankind as a gift from God. I.E - It's a good thing. What you may be misconstruing is that Christians believe that there is an appropriate context for sexuality. That context is marriage. Claiming that one disagrees with sex other than in a marriage is not the same thing as saying that sex is bad. They are not mutually exclusive.

Christians believe that men and women are brought together in love. That love is solidified in marriage and of course is expressed sexually in that marriage.

There's not much repressive about that. It values sexuality as fundamentally important and as being worthy of respect.

Let me know what you think. I feel that your post while accurate in many ways is inaccurate in others.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

Christians believe that there is an appropriate context for sexuality. That context is marriage.

The ceremonies for which they of course had/have a monopoly on and make good money from. They are simply attempting to privatize aspects of the human condition for their own profit really.

Marriage is neither a requirement nor the sole "appropriate context" for sex or sexuality, nor has religion got any claims on the subject. Especially when many people of religion go to such lengths to deny marriage to people like homosexuals which would provide the "appropriate context" for their sex that the religious claim exists.

So not only are they attempting to privatize it for their own profit, they wish to use that product as a control rod for who can have sex with whom and when. Religion, as always, appears to be nothing more than a tool for profit and control.

efb

We're not swans

MetalDog

He'res one for all you prudish christian types:


The most astounding finding from the newly discovered lead codices is that Jesus Christ was unambiguously and openly gay. He and his disciples formed a same-sex coterie, bound by feelings of love and mutual support. There are recorded instances of same-sex activity – the "beloved disciple" plays a significant role – and there is affirmation of the joys of friendship and of living and loving together.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/04/jesus-gay-man-codices?INTCMP=SRCH

Sleepy

Thou shalt not argue with Stephen Fry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEhtOhwL8xk

(credit to efb who initially sent me the link)

corktina

is it alright having sex with Dolphins? Im not a great swimmer.

Teclo

Sleepy wrote: »

Thou shalt not argue with Stephen Fry

A pompous self-obsessed misogynistic fairy, he's not really worth arguing with.

chughes

What it all boils down to it that religious organisations are based on money, power, and influence. Spirituality usually comes a poor 4th. By attempting to regulate the sexual activities of its members, the organisation has reached into the minds and bedrooms as a form of control.

This has been a feature going back centuries and I would very much doubt that the people making up these rules and regulations were denying themselves the "pleasures of the flesh".

So, in answer to OP's question I would say no. They were at it themselves but wanted to exert control over their followers.

sbsquarepants

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Bonobo males occasionally engage in various forms of male-male genital behavior. In one form, two males hang from a tree limb face-to-face while "penis fencing".

I think you'll find the correct term for this activity is "gay monkey cock fighting". Please try get your facts straight before claiming to be some sort of expert!:D

foxyboxer

The immaculate conception. No mickey or fanny related business there.

My Placard.
"THANK GOD FOR SEX. YOU WOULDN'T BE HERE WITHOUT IT"

Cú Giobach

Saila wrote: »

these things are about sex before marriage, not sex itself. why do you think people got married so young back in the day 19 was normal and so was having 5-8+ kids! :eek:

contraception changed all that though!

The change really happened due to a change in society, having children went from being a (financial) asset to being a liability. Having a large number of children increased the families income, more hands on the farm etc.. and meant having them as security in old age, the younger you started having children the better and since being a single mother meant hardship, only having children in wedlock was "advised" or really viable.
Things then changed during the 20th century and it cost more to raise a child than was gained over the life of the child and social security gave a safety net in old age, this then resulted in the need for contraception.
As usual the religions are a bit behind and are still holding on to the old ways and advocating what was for the best in times gone by, ie: Not having children unless married and not using contraception.
Also since people are getting married much later abstaining from sex no longer just means the years between 11/12 and (say) 17/18 about 6 or 7 years, it can often mean until you are 30 or over which is unrealistic, but the Church is still stuck in pre 20th century ideals.

passarellaie

The reality of course is religions have been around for milleniums and hormonal filled juveniles are hardly going to have any perspective as to whats good for society when it gets in the way of their own desires.
Of course now we have a youth centered culture which leads to demands for more liberal protected sex which leads to small or no population growth in the midst of a welfare state which is of course completely unsustainable.
result the collapse of Europe while the emerging economies with fast growing populations continue to grow.
And then eventually in 10 20 50 100m years who knows a return will begin to the Church.Its been the same for centuries

Leftist

passarellaie wrote: »

The reality of course is religions have been around for milleniums and hormonal filled juveniles are hardly going to have any perspective as to whats good for society when it gets in the way of their own desires.
Of course now we have a youth centered culture which leads to demands for more liberal protected sex which leads to small or no population growth in the midst of a welfare state which is of course completely unsustainable.
result the collapse of Europe while the emerging economies with fast growing populations continue to grow.
And then eventually in 10 20 50 100m years who knows a return will begin to the Church.Its been the same for centuries

nice outlook but incorrect. People did not have the freedom to question or leave the church before. Without an iron grip it falls apart. Great news for all concerned except the whack jobs.

saa

Sexual repression is promoted, why on earth would they want their followers to be sexually liberated and free, there has to be a christian way to do everything, to follow or else then you'd have to be a free and critical thinker.

Circumcision was (is still in some scenarios) used as a way to reduced masturbation,
and its also a cosmetic and purity thing.

So from the side of the authority there is a lot more going on to do with control rather than frustration, the followers may be frustrated but more often than not they would genuinely have no interest in doing such acts because they have been taught shame and to think they are dirty for it.

gcgirl

chughes wrote: »

What it all boils down to it that religious organisations are based on money, power, and influence. Spirituality usually comes a poor 4th. By attempting to regulate the sexual activities of its members, the organisation has reached into the minds and bedrooms as a form of control.

This has been a feature going back centuries and I would very much doubt that the people making up these rules and regulations were denying themselves the "pleasures of the flesh".

So, in answer to OP's question I would say no. They were at it themselves but wanted to exert control over their followers.

Two Words
The Borgia's they brought sex to the Vatican

sheesh

padd b1975 wrote: »

Humans and dolphins are the only ones who do it for pleasure. The rest do it just to reproduce.

Sex for pleasure is just not the done thing in the animal world.

chimpanzees too afaik

(ooh matron)

nozzferrahhtoo

padd b1975 wrote: »

Humans and dolphins are the only ones who do it for pleasure. The rest do it just to reproduce.

cruiser178 wrote: »

I thought monkeys did the deed in all types of positions, for the craic.

The bonobo certainly does yes so the "Only Dolphins and Humans" comment is certainly wrong.

They do it at the drop of a hat. Any hat. And then probably while waiting for the next hat to drop. They do not do it "just to reproduce" but do it with just about everyone, all the time. Same sex, opposite sex, infants (bonobo females who are sterile or too young to reproduce still engage in sexual activity), you name it. They have even discovered tongue kissing and oral sex.

Interesting is despite all this, Bonobo reproductive rates are not any higher than those of the common chimpanzee.

parker kent

farna_boy wrote: »

Or could it be to help prevent the spread of disease?

Historically, the priests and leaders of any religion would have been far more educated than the general population, and by saying that God commanded that you only had one sexual partner, the spread of disease could be prevented.

Like so many other things, this reasoning could have been lost throughout the ages and the teaching that "sex is bad" could have replaced it.

This is probably true enough. Lots of religious "rules" were probably invented for wider public safety. Having a problem with your small clan all riding each other and having babies left, right and centre? Use God to get them to pair up. Live in a country where you will be burnt alive unless you cover up? Use religion to get people to cover up.

I imagine a lot of religious elements came from that mindset. Religion was used to control society. Before anybody bursts in about anything from the past 100 years, I am actually going back as far as the Old Testament when these things started up. The message has long since been corrupted by thousands of years of societal change, greed,well meaning etc.

Snakeblood

parker kent wrote: »

This is probably true enough. Lots of religious "rules" were probably invented for wider public safety. Having a problem with your small clan all riding each other and having babies left, right and centre? Use God to get them to pair up. Live in a country where you will be burnt alive unless you cover up? Use religion to get people to cover up.

I imagine a lot of religious elements came from that mindset. Religion was used to control society. Before anybody bursts in about anything from the past 100 years, I am actually going back as far as the Old Testament when these things started up. The message has long since been corrupted by thousands of years of societal change, greed,well meaning etc.

I've always thought that. The bans on shellfish or pig are disease based. religious texts used to be a doctrine for living hundreds of years ago and applying the rules to today without chopping the frankly stupid bits out is silly.

nozzferrahhtoo

Snakeblood wrote: »

I've always thought that. The bans on shellfish or pig are disease based. religious texts used to be a doctrine for living hundreds of years ago and applying the rules to today without chopping the frankly stupid bits out is silly.

This is one of the main motivations I think people like Philologos have for holding on to old religious beliefs in much the same way as a growing child is reluctant to give up his "blankie".

There appears to be a religious notion that to throw "god" out or to hack the stupidity out of the bible would lead us to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

There are things they genuinely find useful, informative and precious in their faith and they are reluctant to let them go. What they fail to see however is that there is absolutely nothing of use in the teachings of books like the bible that one has to hold on to a "god" notion in order to subscribe to.

All the useful things that Jesus said are still useful without assuming there is a god or Jesus was it's son or that he can magically enter crackers when you say latin at them. You can still subscribe to the useful stuff when you get rid of all that.

And when you get rid of all that you can then rationally comment on the useless or even damaging stuff he may have said, and comment on the things he did not say such as his failure to explicitly repudiate slavery. Things people fail to do because they view him as divine or perfect, which is damaging. No one human should be thus elevated and his words should be subject to the same scrutiny I expect mine to be.

Nothing is added to the moral philosophy of people like Jesus by inventing and appending a god. Much harm is done by doing so however.

passarellaie

Leftist wrote: »

nice outlook but incorrect. People did not have the freedom to question or leave the church before. Without an iron grip it falls apart. Great news for all concerned except the whack jobs.

Little Boy/Girl its has been the same for centuries.Juveniles with hormones wanting to knock Mama but as DEATH COMES CLOSER ALL THESE ATHIESTIC NOTIONS DISSAPEAR.As this site is full of juveniles with hormonal disorders its obviously anti Church but in 30 years they come grovelling back to Mama as the cold hole in the ground GETS NEARER AND NEARER AND NEARER

Laisurg

padd b1975 wrote: »

Humans and dolphins are the only ones who do it for pleasure. The rest do it just to reproduce.

Sex for pleasure is just not the done thing in the animal world.

Are you this fella? http://www.3news.co.nz/Man-details-sexual-relationship-with-dolphin-in-book/tabid/418/articleID/226772/Default.aspx

RichieC

Go to the Conservapedia and check out the top hits... just sayin.. (actually they've buried them now...)

Main Page [1,906,729]
Homosexuality [1,572,713]
Homosexuality and Hepatitis [517,086]
Homosexuality and Promiscuity [420,687]
Gay Bowel Syndrome [389,052]
Homosexuality and Parasites [388,123]
Homosexuality and Domestic Violence[365,888]
Homosexuality and Gonorrhea [331,553]
Homosexuality and Mental Health [291,179]
Homosexuality and Syphilisâ [265,322]

issues...

(actually they've buried them now...)

Kanoe

I don't think so. It would be very difficult to discuss this here in Ah but would have no problem delving into it in humanities or a more appropriate forum.

I do remember reading an article that offers another viewpoint on the subject though.

One of the reasons for celibacy in the Catholic Church is the notion that ultimate love cannot accompany sexuality. The perception was that the sexual drive was ultimately selfish and that one showed real love and caring for the other by not using them in the satisfaction of this drive. Love implies selflessness, giving, caring; sexual desire implies wishing something for oneself, a craving to satisfy a need of self and thus of self-interest. As such, the argument was that love and sexuality were mutually exclusive.

In our modern age, it would seem, society has gone to the other extreme, considering almost any sexual act (in the context of mutual consent) as some expression of caring, of "making love". The new perception is that sexuality is a force of bonding that unites all. Love is the yearning to unite with another; sexual desire the fuel that pushes one to join in the most essential of relationships. As such, the argument is that love and sexuality are essentially inclusive.

you can find that linky here

philologos

Cú Giobach wrote: »

As usual the religions are a bit behind and are still holding on to the old ways and advocating what was for the best in times gone by, ie: Not having children unless married and not using contraception.
Also since people are getting married much later abstaining from sex no longer just means the years between 11/12 and (say) 17/18 about 6 or 7 years, it can often mean until you are 30 or over which is unrealistic, but the Church is still stuck in pre 20th century ideals.

I can only think of one. It's a strange habit when discussing this topic that people when they use the term "the Church" are referring to the Roman Catholic Church specifically rather than Christianity as a whole. It's also a strange habit that people assume that because something happens in the Roman Catholic Church that it must happen in numerous religions.

Then again, I wouldn't be surprised that the RCC holds to its position as they hold to a position of objective morality. I.E That if something is wrong, it is wrong perpetually. If something is right, it is right perpetually.

Personally I find no basis for the belief that contraception is prohibited in the Biblical text, as a result I don't hold to it. This is probably true of most non-RCC Christians.

Ellis Dee

I read somewhere that the problems a lot of Irish women have with sex could be summed up in one word: priests.:D

And the problems priests have with sex could be summed up in two words: the Pope.:D

If they have to believe in a sky fairy, why can't they at least accept that it wasn't for stirring their tea that said sky fairy gave men a penis? Enjoy sex while you can. You'll be dead long enough.;);)

Cú Giobach

philologos wrote: »

I can only think of one. It's a strange habit when discussing this topic that people when they use the term "the Church" are referring to the Roman Catholic Church specifically rather than Christianity as a whole. It's also a strange habit that people assume that because something happens in the Roman Catholic Church that it must happen in numerous religions.

Why would it be strange in a predominately catholic country for people to use an abbreviation such as "the church" to refer to the RCC, this is quite normal and a natural use of language.
The OP specifically mentions "the celibate members of the church" this is obviously referring to the RCC.
Numerous religions do have very strict (and usually restrictive) views on sex.

Then again, I wouldn't be surprised that the RCC holds to its position as they hold to a position of objective morality. I.E That if something is wrong, it is wrong perpetually. If something is right, it is right perpetually.

Quite understandable, as change in such an organisation involves individuals changing their thinking on things that they would have believed from an early age to be realities dictated by a god, changes in such situations take generations as individuals with different ideas move higher up in a hierarchy.

Personally I find no basis for the belief that contraception is prohibited in the Biblical text, as a result I don't hold to it. This is probably true of most non-RCC Christians.

Most (if not all) Christian denominations prohibited contraception until the early 20th century.
The Anglican Church didn't change its attitude on contraception and allow it until the 1930's.

Sleepy

passarellaie wrote: »

Little Boy/Girl its has been the same for centuries.Juveniles with hormones wanting to knock Mama but as DEATH COMES CLOSER ALL THESE ATHIESTIC NOTIONS DISSAPEAR.As this site is full of juveniles with hormonal disorders its obviously anti Church but in 30 years they come grovelling back to Mama as the cold hole in the ground GETS NEARER AND NEARER AND NEARER

So we should believe something because it's too scary for it not to be true? :rolleyes: