Why are most religions so terrified of free sexuality?

[1137]

I don't see what BDSM has to do with "free sexuality". "Free sexuality" makes me think of promiscuity. You can practice BDSM within a committed, monogamous relationship or alone even.

Free sexuality means sexuality that is, well, free. Associating that with promiscuity as a negative kind of proves my point. Hell, who says sex has to take place on a monogamous relationship? Not to mention that just because the average person may not benefit from promiscuity doesn't mean it's not the best option for someone. All I'm seeing here are views based on generalization / belief.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Free sexuality means sexuality that is, well, free. Associating that with promiscuity as a negative kind of proves my point. Hell, who says sex has to take place on a monogamous relationship? Not to mention that just because the average person may not benefit from promiscuity doesn't mean it's not the best option for someone. All I'm seeing here are views based on generalization / belief.

Well, most religions promote an ideal to strive to live up to. Also, humans are social animals and we have developed communal ways of living that are orderly. Promiscuity tends to disrupt social order and leads to many problems, such as emotional damage, broken families, illegitimate children and the spread of disease. Sure, a small number of people may be fulfilled in a promiscuous lifestyle but that doesn't override the general problems with it.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I have some thoughts on it I'll list. Besides that, have at it!

- Religions like Christianity or Islam rely on egotism to succeed while sexual freedom is possibly the best tool for lessening the ego.

- Control our most basic needs, control us. If we can't experience the true pleasure we need we will seek it elsewhere.

- Sex is physical and even the mental aspects of it become physical with sexual freedom (just talking about moving out of missionary position isn't exactly a sexual act.) Religions rely on pleasures not of the physical world.

- Sex is the perfect way to understand the mystical union of opposites at the heart of reality. This union doesn't work with controlling good v. evil paradigms.

My thoughts are that religious-cultural institutions aren't so much afraid of free sexuality overall, but "consequence-free" sexuality. Shaming of masturbation, of contraceptive devices or methods, of any degree of pornography, of non-procreative sexuality, and of recreational sex in or out of an accepted marital arrangement.

"Consequences" are typically assumed to anything that doesn't efficiently lead to conception-gestation-birth.

I see it not so much about a fear overall, but of a desire to ensure birth to add to their numbers. Sex that is non-procreative is much harder to control and to get more generations of followers. Hence, so little is discussed about the female sexual cycles, organs, and life processes (including menopause), unless it is about how a uterus gestates within the religious framework. It simply isn't considered worthy to discuss outside of what is shameful and what is honorable.

And sex for pleasure, and let's say concerning post-menopausal women, isn't worth a mention. Not out of fear, but since she can't get pregnant...whats the point? (According to them)

 

[gsa]

Paternity concerns by and large.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Paternity concerns by and large.

That sums it up far better than I could ever have tried. Bravo!

 

[Harmonious]

You're equating nontraditional sexual activity with abuse. Fear is not involved?

Am I? I thought I merely expressed why some religions placed restrictions on sex.

 

[1137]

Am I? I thought I merely expressed why some religions placed restrictions on sex.

Eh, you're on a thread about sexual freedom talking about abuse, so I'd say yeah. When Christianity says no to homosexuality how exactly are they keeping people from abuse? How exactly is oral sex or masturbation - spilling the seed - abuse?

 

[1137]

Well, most religions promote an ideal to strive to live up to. Also, humans are social animals and we have developed communal ways of living that are orderly. Promiscuity tends to disrupt social order and leads to many problems, such as emotional damage, broken families, illegitimate children and the spread of disease. Sure, a small number of people may be fulfilled in a promiscuous lifestyle but that doesn't override the general problems with it.

Is that what they teach you in school these days, that not being into monogomy leads to broken families, disease, social disorder, and illegitimate children?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Is that what they teach you in school these days, that not being into monogomy leads to broken families, disease, social disorder, and illegitimate children?

School? All I have to do is look all around. It's just a fact of life.

 

[roger1440]

Religion does not seek to control our sex lives. It seeks not to be controlled by our sex lives. There is a huge difference.

 

[1137]

School? All I have to do is look all around. It's just a fact of life.

I suppose it's a fact similar to all BDSM practitioners having mental disturbance.

 

[1137]

Religion does not seek to control our sex lives. It seeks not to be controlled by our sex lives. There is a huge difference.

Can you elaborate?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I suppose it's a fact similar to all BDSM practitioners having mental disturbance.

I'm into BDSM and I'm unsure of that, myself. But my tastes tend to be more extreme than you usually find with those into BDSM.

 

[Harmonious]

Eh, you're on a thread about sexual freedom talking about abuse, so I'd say yeah.

No. Actually, I answered WHY it might be important for the religions to regulate sex, in general. There are LOTS of different laws. I just didn't focus on the ones you preferred.

When Christianity says no to homosexuality how exactly are they keeping people from abuse? How exactly is oral sex or masturbation - spilling the seed - abuse?

They aren't.

Now... I don't know the reasons that Christianity focuses on these things, as it puzzles me why Christians choose SOME of the laws in Leviticus as important and completely ignore others. I CAN, however, explain - to the best of my abilities - why these things are important in Jewish reasoning. If they happen to match, it's a beautiful thing. If not, it's not my problem.

One of the focal points about Judaism's focus on sex is the function of procreation. While it's not the ONLY function of sex, it is the MAIN function. As such, choosing a partner who would, in theory, help create offspring is a must. Knowing WHO said offspring belongs to is also a must.

It also helps to know that men have a modicum of control to when they release seed. Women... It happens monthly, whether we want it or not.

That's NOT about abuse, but about the ability to keep sperm where it would be the most productive.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

- Control our most basic needs, control us.

You have to realize that most modern religion stems all the way back to neolithic ideas for preserving survival. Society thousands of years ago didn't have birth control, and you had to limit reproduction to prevent too many mouths to feed. At least, that must have been something they thought about if they were settled down enough and didn't have any serious wars to fight or had enough workers to do the harvest.

Another theory, taking account if there actually was some kind of herbal birth control, would have to take into account if it was abolished as a practice by the more dominating and jealous males. Keep in mind that all we are, are merely advanced apes. Apes form dominance hierarchies, and the males don't want to share, such is the case with all primates. Now I believe humans can break free of the sexism innate in their being primates, but that will take the human race more time and heavy mind-work. Eventually they may succeed.

 

[psychoslice]

Why are most religions so terrified of free sexuality?..........probably because their religion has made sex a dirty word, so they project that fear onto others who don't have a problem with sex.

 

[Vishvavajra]

It's true a lot of religious folk have tended to be more obsessed with sex than is entirely healthy. It's one of those things people can get stuck on either way. I've seen some anti-sex religious folks who clearly think about it far more than the average person does, which is all kinds of ironic. And a lot of the prohibitions that one sees, while they might have made sense in a certain cultural context, they don't necessarily apply today. People ought to be open-minded enough to allow for revisions like that. Or hew to the principle rather than the letter.

At the same time, licentiousness isn't really freedom either. People who just obey their impulses are no less slaves for it; they didn't choose their impulses, after all. True freedom comes from not being controlled by laws or impulses, but making informed and conscientious decisions, with a reasonable view of the consequences. And that does require some moral principles to start with, or else you're right back to making decisions based on unchosen impulses.

So basically, while having a negative attitude towards sexuality isn't healthy, that doesn't mean that having zero boundaries or inhibitions is healthy either. As with most things, the healthy road is the third option.

 

[1137]

I'm into BDSM and I'm unsure of that, myself. But my tastes tend to be more extreme than you usually find with those into BDSM.

The point is if even 1 person benefits from BDSM then we can't say it's something fully wrong. I understand the need to not have boundaries in sex, but that's not exactly my point here. I think groups like Christianity fear deep, pleasurable sex exactly because of what it does to individuals.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The point is if even 1 person benefits from BDSM then we can't say it's something fully wrong. I understand the need to not have boundaries in sex, but that's not exactly my point here. I think groups like Christianity fear deep, pleasurable sex exactly because of what it does to individuals.

Who said that BDSM was wrong? I didn't. And you're wrong about Christianity's views on sex.

 

[suncowiam]

Like anything else concerning religion, it doesn't trust individuals' decision making so it restricts the individual.

It's a simplistic philosophy that we all use with children. We restrict the actions of children to save them from supposed trouble and danger. As children get older, we lessen these restrictions and teach the child to be more responsible. However, religion never allows adults to be fully adults with black and white ideals that do not consider the full context of the individual's situation.