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

dilbert2 · 21-11-2011 06:51PM #1

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 · 21-11-2011 06:53PM

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

freeze4real · 21-11-2011 06:55PM

They could always have a ****

efb · 21-11-2011 06:56PM

They just need a good ride!

padd b1975 · 21-11-2011 07:00PM

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 · 21-11-2011 07:04PM

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 · 21-11-2011 07:04PM

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 · 21-11-2011 07:06PM

hondasam wrote: »

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

Not at all.

farna_boy · 21-11-2011 07:06PM

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 · 21-11-2011 07:07PM

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 · 21-11-2011 07:07PM

Saila wrote: »

what .the f.uck

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

Paparazzo · 21-11-2011 07:10PM

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 · 21-11-2011 07:10PM

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 · 21-11-2011 07:11PM

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 · 21-11-2011 07:11PM

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 · 21-11-2011 07:14PM

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 · 21-11-2011 07:14PM

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 · 21-11-2011 07:14PM

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 · 21-11-2011 07:15PM

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 · 21-11-2011 07:21PM

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 · 21-11-2011 07:24PM

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

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

Sure is.

*smiles politely*

philologos · 21-11-2011 07:37PM

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 · 22-11-2011 09:31AM

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 · 22-11-2011 09:48AM

We're not swans

MetalDog · 22-11-2011 10:02AM

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 · 22-11-2011 10:22AM

Thou shalt not argue with Stephen Fry

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

(credit to efb who initially sent me the link)

corktina · 22-11-2011 10:27AM

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

Teclo · 22-11-2011 10:31AM

Sleepy wrote: »

Thou shalt not argue with Stephen Fry

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

chughes · 22-11-2011 10:44AM

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 · 22-11-2011 10:57AM

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 · 22-11-2011 11:02AM

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

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

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

Comments