Why do so many religions and so many of the religious seem obsessed with sex? Since most religions are dominated by men, is it rooted in keeping women from getting ‘uppity’?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
If women are allowed any autonomy it is a bad idea because then they control the pussy supply. As long as man is supreme, he can have pussy on demand. But that doesn't address why religions hate sex. I guess that falls under the corollary of anything good is either illegal, immoral or fattening.
Please tell me you’re being facetious.
I think it's meant to be a view of their perspective, not a display of his own personal sentiment on the matter.
Of course I was being facetious. Unfortunately I was raised in the Bible Belt where that is considered an unspoken truth however.
Whew! I’m sure you can understand why I asked...as you noted, a lot of folks think this way. So glad you’re not among them despite being raised where you were. :)
Most religions treat women as just property. It is all about power and control.
A common theme in religion in general is the denial of earthly pleasure in return for some "spiritual" reward.
@orignal post
I like others, think it is mostly about control. But I also think there was actually a possibility of various organized religions trying to reduce violence, (jealousy over sex partners can cause a lot of violence,) and reducing child mortality rates, (kids that did not have a known father were far more likely to starve and not make it to adulthood.)
Do not forget back when most of these religions were formed there was no contraceptives. But people did understand basic stds. All succesful religions wanted to grow their base of followers. Controlling the sex would swell their numbers. Also in the past, in wars, (especially in religious based ones,) it was very common for the invaders to take women as spoils of war, "marry them," and have kids. It was sort of guaranteed at this point that the new family and all generations following would follow the particular religion, expanding the follower base greatly. The captured women, and the parents of the women would have no recourse to stop them. Where as, at home the more thuggish men interested in war but did not yet attract a mate, may not be able to create a family and have kids as easily. In small communities everyone knew everyone and would still want the best for their daughter (or themselves in a dowry,) frequently.
Also there is the common theme in many religions ripping off the religions before them, about: virginity = pure, desirable etc. If anything, because it was the best chance the woman did not have an std yet. (Of course many of these same men had no problem visiting a whore house long before working condoms were invented.)
All together pretty despicable stuff.
Logic, you wrote, “Do not forget back when most of these religions were formed there was no contraceptives. ”
You are probably right about contraceptives but women have known how to abort fetuses for millennia.
Yes fortunately there was that. Probably part of the reason religion groups decided to push people towards "life begins at conception." And it is murder and all that.
Based on how they did it, some unfortunately were very dangerous to the health of the women.
I guess my question would be in what sense do you find religion to be obsessed with sex? Some religions do seem to make it central to their theology, in which case women are seen as symbols of fertility, and sex the means by which spirituality is obtained. Other religions in contrast seem more concerned with temperance, women are seen as symbols of purity, and sex something that can inhibit spirituality. I think Christianity, for example, lies somewhere between these two extremes.
John, do you think that safe (methods to prevent contraception and / or the passing of diseases) sex (any kind) between consenting adults (who have no contractual prohibitions to it) is ever wrong?
Well I do think adultery, for instance, is wrong.
I already stipulated that I’m referring to sex where no contractual prohibition is in place. Given that, will you answer my question?
Then I'm left without an answer; your question seems to make exempt every instance in which sex could be said to be wrong. However, from previous conversation you know I've argued against treating right and wrong as a synonym for harm and harmless. I think incest is wrong culturally, I think premarital sex is wrong religiously, and I think prostitution is wrong personally, but in none of these instances can I point to a physical or psychological harm being done.
So, if no harm is done, you still consider some behaviors to be wrong? Correct?
Do you think that applies to just you or to everyone?
If you think that some harmless behaviors are wrong, do you think there should be sanctions for it?
Yea, I would always argue that using harm as the basis right and wrong has its limits. As far as sanctions are concerned, I think political questions are a hopeless endeavour, so I don't even bother with them.
Why do you think harm as a measurement for whether sex is right or wrong (given the parameters I noted) is limited? What should the basis, IYO, be?
Because harm is the lowest common denominator for lack of better term. I would argue that every human behavior exists within a spectrum with harmful at one end, and optimal at the other. I would argue that religions seem concerned with what is optimal rather than what is harmful. For example, its not enough to not harm your neighbor, you have to do good to your neighbor, and if you're not actively doing good, that is viewed as wrong. In my particular denomination, we don't necessarily view eating meat and being lazy to be sinful, but we are more or less expected to be in top physical and mental health.
So when it comes to sexuality I can't argue for one thing that should be the all-or-nothing guide. So I would argue for a multivariate approach. Is it physically harmful? If not, then it is psychologically harmful? Are there societal reasons, are there economic and political reasons, are there religious reasons, and lastly, do you yourself have your own personal reasons for why something is wrong?
Interesting.
You mention psychological harm. I have a friend who, when young, was forced through conversation ‘therapy’. His father thought that it was harmful (specifically, sinful) for him to have a relationship with another male. As it turns out, the conversion therapy was the culprit when it came to harm. Once he was able to get over the trauma of it and extricate himself from those around who imposed anti-gay beliefs on his life, he was able to find the love of his life. They have been together, happily and healthily for 40 years.
This is a case of religion imposing its definition of harmful. I find it interesting that when it comes, particularly to sex, again, given the parameters I’ve laid out, religions reasons can cause more harm than good. So maybe it makes the most sense to adopt a live and let live attitude where harm cannot be demonstrated.
I'm probably among the youngest member that actively post, and yet, I remember all through grade school that being gay was viewed as a negative thing. Up until recently, homosexuality was taboo culturally, not just religiously. Moreover the harm you mentioned, was directly caused by the therapy and not the religion.
That said, this is a great example of why harm cannot be the guide. If conversion therapy is harmful, it is only because it's methods need improvement. By and large such methods are now antiquated, particularly shock therapy. Currently, people use cognitive tools when they want to get rid of a phobia, forget a traumatic event, or overcome some addiction.
So then my question for you would be, if a new method is constructed, which can successfully change a person's orientation, without any harmful effects, would you be opposed to such a procedure?
@john: If a new conversion therapy was developed that did no harm then I would ask why? Why would the patient seek conversion therapy? If a man or woman loves fucking humans of their own gender, why would they seek therapy? If a religion motivates them towards a cure for a nonexistent disease then I would say any therapy would be harmful. If it just a bad habit they want to break, and their personal preference is with the opposite gender, then how could a harmless therapy hurt. I think the buzz word here is "conversion".
^^^ That.
There's a thousand reason why people want to change, first and foremost because we don't get to chose what we're born as. Why does Sammy Sosa whiten his skin? Why does Rachael Dolezal identify as black? Why do women pierce their ears? Why do men tattoo their skin? Why do people cut their hair, undergo plastic surgery, liposuctions? In the multitude of things which people want to change about themselves, I cannot say sexual orientation seems any different.
I have tattoos, piercings, and a sexual orientation. I can tell you they are not equivalent.
Great, so why are you in favor of altering your body, but not your orientation?
@ Breezy
Now you are talking an individuals free choice. Not what the OP or subsequent replies were indicating about religious control.
Religion(s) dictate or withhold choices and attempt to impose a choice or lack of choice on the wider community, Everything from dress codes to sexual orientation is prescribed or proscribed by religion regardless of the individuals preferences/orientation.
The catholic church uses excommunication, the muslims execution, numerous sects use shunning, some use forcible conversion/aversion therapies, some "cast out demons". All are methods to keep the sheeple in line and obeying the religious rules (and to keep the dollars flowing). Many attempts by religions to legislate their 'preferences' and "rules" have to be combated every day somewhere in the world.
To blithely and condescendingly compare those draconian measures to "There's a thousand reason why people want to change, first and foremost because we don't get to chose what we're born as" is pure arsery.
Religion is the cruel dictator in waiting at back of every church and temple. Itching to regain control of every man woman and child and impose their false values upon them.
Unless you're going to argue in favor of brainwashing and indoctrination, the majority of people choose religion of their own free will. When I chose to be baptized, I chose to adopt and conform to this system of belief, and to follow them to the best of my ability. I'm free to leave at any time, and free to stay. Excommunication, executions, and shunning all exist in the secular world; the only difference is that you are excommunicated for religious reasons, and incarcerated for secular reasons. Religious institutions might not allow someone to partake in church activities, and Universities might prohibit someone from speaking that doesn't conform to their political ideologies.
Race, gender, orientation, nationality, and religion, all create a person's identity and I cannot think of a reason why wanting to change from what you were given at birth is inherently harmful.
@ Breezy
"the majority of people choose religion of their own free will" Palpable nonsense. The vast majorty of people accept the religion to which they were born and indoctrinated by their close society and social mores.
"I'm free to leave at any time, and free to stay" as long as you don't transgress your sky fairy rules you mean.
" Religious institutions might not allow someone to partake in church activities" and as a corollary deny that individual "eternal life" a "Place in heaven" "a planet to rule" and further a place of eternal burning...not so nice. Whatever the BS promise is of that "great only truth"
Whereas a university denying you to make a hate speech results in...errr...nothing?
" Race, gender, orientation, nationality, and religion, all create a person's identity and I cannot think of a reason why wanting to change from what you were given at birth is inherently harmful"
I agree. I assume then that you support transgender peoples rights? that you also support the right of married couples to divorce marriages and take up with same sex partners in a loving relationship for example? After all their dispositions and preferences were "given" at birth and merely showed up later after years of societal pressure to conform?
Jumping in, (I apologize in advance if this comes off as rude or interrupting. Neither of you have to respond.) Answering Breezy's question:
If voluntary on the person's part, (the person with no outside pressure but instead loving support,) decide they want to change a person's current sexual orientation, and such a method did not inflict harm in any way, I think that would be great to have such an option.
But that is a dream world idea, there is no way to know if the person was truly willing, with no outside pressure, and no way to know if such a procedure was truly w/o harm. Right or wrong, in today's world not being traditional hetrosexual monagmous person is a tough road, it is a bit like asking someone with darker color skin, if there was a simple easy painless procedure to be of fairer skin, would they take it? Unfortunately the economic and societal advantages of being fairer skin are still very real in many places in the world. People may be very proud of their skin color, as they should be, but still be tempted by real and perceived advantages a certain skin color may have.
.
Here is another question for anyone interested that to me brings up interesting, if heated conversation: Is incest between to willing, informed adults wrong? If so, why is it wrong? Taking a step further, what about a closely related couple trying for a child? Is it wrong?
The chances increase of mild to severe birth defects are certainly there, but they are not as high as most people think they are. Babies born from a couple that are first cousins: studies found that only 1.2 percent suffered higher infant mortality rates, a find similar to another review from 2002 that suggested first-cousin children are less than 3 per cent more likely to have genetic deformities. I think avoiding even slightly increased odds of death and deformity of the babies is always a worthwhile goal, but that same argument could also be applied to people that want "designer" babies that further decreases the odd of birth deformities or otherwise. Obviously the odds climb of deformity and otherwise, the closer related people are, and continuous generations of inbreeding.
One article talking about odds:
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/incest-offspring-healthy/news-story/1d...
I am not saying I support incest, certainly in cases where it is non consensual and/or when one or both of the couple are not yet adults. But I do feel beyond a weak argument of slightly increased possibility of genetic deformity, there is no good reason for the near universal great disgust and revulsion towards incest, other then the fact that: all to often is not consensual and also sadly usually involves a minor, already crimes in their own right. Just to me, it brings up interesting debate on exactly why people have such strong opinion on it.
Pages