Why abhor sex?

[Lagmonster]

Simple question: What is it in human cultural history that caused people (well, Christians) to develop religious laws against enjoying sex? I'm not talking about the men-must-know-which-kids-they-own gender-based domination issues against promiscuity outside of marriage, I'm talking about the part where they even hate sex when they're married and trying to have kids. It seems like a rediculous thing to place a verboten stamp on inasmuch as a) a sexually active population is a happy population, and b) out-breeding your opponent is a surefire way to beat them. Despite this, the group with the biggest sexual hangups managed to dominate human culture in the west, a fact which, barring some sort of rational explanation, would seem at first glance to be a serious logical self-contradiction.

[WyrdNyrd]

The only half-way decent explanation I've ever heard is that pleasure itself is/was frowned upon. Maybe if you're having too much fun here on Earth you're not spending enough time contemplating heaven.

And not enough time verbally fellating the invisible sky pixie.

[chaoschristian]

Speaking strictly within the context of Christian history, I would answer that mis-interpretation of the Bible - usually adding way too much emphasis on some particular idea or ideal or simply getting the meaning of the original text wrong - is at the heart of this problem (Paul's warning against sins of the flesh is a good example.)

Here is a link to one of the most extreme examples of this in Enligh/American culture: History of the Shakers

Despite this, the group with the biggest sexual hangups managed to dominate human culture in the west, a fact which, barring some sort of rational explanation, would seem at first glance to be a serious logical self-contradiction.

It is not a contradiction really if one realizes that even the most fundementalist interpreation of the Bible views sex as a good thing so long as the result is an increase in babies. Sex for sex's sake is bad, but sex in order to increase the population is very good. I know a group of families that hold to this view and the women in that group seem to be perpetually pregnant with a score of Biblically names infants and toddlers hanging off of them.

Within the last two decades or so there has emerged a new body of Christian literature focused on 'liberating' Christians from this view. The main focus is that a monogamous married couple can enjoy the full range of sexual pleasure within their marriage. This is actually considered exciting stuff, saying such things as positions outside of missionary is ok, oral sex is ok, having sex and not getting pregnant is ok.

As far as I am concerned, it is just one more thing that the church uses to distract itself from its real work - you know the stuff about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, ect, etc, etc.

[Edi]

<snip>
Despite this, the group with the biggest sexual hangups managed to dominate human culture in the west, a fact which, barring some sort of rational explanation, would seem at first glance to be a serious logical self-contradiction.

The simplest explanation I can think of is that the strict morality codes were basically only observed by the nobility, not the common peasants. Somewhere along the line (probably in the 19th century, IIRC) that started changing, with those views being filtered downward in the social strata. In the US it has always been a bit different, because of the religious zealotry in its origins and the more extreme religious bent of its population.

Edi

[Zero]

The more guilt a religious belief can make you feel, the more devoutly you'll devote yourself to it. Since we're biological entities, we enjoy sex. It's fun. Religion says it isn't supposed to be fun. My penis says it should. The conflict creates a lot of guilt, so I try and be even more zealous about my religious beliefs to try and compensate. After all, that other stuff is just temptation from Satan. It's HIS fault I enjoy sex! Jesus will save my from my EVIL desires...

The greater guilt commands greater zeal, and since this religion has the punishment of hell for disbelief, many will have that incentive to join already, so it'll spread like wildfire.

[Darth Wong]

Speaking strictly within the context of Christian history, I would answer that mis-interpretation of the Bible - usually adding way too much emphasis on some particular idea or ideal or simply getting the meaning of the original text wrong - is at the heart of this problem (Paul's warning against sins of the flesh is a good example.)

Care to explain how it is a misinterpretation to identify passages like these as admonitions against enjoying one's sexuality?

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.

Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.

But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.

But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;

Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

Does this sound like a person who thinks you should enjoy sex for the sake of the sheer physical pleasure of it? And how about Jesus' many admonitions about hating this world and even your own life if you want to enter Heaven?

Worldly pleasure and God's Salvation are simply not compatible according to the Bible. It is only revisionist bullshit that allows people to merge the two, just as some people choose the ridiculous belief that the Bible encourages right-wing economics.

[Thunderfire]

Simple question: What is it in human cultural history that caused people (well, Christians) to develop religious laws against enjoying sex?

I think this has to do somethig with pagan cults at the time christianity was formed. Sexual acts were a common service for some gods.

[Darth Wong]

Simple question: What is it in human cultural history that caused people (well, Christians) to develop religious laws against enjoying sex?

I think this has to do somethig with pagan cults at the time christianity was formed. Sexual acts were a common service for some gods.

Christianity uses guilt as a motivator. If you're going to use guilt as a motivator, it's best to make a crime out of something that everybody is guilty of, such as sexual lust. Hence the genius of making not just sexual fornication, but even the fantasy of fornication into a sin.

[Lagmonster]

Simple question: What is it in human cultural history that caused people (well, Christians) to develop religious laws against enjoying sex?

I think this has to do somethig with pagan cults at the time christianity was formed. Sexual acts were a common service for some gods.

Christianity uses guilt as a motivator. If you're going to use guilt as a motivator, it's best to make a crime out of something that everybody is guilty of, such as sexual lust. Hence the genius of making not just sexual fornication, but even the fantasy of fornication into a sin.

Given this, the only way I can fathom the success of church-dominated nations is through out-and-out dismissal of these kinds of church tenets whenever it became inconvenient, simply because a nation devoted entirely to self-deprecation and emotional slavery is unlikely to demonstrate social or industrial progress, no?

[Darth Wong]

Given this, the only way I can fathom the success of church-dominated nations is through out-and-out dismissal of these kinds of church tenets whenever it became inconvenient, simply because a nation devoted entirely to self-deprecation and emotional slavery is unlikely to demonstrate social or industrial progress, no?

Actually, it's simpler than that: nobody can maintain the kind of discipline required for this severe lifestyle forever, so Christianity offers a convenient escape valve: you can do whatever the fuck you want, up to and including mass murder, as long as you worship Christ. That's the most bizarre duality of Christianity: its incredibly strict rules on what's right and wrong, in conjunction with a great big "Get out of Jail Free" card handed out to all members.

[Darth Wong]

But don't be too quick to attribute the material success of Christian nations to their religion rather than their geography. Islam was dominant when Europe's economy was centred around the Aegean Sea and the Mediterranean. It wasn't until the economic centre shifted to the Atlantic coast and the sea trade with the New World that Christianity became ascendant; it was literally an accident of history and geography that led to their success, not any religious aspect.

[LadyTevar]

Sex is bad, mmmkay?
That was about the extent of it for my teen church group. Of course, since I also went to school with many of these guys and had heard talk about their 'exploits', I didn't believe any of them ever listened.

Of course, these were the same guys that made my highschool years hell, and even made bets during school dances over who'd try to kiss 'the ugliest/weirdest girl in school'.

I learned Christian Hypocrasy at a young age.

[tharkûn]

Simple question: What is it in human cultural history that caused people (well, Christians) to develop religious laws against enjoying sex?

Most Christians didn't. Luther was an advocate of sex, as was Calvin. The puritans actually had church rules that allowed a wife to seek intervention if she wasn't getting enough sex.

'm not talking about the men-must-know-which-kids-they-own gender-based domination issues against promiscuity outside of marriage, I'm talking about the part where they even hate sex when they're married and trying to have kids.

Can you quote some of these rules? Virtually every Christian denomination holds sex within marriage to be a good thing. Even Paul, not noted for his ringing endorsement of sex, says it is a bad thing if a wife or husband witholds sex from the other.

From what I can see frigid sexual mores arose in England in the Victorian era and eventually spread with the dominance of the British Empire. The puritan sexual ethic was eventually replaced by a Victorian one even in the US.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

Luther was an advocate of sex. . .

I wouldn't put it that way; rather, Luther was an advocate of marriage. And in his view, marriage was legitimate for two purposes: for procreation, and for those who couldn't refrain from sex. That still implies that sex is bad--necessary for procreation, but still bad.

I find the author Rosemary Radford Ruether persuasive on this issue (see, for example, Sexism and God-Talk)--she asserts that this is due to the development of monotheism. Earlier religions tended to have male/female dualities. But with monotheism, the God figure and the spiritual realm became symbolized as male. Nature and the material world was symbolized as female and considered inferior (the Eve myth especially lends to this). It is from this that a theological bias against all things earthly (including sex) developed.

Of course, in trying to condense her arguments, I have probably butchered them severely, but what's a little butchery when it comes to religion?

[General Trelane (Retired)]

Virtually every Christian denomination holds sex within marriage to be a good thing. Even Paul, not noted for his ringing endorsement of sex, says it is a bad thing if a wife or husband witholds sex from the other.

Yes, Paul does say this, but he almost makes it clear that it is "better" for men and women to live single and chaste, and he concedes that not every one is able to do so. In any case, this is not a ringing endorsement for sex; at best, it may be considered a necessary evil.

As for rules, I can identify three levels of them. First, there are religious rules, and while they don't actually say, "Thou shalt not enjoy sex," there certainly are a host of them to regulate what may and may not be done (Leviticus has a bunch of them).

Next, there are actual legislated laws, which are outside of religion though many were inspired by religion. For example, sodomy (even between a married couple) is banned in various states.

But it's the thrid type that I think were meant by the opening question, and these are "cultural laws" or social mores. Within Christianity, for example (and especially fundamentalist Christianity), there is a definite judgement of sex as bad. Yes, it is implied to apply to sex outside of marriage, but in the process of socializing one to this more, it is impossible to not give the overarching generalization that all sex is bad.

I actually speek from personal experience here. All my single life, I'd been taught the sex is wrong. Then when I got married, all of a sudden, it was right. I've been married for 11 years now, and there are times when I'm still finding myself repressed because this theme was so deeply engrained in me (Beavis: He said 'deeply,' huh, huh, huh).

This reminds me of Ned Flanders ("Pastor, I think I'm having lustful thoughts. . .about my wife!").

[The Guid]

It actually goes back further than Christianity I believe - I think it goes back to Plato's (for some reason I felt uncomfortable writing Plato here, but I think this is right - correct me if I am wrong) thinking and the like in there being a seperation between the spiritual and the physical. The theory is that you should always try to focus more on the spiritual things such as the abstract, in some variations upon prayer, on some mathematics but you should not let your body run your life. Therefore you do not take too much pleasure in gluttonous eating and by the same token you do not take too much pleasure in sex which is percieved to be only a physical desire/act.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The simplest explanation I can think of is that the strict morality codes were basically only observed by the nobility, not the common peasants. Somewhere along the line (probably in the 19th century, IIRC) that started changing, with those views being filtered downward in the social strata. In the US it has always been a bit different, because of the religious zealotry in its origins and the more extreme religious bent of its population.

Edi

Actually, that is the reverse of what my studies have indicated to be the case--the upper classes ignored morality entirely, whereas the peasants, who looked to the church as a father and protector against the harshness of living, were thoroughly indoctrinated.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It actually goes back further than Christianity I believe - I think it goes back to Plato's (for some reason I felt uncomfortable writing Plato here, but I think this is right - correct me if I am wrong) thinking and the like in there being a seperation between the spiritual and the physical. The theory is that you should always try to focus more on the spiritual things such as the abstract, in some variations upon prayer, on some mathematics but you should not let your body run your life. Therefore you do not take too much pleasure in gluttonous eating and by the same token you do not take too much pleasure in sex which is percieved to be only a physical desire/act.

Bingo!

The anti-sex bent in Christianity is the work of one St. Augustine of Hippo, who was essentially the individual who took Christianity and turned it from a cult into a rigid philosophical system which was entirely Neo-Platonic in nature according to his City of God, the seminal work of Christian philosophy which influences modern Christianity to this day more than the Bible does, even for many protestants.

[tharkûn]

I wouldn't put it that way; rather, Luther was an advocate of marriage. And in his view, marriage was legitimate for two purposes: for procreation, and for those who couldn't refrain from sex. That still implies that sex is bad--necessary for procreation, but still bad.

Luther held that sex within marriage was the natural course of events as ordained by God.

I find the author Rosemary Radford Ruether persuasive on this issue (see, for example, Sexism and God-Talk)--she asserts that this is due to the development of monotheism. Earlier religions tended to have male/female dualities. But with monotheism, the God figure and the spiritual realm became symbolized as male.

Her arguements are lacking. Musonius Rufus, an extremely influential Stoic philosopher in the first century comes up with the same concepts while holding to a polytheistic worldview. Likewise Theravada Buddhist monks have managed their own sexual hang ups.

Yes, Paul does say this, but he almost makes it clear that it is "better" for men and women to live single and chaste, and he concedes that not every one is able to do so. In any case, this is not a ringing endorsement for sex; at best, it may be considered a necessary evil.

What Paul actually meant is irrelevant, most modern churches cite that passage when justifying their stance that sex within marriage is good.

As for rules, I can identify three levels of them. First, there are religious rules, and while they don't actually say, "Thou shalt not enjoy sex," there certainly are a host of them to regulate what may and may not be done (Leviticus has a bunch of them).

Concession accepted. There are few if any surviving rules that one must hate sex even when married.

Next, there are actual legislated laws, which are outside of religion though many were inspired by religion. For example, sodomy (even between a married couple) is banned in various states.

Concession accepted. There are few if any surviving rules that one must hate sex even when married.

But it's the thrid type that I think were meant by the opening question, and these are "cultural laws" or social mores. Within Christianity, for example (and especially fundamentalist Christianity), there is a definite judgement of sex as bad. Yes, it is implied to apply to sex outside of marriage, but in the process of socializing one to this more, it is impossible to not give the overarching generalization that all sex is bad.

I suppose in the process of socializing the more that adultury is wrong, it is impossible to not give the overarching generalization that all sex is bad as well then.

The truth is that most Christian denominations have positive views of marital sex on record. The truth is most practicing Christians are having lots of sex, as evidenced by their consumption of contraceptives, condoms, etc.

Why do you feel the need to posit such an extreme form of sexual regression rather than deal with the more than ample real world problems?

[Lagmonster]

'm not talking about the men-must-know-which-kids-they-own gender-based domination issues against promiscuity outside of marriage, I'm talking about the part where they even hate sex when they're married and trying to have kids.

Can you quote some of these rules? Virtually every Christian denomination holds sex within marriage to be a good thing. Even Paul, not noted for his ringing endorsement of sex, says it is a bad thing if a wife or husband witholds sex from the other.

Modern Christians are more comfortable around sex (barring the fringes, which still exist), but I'm talking about far earlier times, where the specific growth of the Christian nations was important. And the early church and before that, the Israelites, have lovingly documented some of the brutal rules and punishments for sexual freedom.

Luckily, DW pointed out something I'd overlooked; that their economic success in the face of what should have amounted to emotional slavery was a factor of geography more than religion (not to mention the likelihood that people ignored the rules frequently), despite the vast political influence of the church in Europe.

Originally, I failed to understand the wisdom of imposing extreme limits, guilt, and even death sentences on free sexual behaviour, simply because it's easy to demonstrate that people are happier and more productive when they're sexually active. And how they managed to be more industrially successful than more relaxed cultures.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

But don't be too quick to attribute the material success of Christian nations to their religion rather than their geography. Islam was dominant when Europe's economy was centred around the Aegean Sea and the Mediterranean. It wasn't until the economic centre shifted to the Atlantic coast and the sea trade with the New World that Christianity became ascendant; it was literally an accident of history and geography that led to their success, not any religious aspect.

An interesting point about the long-term success of Europe, as an aside (and this refers to all European cultures) is the ease of water-born transportation. If you look at a map of Europe from the perspective of a landsman, it's absolutely dismal to think of dragging stuff on ox-carts everywhere, but the simple fact is that nobody did that--Europe is essentially a peninsula made up of many smaller peninsulas, and it's perfect for large scale water-based transportation to nearly any point. Even in the interior the two vast rivers of the Rhine and the Danube reach great swathes of the central part of the continent and make water transportation there as well easy.

And, of course, before the steam engine, water transportation was the most efficient way to move goods by several orders of magnitude.