Christianity and sex

[LORDDOOMMASTER]

I was thinking about a conversation I had with a Christian recently and how he couldn't answer "What makes sex so immoral when it isn't for procreation purposes?" other than with the generic "Because the Bible or God says it is." Now many religions have long accepted sex as a natural and normal part of human nature, such as the Greek/Romans (Aphrodite/Venus, goddess of love and beauty and all the stories involving both god and human sexual experiences) and Eastern religions that often make it a point to either improve sexual experiences or to help with procreation (Confucius' writings comes to mind here, but there are more examples). But when it comes to Judea/Christian/Islamic teachings, sex is some horrible, terrible, and sinful thing that shouldn't be experienced, except between a married man and women and only then for procreation and absolutely not for enjoyment (note the Victorian concept of sex for the best example of this).

Where did this develop from? It's not as if the Roman world that Christianity eventually overtook was repressed in its sexuality. I'm not very well versed in older Jewish history, so does it stem from here somewhere? Perhaps from the idea that women are clearly inferior to men in the Bible and are considered the source of all sin and evil? Or are there other reasons for this? Mostly I'm trying to see why so many other religions seem to embrace sex and human sexuality, while Christianity seems to shun it. It doesn't make sense to me that a normal (and thoroughly enjoyable, I might add) and necessary human function should be viewed as horrible and wrong.

Also, I'm just trying to keep this as sex between a man and a woman and only when it involves regular penis-in-vagina intercourse. While a discussion about why Christians don’t accept homosexual acts or anal sex (or any other sex acts they consider immoral) is definitely useful, they always get to fall back on the “It goes against nature reason.” After all, “regular” (I use this for lack of a better word) sex is how we continue to procreate and exist. Without it, we won’t exist for very long. Why hide and make sex a immoral act?

If this is in the wrong forum, would a moderator please move it to the correct one.

[Civil War Man]

A common explanation that I've heard is that since Judeo-Christian religions (the Christian part in particular) are prosthelatyzing religions that demand complete and utter devotion to God, casual sex was deemed to draw glory away from God and thus given its stigma.

That, and depriving a man of sex probably makes him more prone to make rash and poorly thought-out decisions.

[Lusankya]

Well, if you want to have the people completely reliant on the clergy for spiritual salvation then making a basic human compulsion like sex taboo is a good way to keep the general populace guilty and unhappy. Procreation is probably the best thing to use to keep people guilty about doing something that is both natural and necessary for the survival of the species because while it is necessary and is something people are likely to do (or want to do) despite any taboo, someone abstaining from sex is not going to die from abstaining from sex, while someone abstaining from food or drink or adequate shelter can only do so for a limited time before succumbing to death.

[Xenophobe3691]

To be honest, Judaism doesn't condemn sex in marriage. In fact, it's considered the woman's right in a marriage to have sex, and she can divorce her husband if she isn't getting what she wants.

[Knife]

Ah damn. Whats his name......Augastine? Some early (5th?) centuary priest who had spent most of his life as a playboy in most respects, spent the rest of his life as a Christian priest denouncing sex.

I believe he was the one who prescribed to the notion that to be close to god, no sex. But if you really must have a woman, marry her and occasionally have sex for kids.

Well, the man>woman thing was tribal but the huge sex=bad thing really got traction with dumb shit above.

[The Guid]

Good question. I think in some ways you may have slightly misunderstood one of the points. Sex in marriage is not wrong at all, not even for enjoyment. What some Christians get grumpy about is the use of contraception which would seem to imply that sex is only for procreation which is to a certain extent true. What Christians want is that procreation is not prevented - i.e. the fallback position of going against nature. If you are having sex with your wife, for example, and hoping not to get pregnant I think its OK. If you do it during certain parts of the cycle (not quite sure what this all means, I didn't concentrate in my biology or my "lifeskills" lessons) then there is still a chance of pregnancy and you are not taking "artificial" means to prevent the pregnancy.

I think I have covered the question as best I can in terms of marital sex as best I understand it.

[Knife]

If you do it during certain parts of the cycle (not quite sure what this all means, I didn't concentrate in my biology or my "lifeskills" lessons) then there is still a chance of pregnancy and you are not taking "artificial" means to prevent the pregnancy.

I think I have covered the question as best I can in terms of marital sex as best I understand it.

Joke; what do you call two people using the rythem method of sex?





Parents.

[NapoleonGH]

Knife, that statement is pretty true, but for instance if a woman is very regular and sex is had during menstration, the chances of getting pregant are very slim

[Duckie]

Doesn't some of the stigmata date back to Paul's mysnogeny? He seriously seemed to hate women, and his elters are filled with crap like that.

[Civil War Man]

Doesn't some of the stigmata date back to Paul's mysnogeny? He seriously seemed to hate women, and his elters are filled with crap like that.

That is a big part of it. Not the whole story, since there are some hangups with sex in the OT (though, as someone pointed out, mostly regarding incest, homosexuals, and extramarital affairs).

And just a semantics nitpick, but it's stigma. Stigmata is when you have wounds opening up on your hands, feet, and side like the wounds that were said to be inflicted on Jesus during the crucifixion.

[Duckie]

That is a big part of it. Not the whole story, since there are some hangups with sex in the OT (though, as someone pointed out, mostly regarding incest, homosexuals, and extramarital affairs).

And though it isn't, Onan and whatever story he's a side plot in is cited as a prohibition against masturbation.

And just a semantics nitpick, but it's stigma. Stigmata is when you have wounds opening up on your hands, feet, and side like the wounds that were said to be inflicted on Jesus during the crucifixion.

Couldn't we pass it off as a clever yet spontaneous pun?

[wautd]

It wasnt always evil but iirc the early priets were fucking like rabbits and holding so much orgies it wasnt funny anymore. So the pope made it evil


Maria wasnt always a virgin either you know

[SirNitram]

Paul had a whole fuckload of issues, that's what.

Edit: Pulled a mis-remembered quote out as I was wrong.

But it comes down to that. This guy said men and women fornicating is evil, but they should do it anyway to avoid temptation from Satan. Oh, and a woman's natural use is to be used for pleasure.

[Superman]

Christianity is not the only religion that looks down on premarital sex. We see it in Judaism, Hinduism, and a lots of others. The answer is probably pretty simple. Most anthropologists speculate that it's how these societies controlled STD's. Of course, saving sex until marriage also "legitimized" childbirth in many cultures too.

[Zero]

Back in the day, I doubt birth controll was.. erm.. advanced. Saving sex until marriage was likely a good way to actually make sure that children had a family to grow up in. Without a good family environment, children aint as likely to actually learn how to become part of society, and be a productive member of it.

[Superman]

Back in the day, I doubt birth controll was.. erm.. advanced. Saving sex until marriage was likely a good way to actually make sure that children had a family to grow up in. Without a good family environment, children aint as likely to actually learn how to become part of society, and be a productive member of it.

Yeah but many cultures wanted lots of kids. More kids = more laborers. I think it was mainly to control STD's.

[tharkûn]

I was thinking about a conversation I had with a Christian recently and how he couldn't answer "What makes sex so immoral when it isn't for procreation purposes?"

The Pope, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine say so. Most protestant denominations either have no position, or outright advocate birth control.

But when it comes to Judea/Christian/Islamic teachings, sex is some horrible, terrible, and sinful thing that shouldn't be experienced, except between a married man and women and only then for procreation and absolutely not for enjoyment (note the Victorian concept of sex for the best example of this).

The Victorian period is an historical abberetion. In Puritan New England a wife had a right to sex, if it wasn't being fulfilled she went to the church elders who then went to the husband to see that he performed his matrimonial duties. Prior to that and after sexual intimacy has always been one of the perks of marriage. Luther was most emphatic about this point, he held that if spouses did not have enough sex it could lead to adultery. Luther, and most protestants, held that it was a rare individual gifted by God with "the gift of chastity" who would not be better off married and enjoying sex.

Certainly if one looks at the actual practices of most Christians they have far too few children and report far too much sex to be following the procreation only sex policy.

Where did this develop from? It's not as if the Roman world that Christianity eventually overtook was repressed in its sexuality. I'm not very well versed in older Jewish history, so does it stem from here somewhere? Perhaps from the idea that women are clearly inferior to men in the Bible and are considered the source of all sin and evil? Or are there other reasons for this? Mostly I'm trying to see why so many other religions seem to embrace sex and human sexuality, while Christianity seems to shun it. It doesn't make sense to me that a normal (and thoroughly enjoyable, I might add) and necessary human function should be viewed as horrible and wrong.

In the Catholic tradition you had a few theologians who went from extreme playboys to celibate churchmen, they came up with some convoluted theology that decried sex to be the transmission of original sin and that too much passion in marriage was sinful. This came in line with the papacy's desire to surpess marriage among the priesthood in order to stop inheritence issues and also to serve as a mark of superiority of churchmen vis a vis the married nobility.

Frankly I can't see how one can read the Song of Solomon and not think that it involves marital sexuality in positive light. Whenever you encounter a Christian who is too much of a prude, you can get amazing mileage out of quoting something like this:

I am a wall, and my breasts like towers: then was I in his eyes as one that found favour.

[Gandalf]

Back in the day, I doubt birth controll was.. erm.. advanced. Saving sex until marriage was likely a good way to actually make sure that children had a family to grow up in. Without a good family environment, children aint as likely to actually learn how to become part of society, and be a productive member of it.

Yeah but many cultures wanted lots of kids. More kids = more laborers. I think it was mainly to control STD's.

Also, back in the olden days, not too many people made it to maturity. So more kids meant more chences of someone being able to look after you when you were older.

[LORDDOOMMASTER]

Thank you all for the excellent replies. Definitely a lot of useful information and things I didn't know before.

One thing I should have mentioned (and probably replaced Christian with) was Catholic. Most other Christians don't hold that sex inside marriage is wrong (same as many other religions, as was mentioned). But it seems that Catholism holds the "Sex for procreation only" as a mantra. Probably also the reason why they condemn birth control and condemns as well. But I believe tharkun pretty well addressed that.

Again, thanks for the replies and please keep them coming!

[Pick]

Thank you all for the excellent replies. Definitely a lot of useful information and things I didn't know before.

One thing I should have mentioned (and probably replaced Christian with) was Catholic. Most other Christians don't hold that sex inside marriage is wrong (same as many other religions, as was mentioned). But it seems that Catholism holds the "Sex for procreation only" as a mantra. Probably also the reason why they condemn birth control and condemns as well. But I believe tharkun pretty well addressed that.

Again, thanks for the replies and please keep them coming!

That was changed in Vatican II. Now it's also for the "unity of the couple" but procreation MUST be possible in this act. What gets me is why it can't be just for one if both aspects are acceptable reasons.........

I cynically believe also, however, that no-sex-before-marriage it handy for guys who suck in bed. She'd have no outside frame of reference, after all.

[Pick]

Er, and their excuse for letting sterile couples still try to have sex is the body is 'technically open' for pregnancy. Y'know. If God wills it or something.

[Jawawithagun]

Back in the day, I doubt birth controll was.. erm.. advanced. Saving sex until marriage was likely a good way to actually make sure that children had a family to grow up in. Without a good family environment, children aint as likely to actually learn how to become part of society, and be a productive member of it.

Actually, back in those days sex before marriage was commonly employed to ensure the woman was fertile and could bear her husband's sons.

[Perinquus]

If you want a good example of how toxic Judeo-Christian attitudes about the supposed immorality of sex could get, look no further than this:

Instruction and Advice for the Young Bride

To the sensitive young woman who has had benefits of proper upbringing, the wedding day is ironically, both the happiest and the most terrifying day of her life. On the positive side, there is the wedding itself, in which the bride is the central attraction in a beautiful and inspiring ceremony, symbolizing her triumph in securing a male to provide for all her needs for the rest of her life. On the negative side, there is the wedding night, during which the bride must pay the piper, so to speak, by facing for the first time the terrible experience of sex.

At this point, dear reader, let me concede one shocking truth. Some young women actually anticipate the wedding night with curiousity and pleasure! Beware such an attitude! A selfish and sensual husband can easily take advantage of such a bride. One cardinal rule of marriage should never be forgotten: GIVE LITTLE, GIVE SELDOM, AND ABOVE ALL, GIVE GRUDGINGLY. Otherwise, what could have been a proper marriage could become an orgy of sexual lust.

On the other hand, the bride's terror need not be extreme. While sex is at best revolting and at worse rather painful, it has to be endured, and has been by women since the beginning of time, and is compensated for by the monogamous home and by the children produced through it.

It is useless, in most cases, for the bride to prevail upon the groom to forego the sexual initiation. While the ideal husband would be one who would approach his bride only at her request and only for the purpose of begetting offspring, such nobility and unselfishness cannot be expected from the average man.

Most men, if not denied, would demand sex almost every day. The wise bride will permit a maximum of two brief sexual experiences weekly during the first months of marriage. As time goes by she should make every effort to reduce this frequency.

Feigned illness, sleepiness, and headaches are among the wife's best friends in this matter. Arguements, nagging, scolding, and bickering also probe very effective, if used in the late evening about an hour before the husband would normally commence his seduction.

Clever wives are ever on the alert for new and better methods of denying and discouraging the amorous overtures of the husband. A good wife should expect to have reduced sexual contacts to one a week by the end of the first year of marriage.

By the tenth anniversary many wives have managed to complete their child bearing and have achieved the ultimate goal of terminating all sexual contacts with the husband. By this time she can depend upon his love for the children and social pressure to hold the husband in the home.

Just as she should be ever alert to keep the quantity of sex as low as possible, the wise bride will pay equal attention to limiting the kind and degree of sexual contacts. Most men are by nature rather perverted, and if given half a chance, would engage in quite a variety of the most revolting practices. These practices include among others performing the normal act in abnormal positions: mouthing the female body: and offering their own vile bodies to be mouthed in turn.

Nudity, talking about sex, reading stories about sex, viewing photographs and drawings depicting or suggesting sex are other obnoxious habits the male is likely to aquire if permitted.

A wise bride will make it her goal never to allow her husband to see her unclothed body, and never allow him to display his unclothed body to her. Sex, when it cannot be prevented, should be practiced only in total darkness. Many women have found it useful to have thick cotton nightgowns for themselves and pajamas for their husbands. These should be donned in seperate rooms. They need not be removed during the sex act. Thus, a minimum of flesh is exposed.

Once a bride has donned her gown and turned off all the lights, she should lie quietly upon the bed and await her groom. When he comes groping into the room she should make no sound to guide him in her direction, lest he take this as a sigh of encouragement. She should let him grope in the dark. There is always the hope that he will stumble and incur some slight injury which she can use as an excuse to deny him sexual access.

When he finds her; the wife should lie as still as possible. Bodily motion on her part could be interpreted as sexual excitement by the optimistic husband.

If he attempts to kiss her on the lips she shuld turn her head slightly so that the kiss falls harmlessly on her cheek instead. If he attempts to kiss her anyplace else she should quickly pull the gown back in place, spring from the bed, and announce that nature calls her to the toilet. This will generally dampen his desire to kiss in the forbidden territory.

If the husband attempts to seduce her with lascivious talk, the wise wife will suddenly remember some trivial nonsexual question to ask him. Once he answers she should keep the conversation going, no matter how frivolous it may seem at the time.

Eventually, the husband will learn that if he insists on having sexual contact, he must get on with it without amorous embellishment. The wise wife will allow him to pull the gown up no farther than the waist, and only permit him to open the front of his pajamas to thus make connection.

She will be absolutely silent or babble about her housework while he is huffing and puffing away. Above all, she will lie perfectly still and never under any circumstances grunt or groan while the act is in progress.

As soon as the husband has completed the act the wise wife will start nagging him about various minor tasks she wishes him to perform on the 'morrow. Many men obtain a major portion of their sexual satisfaction from the peaceful exhaustion immediately after the act is over. Thus the wife must insure that there is no peace in this period from him to enjoy. Otherwise, he might be encouraged to soon try for more.

One heartening factor for which the wife can be grateful is the fact that the husband's home, school, church and social environment have been working together all through his life to instill in him a deep sense of guilt in regardst to his sexual feelings, so that he comes to the marriage couch apologetically and subdued. The wise wife seizes upon this advantage and relentlessly pursues her goal first to limit, later to annihilate completely, her husband's desire for sexual expression.

by Ruth Smythers
Beloved wife of The Reverend L.D. Smythers,
Pastor of the Arcadian Methodist Church
of the Eastern Regional Conference
Published in the year of our Lord 1894
Spiritual Guidance Press, New York City

[Jarl Sven]

...... But when it comes to Judea/Christian/Islamic teachings, sex is some horrible, terrible, and sinful thing that shouldn't be experienced, except between a married man and women and only then for procreation and absolutely not for enjoyment (note the Victorian concept of sex for the best example of this)..........

They don't all treat sex as only for procreation. If they did then infertile people could not be married.



But the idea probably started rather practically for control of inheritance
Like they say “Mommy’s baby, Daddy’s maybe”

Remember those religions had their roots with Bronze Age sheep herders and controlling reproduction would seem to me to be the key to surviving as a herder. It doesn’t seem to great a leap to apply those techniques to people too

If you can control people’s partners then you have a higher degree of certainty of who is descended from whom

Since the Arabs and Jews historically claimed descent from Abraham and, according to their scriptures, that ancestry conferred special rights or privileges then controlling who could mate with whom and discouraging exogamy made some sense. Especially in a pre-industrial society where contraception was ……spotty at best


IIRC the OT include all sorts of directives about women having to purify themselves after menstruating and then presenting themselves at the Temple etc. ….all a very heavy handed way of keeping track of who was fertile and who was not.


As for Christianity….well St Paul had issues

[Zero]

Wait a minute.. was that article a parody, or was it honest?