The Nature of Sex and the Effects of Religion on Sexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter blacktiger057
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But still, no one has stated why they disagree with me…
Click to expand...
I will, I will !!! I disagree with you because I am raising three little human beings. Not dogs, cats, chimps, etc, but three little people. From birth to about 3 years, they are not repressed. They are gloriously, fully in their natural state. They love to run around nakey, they don’t feel bashful or ashamed or anything. If they have a creeper or wedgie, they just de-wedgie themselves, right out in public, without a care in the world. Pure, natural, unrepressed humanity.

Between the ages of one and certainly by two, they are still much in their natural state and they naturally come by the concept of ownership. As in, if I want it, I own it. If I see it, I want it. If I want it, I must have it, NOW. If I don’t have it, I will scream until I get it. If you have it, I will grab it from you. I will bite, hit, kick, throw a tantrum … but in any event I MUST HAVE WHAT I WANT WHEN I WANT AND DON’T TRY TO STOP ME!!! FEED ME WHEN I’M HUNGRY, GIVE ME A DRINK WHEN I’M THIRSTY, PLAY WITH ME WHEN I’M BORED … ME, ME,ME,ME,ME!!! Just imagine 30 year olds in this state — wait, we’ve all seen them, and it’s far from beautiful.

It’s the parent’s job to take their darling little package of pure, unadulterated humanity in the rough and form it — you would probably say by repressing his nature. By teaching him things like respect for others and their rights, patience, self-control, sharing, helping, not going poop in the front yard (yes, that happened at my house, er, yard), and on and on. By teaching him the skills that allow him to peacefully share the world with his fellow humans.

Bottomline: most of the social ills you complain of are the result of too* little *repression, not too much.
 
ltbpoe43 said:
I’m not sure I really understand your post but here are my observations:

You can’t possibly compare animal behavior to human behavior. Humans have the capacity to be intellectual, respectful, and control their behavior by the very nature of their God given intellect and free will. Animals do not have that capacity.
Click to expand...
That is the whole problem with taking the behavioralist school and reducing everything to it: It is self-contradicting when reflected back on the one making the claim. That is, “ok Mr. Behavioralist, what environmental manipulations have modified your behavior to make you claim such-and-such about sexual behavior?” If he admits he is just as susceptable to behavior as everyone, why on earth should anyone listen to him? If he says he isn’t, then he must admit that it is possible for others to be so as well.

And further, when one says there is repression of the sexual instinct by religion, it seems perfectly acceptable to suggest that that person is repressing the religious instinct. The whole unprovable repression charge ends up a wash and a waste of time.
 
blacktiger057 said:
No, that would also be impossible now a days. But what I’m saying is think of how much peace there would be if we never repressed anything. And if we lived more naturally, without all the technology…it would be almost utopian. But having nothing repressed would cause alot of fighting to stop as it is. That is what we should do about it instead of letting this vicious circle continue.
Click to expand...
So, if we repressed nothing, nothing bad would happen?

Unlike you, I DON’T trust in humanity. It is inherintly flawed and evil, and only by the destruction of the flesh and all its vices can the soul be freed! Mortification, not hedonism!
 
You know, blacktiger, your post really got me contemplating the animals I observe and now I have to respectfully wonder what on earth you are talking about.

We have a horse. We often observe horses out in the pasture, grazing. It is extremely common to see one of them start unprovoked aggression with another – just walk by another grazing horse and bite it on its rump. Or neck. Just for meaness. Then it leads to a huge brawl – biting, kicking, drawing blood, most of the herd is involved.

We were watching a mother racoon and her babies the other day. The mother found a piece of garbage – wouldn’t share with her cubs. They were all crying, begging – nope, mom wouldn;t feed them. One of them edged too close and she growled and snapped at it.

We have to remove the young guppies from the tank or their parents eat them.

Our family dog, well fed as she is, doesn’t hesitate to grab other dogs’ food, bones, toys – which leads to snarling and growling and sometimes biting until we intervene, or our dog shows submission.

Thinking further about this, I think your entire premise is flawed – at our worst, human nature copies the animals. There is something within us, call it what you will, that when it is groomed and formed, allows us to grow beyond it and be capable of great love and great good. But that part of us can’t shine through without discipline and self control.
 
dwc said:
You know, blacktiger, your post really got me contemplating the animals I observe and now I have to respectfully wonder what on earth you are talking about.

We have a horse. We often observe horses out in the pasture, grazing. It is extremely common to see one of them start unprovoked aggression with another – just walk by another grazing horse and bite it on its rump. Or neck. Just for meaness. Then it leads to a huge brawl – biting, kicking, drawing blood, most of the herd is involved.

We were watching a mother racoon and her babies the other day. The mother found a piece of garbage – wouldn’t share with her cubs. They were all crying, begging – nope, mom wouldn;t feed them. One of them edged too close and she growled and snapped at it.

We have to remove the young guppies from the tank or their parents eat them.

Our family dog, well fed as she is, doesn’t hesitate to grab other dogs’ food, bones, toys – which leads to snarling and growling and sometimes biting until we intervene, or our dog shows submission.

Thinking further about this, I think your entire premise is flawed – at our worst, human nature copies the animals. There is something within us, call it what you will, that when it is groomed and formed, allows us to grow beyond it and be capable of great love and great good. But that part of us can’t shine through without discipline and self control.
Click to expand...
Good points. The moment one allows reason into the picture, then appeals to the animal kingdom founder on the rocks.
 
blacktiger057 said:
Have you all noticed a simple fact? If you have a picture of a beautiful female dog and bring it to a dog, he will not be interested at all. Dogs are not playboys. Not that they don’t love female dogs, they love them tremendously, but they will not be interested in the picture, in pornography. To create pornography you need saints and religion. First repress the sexual instinct, the natural instinct, and tell people that it is wrong and evil. When they repress their sexual instinct, the repressed instinct finds an outlet.

Now it is difficult to go and enjoy watching beautiful women passing down the road. SO what to do? Lock yourself in your room and look at Playboy magazine. That is safer; nobody comes to know about it. You can hide your Playboy magazine inside the Bible and pretend you are reading the Bible.

Only man is pornogrpahic. No other animal is pornographic. These are simple facts.

And who has made man pornographic? Primitives are not interested in pornography-still are not. Women are naked and move about naked without any fear. So what type of civilazation do you say you are living in? A woman cannot walk down the street without being pinched on the bottom, without being treated inhumanely. A woman cannot walk in the night alone-and this is civilazation? People are just obssessed with sex 24/7.

Who has given this obsession to man? Animals are sexual but not obsessed; they are natural. When sex becomes an obsession it takes perverted forms, and these perverted forms are rooted in the moralizers and their teachings.

The so-called religious people have never trusted human nature. They talk about trust, but they have never trusted life. They trust rules, laws; they never trust love. They talk about God, but that is just empty talk. They trust in the police, in the courts. They trust in hellfire. They trust in creating fear and in creating greed. If you are saintly and good and moral, you will have heaven and all the pleasures of paradise. Or, if you are not moral, then you will suffer hellfire- eternally, remember, forever and ever. These things are rooted in greed and fear. These people have been manipulating the human mind through fear and greed.

I trust you and I trust your nature. I trust animal nature. If nature is allowed its own course, yes, there will be a little anger sometimes and there will be a little flaring up, too, but nothing is wrong in it. It is human and beautiful. But there will be no war.

You have lived with rules and norms, and what has happened? Look at the state of humanity today. It is a neurotic earth, a great madhouse. This is what happened out of your norms, your idealism, perfectionism, morality. Out of all your commandments this has happened- the whole earth has turned into a neurotic campground, a big madhouse. And still you are afraid of hellfire, and still you go on. This a a vicious circle.

I’ll stop here for now…
Click to expand...
Stop reading Rousseau. :whacky: Start reading Chesterton.:newidea:
 
Blacktiger, your Catholic, take a course. Perhaps RCIA, talk with your Priest. God Bless, Tim
 
TOP said:
Drunk monkeys are copied in an early form of Kung Fu. Which was generated by buddist monks for human warfare. Can’t get more related then that.:rolleyes:. And in these wars between chimp bands, there is fatalities. If I can follow your logic, you can follow mine.Tim
Click to expand...
OKay I see what you are saying…

Buddhists don’t believe in human warfare, though…

They aren’t really wars, though. You seem to be speaking poetically. If two gangs are fighting, it isn’t a war, is it? In basic terms, it is not. Now it would be a war if all the chimps Brazil fought all the chimps in Argentina…but that would never happen in the animal world because they don’t have repression. If they didn’t fight, then they’d be repressing their anger. And once enough anger builds up, it has to eventually explode into one big war.

But this is kinda distracting from the core of what I am saying. Still, no one has said anything to back up their opinions about the thoughts of my post…
 
dwc said:
You know, blacktiger, your post really got me contemplating the animals I observe and now I have to respectfully wonder what on earth you are talking about.

We have a horse. We often observe horses out in the pasture, grazing. It is extremely common to see one of them start unprovoked aggression with another – just walk by another grazing horse and bite it on its rump. Or neck. Just for meaness. Then it leads to a huge brawl – biting, kicking, drawing blood, most of the herd is involved.

We were watching a mother racoon and her babies the other day. The mother found a piece of garbage – wouldn’t share with her cubs. They were all crying, begging – nope, mom wouldn;t feed them. One of them edged too close and she growled and snapped at it.

We have to remove the young guppies from the tank or their parents eat them.

Our family dog, well fed as she is, doesn’t hesitate to grab other dogs’ food, bones, toys – which leads to snarling and growling and sometimes biting until we intervene, or our dog shows submission.

Thinking further about this, I think your entire premise is flawed – at our worst, human nature copies the animals. There is something within us, call it what you will, that when it is groomed and formed, allows us to grow beyond it and be capable of great love and great good. But that part of us can’t shine through without discipline and self control.
Click to expand...
Yes, I said there would be individual fights, but not mass killing through wars. But anyway, forget about the animal metaphors, as most of you don’t get them. Let’s go to the core of what I said, please. Repression is bad, etc.

Originally our behavior was, since we were monkeys at one point in time. But once we had a belief system and government it led to repression and brainwashing of how people ‘should’ think. Then once enough of one emotion had builten up inside a person they exploded. Animals have a fight to settle the matter right away to avoid this poison building up inside them. But the difference between us and the animals is that we can find healthier ways to express our emotions other than violence.
 
blacktiger057 said:
OKay I see what you are saying…

Buddhists don’t believe in human warfare, though…

They aren’t really wars, though. You seem to be speaking poetically. If two gangs are fighting, it isn’t a war, is it? In basic terms, it is not. Now it would be a war if all the chimps Brazil fought all the chimps in Argentina…but that would never happen in the animal world because they don’t have repression. If they didn’t fight, then they’d be repressing their anger. And once enough anger builds up, it has to eventually explode into one big war.

But this is kinda distracting from the core of what I am saying. Still, no one has said anything to back up their opinions about the thoughts of my post…
Click to expand...
Buddhists don’t have wars? Tell that to the Singhalese government… Also smaller animals, particularly hive animals actually do engage in war (Ants, bees, wasps, termites, hornets) Many primates will regularly engage in pitched battles against other troupes that have strayed on their ‘‘turf’’. It isn’t repression, it’s simply the fact that humans have bigger (global) social networks and bigger ‘‘packs’’ (think countries) so everyone gets in on the action and because of our superior intelligence we use more sophisticated weapons that a chimp with a rock.
 
blacktiger057 said:
I don’t even know who Rousseau is…
Click to expand...
He who does not know the past is condemned to repeat it. Rousseau tried this “untrammeled nature” gambit in the 18th century. His corollary was the “noble savage” – the idea that untrammeled by “civilization” human nature would flower in inoccent perfection. It was balderdash then, and it’s balderdash now.

Try Chesterton.
 
But once we had a belief system and government it led to repression and brainwashing of how people ‘should’ think.
Click to expand...
Well, I responded to this in my first post. Society depends on people, at the individual level, repressing their impulses in order to accomodate others. The belief system and brainwashing you refer to can in fact be what allows people to live in something other than complete anarchy.
Then once enough of one emotion had builten up inside a person they exploded. Animals have a fight to settle the matter right away to avoid this poison building up inside them. But the difference between us and the animals is that we can find healthier ways to express our emotions other than violence.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I follow this. Are you saying that it would be better if humans could just fight and settle the matter that way, or are you saying that that is unnecessary because humans function at a higher level than resorting to violence? If the latter, don’t you think that requires control over emotions and self discipline – in other words, repressing our intial response and instinct?

I guess I’m having trouble understanding what you find so awful about having standards of behavior and expectations that all members of society should adhere to.
 
blacktiger057 said:
Look at wild life…do you see any war there? The animals prove my point. History as we know it has always been repressed and organized societies, which is why most of history is war. In the past 3,000 years we have had 5,000 wars.
Click to expand...
So, are you saying if we all acted more like animals, the world would be a better place??

That’s kind of baiting you.

In your OP, you said the dog “loves” females dogs, but dogs are incapable of loving the way humans do, so the analogy doesn’t work. Dogs act largely on instinct, esp. when it comes to sex and procreation. Yes, people say their dog ‘loves’ them, but I’d argue that it’s more of a fidelity kind of thing rather than an emotion. Nothing close to human love (as referring to a lifelong committment in marriage, for example).

Further, it sounds like you are insinuating – perhaps observing or critiquing would be a better way to put it – that most strife and wars are caused by religious people. Do not forget the terrible atrocities committed in the name of reason during the French Revolution.

I’d venture to say that most strife and conflict is caused by people NOT following the tenets of their religion (one such common precept might be Do Unto Others as You would Have Them Do Unto You). Yes, some of the Popes led soldiers into battle, but those were for political reasons and having to wrest land away from enemies who would’ve overrun the country – those were violent times in general. The Crusades were a response to Muslim agresssion, a defensive act (largely anyway).

Peace,
Mimi
 
blacktiger057 said:
Have you all noticed a simple fact? If you have a picture of a beautiful female dog and bring it to a dog, he will not be interested at all. Dogs are not playboys…

…And still you are afraid of hellfire, and still you go on. This a a vicious circle.

I’ll stop here for now…
Click to expand...
Sounds like something straight out of Osho.😃
 
blacktiger057 said:
Originally our behavior was, since we were monkeys at one point in time.
Click to expand...
I would like for someone to show me where this has ever been proven scientifically. It hasn’t, so please don’t pass it on like it is truth.
 
blacktiger057 said:
No, that would also be impossible now a days. But what I’m saying is think of how much peace there would be if we never repressed anything. And if we lived more naturally, without all the technology…it would be almost utopian. But having nothing repressed would cause alot of fighting to stop as it is. That is what we should do about it instead of letting this vicious circle continue.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, but the hippies tried this… and it didn’t work! Every utopian experiment tried so far has failed: communes in the U.S. (going back to the late 1800’s), the kibbutz in Israel (rapidly disappearing), etc.

A train is not “repressed” because it has to stay on the tracks. It is not free and happy if it gets off the tracks… it is derailed, stuck, and probably damaged. Sure, people aren’t trains, but the more we try to throw off “repressive” laws, the more unhappy and suicidal people we get. We legalized divorce, contraceptives, abortion, and gay sex… and people aren’t getting happier, they’re getting more obsessed with getting more freedoms, because “just one more” is going to make them happy…

Enlightenment philosophers had this concept of the “Noble Savage.” Slavophile philosophers had the “good, solid peasant.” Unfortunately, neither low-tech, less law-abiding, more “natural” figment of the philosophers’ imagination withstood actual contact with uncivilized tribes (including cannibals and head hunters) or actual Russian peasants (can you say “pogrom”?).
 
If you’ve ever done some babysitting or taught school, you might consider that a little repression is a good thing.

It’s the ones who are not repressed who fill the prisons.
 
blacktiger057 said:
Have you all noticed a simple fact? If you have a picture of a beautiful female dog and bring it to a dog, he will not be interested at all. Dogs are not playboys. Not that they don’t love female dogs, they love them tremendously, but they will not be interested in the picture, in pornography. To create pornography you need saints and religion.
Click to expand...
Dogs’ sexual triggers are olfactory-based, not visually-based. To do a true comparison test, expose the dog to the scent of a female dog in heat and see if he is aroused or his behavior changes. That is the dog equivalent of pornography—no saints or religion required, just finding the appropriate trigger.

ri.essortment.com/dogestrus_rkpj.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top