The Nature of Sex and the Effects of Religion on Sexuality

[AndyF]

blacktiger057:

I have been advocating a restudy of sex in a religious context for years.

The prophets were dealing with an act that they didn’t understand but who felt still needed to be controlled. The attitude toward sex in the OT is never stable and predictable. Rev makes a list of all the people “you shouldn’t have sex with”, completely forgetting that there was an existing blanket law that forbade marriage with certain people, and that sex outside of marriage was forbidden anyway. So the list was redundant to start unless of course (as if everyone didn’t realize it) it was a subset of rules applicable for those who favored fornication.

Then we have the select few who were blessed and could marry many woman. One of these was Solomon, God’s favored king, himself had 50 wives. Imagine the discernmentrolleyes problems that would cause(Sarcasm). One can imagine a conversation with him and his rabbi. “Numbers 1 through 33 were just nice girls and I fancied the charms of their eyes so I married them. 34 had a nice butt and was a lust so sadly I had to drop her as a prospect. The rest I liked their sparkling personality so they were chosen.” Solomon’s sexual temptations must have been something to contend with?(again)

What these say about sex is that intrinsically, even the context of it’s use is* good*, unless God states something is good now and bad later. Therefore sex outside of marriage is OK(Rev) provided you make the right selection, and plural marriage is OK too. (I know the Mormons use this argument.) If it’s not ok then we have a paradox, in that the intrinsic state of the function can change and we know that’s not true.

As mentioned, the prophets could not understand the complex nature of sex, and they felt they still required to control it. Of all the acts, sex is the only one that is preprogrammed from birth. It is the only one that as an ally in the form of a hormone that is destined to further tax the temptation process. For instance there is no preprogrammed hormone to steal. We will find no relaxing of the rules for our generations even though we are even more aware of the underlying process. The Hebrews must have been favored indeed. Oh that we could have lived then.!

This uniqueness of sex creates some interesting and reasonably possible hypothetical situations. For instance the decalogue is a blanket set of laws that should favor no one and that is the way it was meant and presented. The problem arises due to the delay of sex with it’s accompanying delay of sexual temptation. At any point in time where mass deaths occurs you will have the adults of the group at a disadvantage in that they carry the propensity for sexual sin. This should not be. The probability that any group will sin more or less should be random and unpredictable. And here at judgement we find some in sexual mortal sin. The children would be exempt of course, only having a portion of the decalogue applicable to them. I think the only way to show recognition for this imbalance is to have a relaxation in sexual rules. As it is now ten year old Tommy who never sinned sexually could not have set an example for 20 year old Harold who is destined for hell because of lust.

Naturally, I think what occured is that at one time sex was nothing more an event than drinking water. I assume in those days rape was practically non existant and masturbation was too. Why use violence when everyone is agreeable. I don’t think the libidos were as intense and it was initiated through pheromones released through ovulation. Then one day someone of importance who had a sexual restriction either voluntary or otherwise decided morality should enter the picture and everyone for the first time felt the pangs of guilt. (I know I’m deviating here, but anyway.) Children were probably cared for either as part of group responsibility as we find in herds. I think if all sex rules were dropped today, there would be a flurry of generations of pent up release lasting for a couple of years, but then it would dwindle and it would be so common it wouldn’t deserve mention. Sexual crime due to lack of sexual outlets would drop also.

Even though you will find no takers, and you and I are doctrinely in the outfield, I think you have a point.

AndyF

 

[Mimi]

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.

If I may, I’d say that what you refer to as repression is possibly more succinctly called self-control. This also infers that the person realizes there is a greater good to come from not acting immediately upon his/her impulses.

Children tend to be v impulsive, which is why they need someone who has the insight, the “bigger picture” to tend them and restrict some of their activity.

I understand that children are raised in a rather non-restrictive way in Holland. (One of my sons had a gf from Holland.) This society has probably the most liberal view. If you want it, they will supply it. Of course there is a special district set aside for those who wish to indulge their sexual impulses, although birth control and abortion services are readily available to just about anyone AFAIK. Their liberal politics has not restricted the influx of Muslim immigrants, and now they are facing a real dilemma with that population. How are they going to crack down now that they have established themselves as ultra-liberal? But I digress.

I am interested in the teaching of the Theology of the Body and think it has the potential to really change the way we view sex (as a society). theologyofthebody.net/

Sex was designed by God as a gift we give to each other and its main purpose is for children. It is Life Giving. Look around – think about the consequences of indiscriminate, promiscuous sex; sex for recreation. It is NOT Life Giving, it is selfish. In fact, it brings death in the form of multiple diseases (unhealthy) and leads people to think of the partner as an object for pleasure rather than as a whole person.

That’s just a tiny bit of ToB. I urge everyone, but esp blacktiger057 to study this teaching and see if it doesn’t make sense to you.

If you are an atheist, it might not. I don’t know; I can’t bend my mind to think in that way.

Peace,
Mimi

 

[Mimi]

Based on other conversations, no, blacktiger is not a Catholic.

I checked some of the other threads he (she?) has commented in, and a few are word for word the original post of this thread. Some are excerpts from that post. Must be some agenda there…
thought it was curious.

Mimi

 

[Mimi]

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.

Yes, try Chesterton; however, he writes in the way people did almost 100 yrs ago, and some might find it hard to get through. I have a couple of his books. DH liked The Dumb Ox, about St. Thomas Aquainas.

Better yet, IMO, try THEOLOGY OF THE BODY!

Peace,
Mimi

 

[mercygate]

blacktiger057:

I have been advocating a restudy of sex in a religious context for years.

The prophets were dealing with an act that they didn’t understand but who felt still needed to be controlled. The attitude toward sex in the OT is never stable and predictable. Rev makes a list of all the people “you shouldn’t have sex with”, completely forgetting that there was an existing blanket law that forbade marriage with certain people, and that sex outside of marriage was forbidden anyway. So the list was redundant to start unless of course (as if everyone didn’t realize it) it was a subset of rules applicable for those who favored fornication.

Then we have the select few who were blessed and could marry many woman. One of these was Solomon, God’s favored king, himself had 50 wives. Imagine the discernmentrolleyes problems that would cause(Sarcasm). One can imagine a conversation with him and his rabbi. “Numbers 1 through 33 were just nice girls and I fancied the charms of their eyes so I married them. 34 had a nice butt and was a lust so sadly I had to drop her as a prospect. The rest I liked their sparkling personality so they were chosen.” Solomon’s sexual temptations must have been something to contend with?(again)

What these say about sex is that intrinsically, even the context of it’s use is* good*, unless God states something is good now and bad later. Therefore sex outside of marriage is OK(Rev) provided you make the right selection, and plural marriage is OK too. (I know the Mormons use this argument.) If it’s not ok then we have a paradox, in that the intrinsic state of the function can change and we know that’s not true.

As mentioned, the prophets could not understand the complex nature of sex, and they felt they still required to control it. Of all the acts, sex is the only one that is preprogrammed from birth. It is the only one that as an ally in the form of a hormone that is destined to further tax the temptation process. For instance there is no preprogrammed hormone to steal. We will find no relaxing of the rules for our generations even though we are even more aware of the underlying process. The Hebrews must have been favored indeed. Oh that we could have lived then.!

This uniqueness of sex creates some interesting and reasonably possible hypothetical situations. For instance the decalogue is a blanket set of laws that should favor no one and that is the way it was meant and presented. The problem arises due to the delay of sex with it’s accompanying delay of sexual temptation. At any point in time where mass deaths occurs you will have the adults of the group at a disadvantage in that they carry the propensity for sexual sin. This should not be. The probability that any group will sin more or less should be random and unpredictable. And here at judgement we find some in sexual mortal sin. The children would be exempt of course, only having a portion of the decalogue applicable to them. I think the only way to show recognition for this imbalance is to have a relaxation in sexual rules. As it is now ten year old Tommy who never sinned sexually could not have set an example for 20 year old Harold who is destined for hell because of lust.

Naturally, I think what occured is that at one time sex was nothing more an event than drinking water. I assume in those days rape was practically non existant and masturbation was too. Why use violence when everyone is agreeable. I don’t think the libidos were as intense and it was initiated through pheromones released through ovulation. Then one day someone of importance who had a sexual restriction either voluntary or otherwise decided morality should enter the picture and everyone for the first time felt the pangs of guilt. (I know I’m deviating here, but anyway.) Children were probably cared for either as part of group responsibility as we find in herds. I think if all sex rules were dropped today, there would be a flurry of generations of pent up release lasting for a couple of years, but then it would dwindle and it would be so common it wouldn’t deserve mention. Sexual crime due to lack of sexual outlets would drop also.

Even though you will find no takers, and you and I are doctrinely in the outfield, I think you have a point.

AndyF

Fortunately, you do not have to re-invent the wheel, because Pope John Paul II has already written Theology of the Body.

 

[TOP]

Based on other conversations, no, blacktiger is not a Catholic.

I’m sorry, he had that on his profile last I checked. I thought it was strange, considering his theology, why I noted that. Tim

 

[mapleoak]

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.

Oh! Wow! I Never thought little Mattie was so pure and innocent!

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.

This is a very backward attempt to create an irrational argument. Firstly, nothing is being repressed. Unlike animals, who are at the MERCY of their instincts, which include the mating instict, have absolutely no control over their impulses. If a ram in rut and a sheep in heat are brought together, they have no choice but to mingle.
Human beings on the other hand, are not instinctual creatures, but rather rational creatures with intellect. They can choose to follow their bodily urges and be controlled by them (sin), or they can choose to be the masters of their bodies and order their impulses according to their will.

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.

You can’t fool yourself and more important, you can’t fool God.

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

No, man is not pornographic. This not a fact, rather an untruth or lie. Pornography is a disorder which masters those who fail to subdue and bring their bodily urges under their control. It is a matter of self mastery.

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.

What primitives? Curious to know who you are referring to. I happen to know of some extremely barbaric tribes.

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.

What does this have to do with sex? It is not wise for man or woman to be walking alone at night say in the ghettos of Chicago or some such. I would be more concerned about getting mugged for drug money or something.

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.

Above you were saying man ‘unnaturally supresses’ their sexual urges, to which perversion is the result of. Now you are saying perversion is the result of obsession. So, which is it?

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.

So what religion do you profess, if any? Is this what your religion teaches?

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.

Are you going to go run around in public and try mating with everyone you see? Yes, I’m sure there will be a little more than just anger flaring up!

 

[TOP]

Lets talk about peguins. We can all agree, peguins are cool. They can pick out their young in a huge crowd of other penguins. Don’t they mate for life? I know Robins do. I wonder if they feel love? Without sin, what would that be like?, heavenly I would think. Maybe thats why animals don’t go to heaven, because they have it on earth. Tim

 

[terri_fortner]

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.

I am sorry you think this and I feel sad for you that you do not know the wonders I know, but my point is this… I WAS NEVER A MONKEY. My mother and my father were never monkeys, and I am positive I do not know a single person who was ever a monkey. So if you want to talk evolution then think about it rationally, things evolved from something else, but the something else they evolved from died off because that was no longer the “stronger” of the two speicies. Monkeys still exist, and are not going anywhere.

 

[blacktiger057]

It’s the ones who are not repressed who fill the prisons.

The people who are in prisons are the people who have repressed their anger until it builds up…eventually it will explode. Someone who never gets angry and keeps quiet is indeed a dangerous person to be around. Just look what happened at Virginia Tech. There are many other inccidents like this. Most murderers seem like perfectly happy people, until they explode from the inside out.

 

[blacktiger057]

Lets talk about peguins. We can all agree, peguins are cool. They can pick out their young in a huge crowd of other penguins. Don’t they mate for life? I know Robins do. I wonder if they feel love? Without sin, what would that be like?, heavenly I would think. Maybe thats why animals don’t go to heaven, because they have it on earth. Tim

You can’t judge any living thing’s soul. The Bible’s view that animals were put on this earth to serve us is very ignorant, hateful, and greedy. I think that way of thinking is partly why the earth is the way it is now.

 

[mercygate]

The people who are in prisons are the people who have repressed their anger until it builds up…eventually it will explode. Someone who never gets angry and keeps quiet is indeed a dangerous person to be around. Just look what happened at Virginia Tech. There are many other inccidents like this. Most murderers seem like perfectly happy people, until they explode from the inside out.

The point is that people who manage their anger like human beings do not explode. If people ‘explode’ it has more to do with their lack of personal development than with unwholesome repression or suppression of their anger. Anger that “explodes” would be far better suppressed than expressed for all concerned. I am sure those dead students at Virginia Tech would agree, and so would their families.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I hope this does not come across too negatively, but why are we providing a poster with a ‘bully pulpit’ so that he can scattershot arguments? He’s been addressed several times point by point with his original extremely long post which asked many more than ‘one’ question (and shouldn’t we stick to one question at a time per post?), but instead of addressing the answers he goes on to another question/charge, etc. etc.

I for one would like to state (with all due charity) that until and unless there is DIALOGUE-- meaning that we aren’t trying to speak with somebody whose only interest is to keep on reiterating his own opinion and not in hearing or considering an opposing view–this is going to wind up being another thread that will get closed down either from going too far off topic, or because someone’s language or temper will get out of hand.

 

[TOP]

I hope this does not come across too negatively, but why are we providing a poster with a ‘bully pulpit’ so that he can scattershot arguments? He’s been addressed several times point by point with his original extremely long post which asked many more than ‘one’ question (and shouldn’t we stick to one question at a time per post?), but instead of addressing the answers he goes on to another question/charge, etc. etc.

I for one would like to state (with all due charity) that until and unless there is DIALOGUE-- meaning that we aren’t trying to speak with somebody whose only interest is to keep on reiterating his own opinion and not in hearing or considering an opposing view–this is going to wind up being another thread that will get closed down either from going too far off topic, or because someone’s language or temper will get out of hand.

Hence why I brought up the peguins. They are cute though.

 

[AndyF]

Fortunately, you do not have to re-invent the wheel, because Pope John Paul II has already written Theology of the Body.

Thanks for the tip.

Is it information the ancients could have used?

AndyF

 

[az_4_faith]

Thanks for the tip.

Is it information the ancients could have used?

AndyF

You mean Adam and Eve?

 

[dwc]

The people who are in prisons are the people who have repressed their anger until it builds up…eventually it will explode. Someone who never gets angry and keeps quiet is indeed a dangerous person to be around. Just look what happened at Virginia Tech. There are many other inccidents like this. Most murderers seem like perfectly happy people, until they explode from the inside out.

Oh, bullhockey. You are deluded. I have spent years reading presentence investigations and probation reports and prosecuting juveniles, adults and child abuse/neglect. I have no idea what you have been reading (if anything), but it has not been based in reality.

The reality is that most murderers and other violent criminals do NOT just explode one day from keeping all of their negative emotions in. The reality is that these people typically have led a life full of escalating problems rooted in their failure to control their tempers, impulsivity or to conform to any societal standards. They don’t repress their anger, they go off on people left and right.

The incidents where seemingly normal, law abiding people go off the deep end get lots of press **because they are so atypical. **

You seem to just post your random ponderings, yet expect people to take them and you seriously. You have absolutely no basis for your statements beyond repeating your same thoughts over and over. You haven’t substantively responded to any of the thoughtful and challenging posts in this thread. You should try actually educating yourself about these things.

 

[strngrnrth]

Oh, bullhockey. You are deluded. I have spent years reading presentence investigations and probation reports and prosecuting juveniles, adults and child abuse/neglect. I have no idea what you have been reading (if anything), but it has not been based in reality…

You seem to just post your random ponderings, yet expect people to take them and you seriously. You have absolutely no basis for your statements beyond repeating your same thoughts over and over. You haven’t substantively responded to any of the thoughtful and challenging posts in this thread. You should try actually educating yourself about these things.

I believe Blacktiger 057 is very young. It can be frustrating, but do we all remember what it was like to discover Freud et al back in middle/high school? Maybe we can set a good example if we all keep our patience.

 

[dwc]

I believe Blacktiger 057 is very young. It can be frustrating, but do we all remember what it was like to discover Freud et al back in middle/high school? Maybe we can set a good example if we all keep our patience

You are, of course, right. I’m sorry for the strength of my outburst. But I maintain that now might be a good time for blacktiger to learn that if one wants oneself and one’s ideas to be taken seriously one has a responsibility to at least try to be somewhat educated about a topic. Especially when in one of blacktiger’s first posts he/she had the audacity to insist that all of us explain our positions or he/she won’t respond. If he/she is going to engage a diverse group of educated people, it’s best to have more ammunition than random thoughts.

As for patience … I believe people in this thread have been very patient. My patience with this type of poster is gone, as I suspect the fun is in getting all the ants to scurry around the anthill made of fluff. I’m taking Tantrum Ergo’s advice and leaving this discussion to those with more patience.

 

[blessedtoo]

I hope this does not come across too negatively, but why are we providing a poster with a ‘bully pulpit’ so that he can scattershot arguments? He’s been addressed several times point by point with his original extremely long post which asked many more than ‘one’ question (and shouldn’t we stick to one question at a time per post?), but instead of addressing the answers he goes on to another question/charge, etc. etc.

I for one would like to state (with all due charity) that until and unless there is DIALOGUE-- meaning that we aren’t trying to speak with somebody whose only interest is to keep on reiterating his own opinion and not in hearing or considering an opposing view–this is going to wind up being another thread that will get closed down either from going too far off topic, or because someone’s language or temper will get out of hand.

I agree. I just have to say that the replies in this thread (especially dwc and gardeningmommy) have been OUTSTANDING! CAF members are so smart!