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

Cú Giobach · 22-11-2011 11:10AM

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 · 22-11-2011 11:18AM

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 · 22-11-2011 11:21AM

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 · 22-11-2011 11:27AM

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 · 22-11-2011 11:31AM

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 · 22-11-2011 11:34AM

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 · 22-11-2011 11:42AM

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 · 22-11-2011 11:54AM

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 · 22-11-2011 11:57AM

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 · 22-11-2011 12:01PM

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 · 23-11-2011 02:58AM

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 · 23-11-2011 03:26AM

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 · 23-11-2011 03:55AM

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 · 23-11-2011 04:28AM

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 · 23-11-2011 08:38AM

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 · 23-11-2011 09:05AM

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 · 23-11-2011 09:57AM

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 · 25-11-2011 12:43PM

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:

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

Comments