• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

To What Extent is Sexual Repression Acceptable?

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
To what extent is sexual repression acceptable?

Is it acceptable to repress homosexual desires?

Is it acceptable to repress heterosexual desires?

Is it acceptable to repress desires not shared by your partner?

Is it acceptable to repress anti-social desires -- such as desire to have sex with someone against their will, or against their better (sober) judgment?

Is it acceptable to repress a desire not to have sex?

What, if any, circumstances justify sexually repressing oneself?
 

standing_alone

Well-Known Member
I think sexual repression is acceptable only in those instances where the sexual act would be nonconsentual (pedophilia, rape, etc.), potentially harmful (incest), or certain acts that one's sexual partner(s) are not comfortable with (which I suppose goes back to the old consent factor). Those are the things that immediately come to mind and I think it's only healthy to repress those.

Repressing basic, natural, and harmless sexual attractions like homosexuality or heterosexuality serves no purpose but to guilt and cause harm to the individual possessing them. It is unhealthy to repress those.
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
I think its ok to repress any and all sexual desires you may have if that's what you want to do. Whether it is healthy to do so or not is a different matter that depends on the situation.

In some cases the reason is more obvious than others, like if you have sexual desire towards children or the desire to rape.

The Buddhist in me thinks though that it would be healthier to let the desire go, rather than repressing it.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I think sexual repression is acceptable only in those instances where the sexual act would be nonconsentual (pedophilia, rape, etc.), potentially harmful (incest), or certain acts that one's sexual partner(s) are not comfortable with (which I suppose goes back to the old consent factor). Those are the things that immediately come to mind and I think it's only healthy to repress those.

Repressing basic, natural, and harmless sexual attractions like homosexuality or heterosexuality serves no purpose but to guilt and cause harm to the individual possessing them. It is unhealthy to repress those.

Do you think that trying to be other than you are is a form of repression? For instance, if someone tries to act sexier than they feel in order to impress someone, are they thereby repressing their genuine sexuality? Or if someone tries to feel sexual desire for someone they genuinely don't desire, are they thereby repressing their true sexuality?
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
The Buddhist in me thinks though that it would be healthier to let the desire go, rather than repressing it.

Could you elaborate on the distinction between letting the desire go and repressing it, please?
 

standing_alone

Well-Known Member
Do you think that trying to be other than you are is a form of repression? For instance, if someone tries to act sexier than they feel in order to impress someone, are they thereby repressing their genuine sexuality? Or if someone tries to feel sexual desire for someone they genuinely don't desire, are they thereby repressing their true sexuality?

I don't really know. It's a good question. I never really thought much about that, but I'm tempted to say "not really" because I think acting sexier to impress someone (if only for the short term) would be in the realm of "sexual play." Kind of get what I'm saying?
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
Could you elaborate on the distinction between letting the desire go and repressing it, please?
Sure, once I reach enlightenment I'll send you a PM. ;)

It's the Third Noble truth - first you recognise that aspects of life are causes of suffering.
Then you realise that that suffering/anguish is caused by craving and desire.
Then the hard part is the act of letting that desire and craving go rather than fulfilling it, which only satisfies us temporarily, or denying/repressing it which just makes us angry and depressed.

The way of letting go isn't easy because it's not really in our nature and must be consciously worked at.

Think of nuns and monks, they often take oaths of celibacy but they aren't all angry, mentally disturbed people. Because instead of repressing their sexual desires they have instead learned to let those desires go.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
To what extent is sexual repression acceptable?
For some, it is all about what they believe their deity commands.
For them it is not only acceptable to suppress homosexual desires, it is REQUIRED for as long as they have said "sinful" desires.

Is it healthy?
Not likely, but to these fanatics it is all about their beliefs.
Facts, truth, medical documentation are all irrelevant, it is all about what they believe their deity says.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
...I'm tempted to say "not really" because I think acting sexier to impress someone (if only for the short term) would be in the realm of "sexual play." Kind of get what I'm saying?

I think I can understand your point. Playfulness is not necessarily a betrayal of the self even when it involves actions or behaviors that are not true to the self. A little girl can pretend to be a witch even though she is not a witch and yet we don't say she is betraying herself to pretend she's a witch. That's a really good insight, SA.

I was wondering though, if there is not an element of playfulness involved, and someone were, say, grimly acting a sexuality not genuine to them, would that be a betrayal of their sexuality? The specific kind of case I have in mind is where, say, a teenager has sex not because he or she wants to have sex, but because he or she feels emotionally pressured to have sex -- or perhaps feels peer pressure to have sex.
 

standing_alone

Well-Known Member
I was wondering though, if there is not an element of playfulness involved, and someone were, say, grimly acting a sexuality not genuine to them, would that be a betrayal of their sexuality? The specific kind of case I have in mind is where, say, a teenager has sex not because he or she wants to have sex, but because he or she feels emotionally pressured to have sex -- or perhaps feels peer pressure to have sex.

In that case, I would say that yes, that is a betrayal of their true sexuality.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
For some, it is all about what they believe their deity commands.
For them it is not only acceptable to suppress homosexual desires, it is REQUIRED for as long as they have said "sinful" desires.

Is it healthy?
Not likely, but to these fanatics it is all about their beliefs.
Facts, truth, medical documentation are all irrelevant, it is all about what they believe their deity says.

Is it morally acceptable to knowingly do something that is unhealthy for you -- if doing it is also unnecessary?

Is it morally acceptable to teach someone else to do something that is unhealthy for them -- if doing it is also unnecessary?
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Is it morally acceptable to knowingly do something that is unhealthy for you -- if doing it is also unnecessary?

Is it morally acceptable to teach someone else to do something that is unhealthy for them -- if doing it is also unnecessary?
Me personally, no to both.
But then, contrary to what many people like to think, morality is really to subjective a concept to have any real meaning on a message board.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
In that case, I would say that yes, that is a betrayal of their true sexuality.

I agree. I wonder whether that sort of betrayal of one's true sexuality would be morally acceptable? I'm not so sure. Suppose Suzy wants to have sex with Jeff. Jeff is a virgin and does not feel ready to have sex yet. But he also feels that, as a male, he is obligated to have sex. Does Suzy have a moral right to press Jeff for sex? Does Jeff have a moral right to flat out refuse sex? Are the couple obligated to look for a compromise of some sort? Should they consider purchasing a donkey for Suzy? These are tough questions for me.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Me personally, no to both.
But then, contrary to what many people like to think, morality is really to subjective a concept to have any real meaning on a message board.

In a way, I disagree. I think there is room for moral arguments on a message board, but perhaps much less room for condemning those whose morals differ from ours.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
In a way, I disagree. I think there is room for moral arguments on a message board, but perhaps much less room for condemning those whose morals differ from ours.
If each person defines their morals then yes.
But the fact remains that morality is extremely subjective.

hence you have about as many sets of morals as there are people.
Some people feel that their morals are more moral than everyone else's morals.
Some because they think that their deity gave their morals to them.
Some because they are egomaniacs.
Some because they cannot accept that they are wrong.
the list goes on and on.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
If each person defines their morals then yes.
But the fact remains that morality is extremely subjective.

hence you have about as many sets of morals as there are people.
Some people feel that their morals are more moral than everyone else's morals.
Some because they think that their deity gave their morals to them.
Some because they are egomaniacs.
Some because they cannot accept that they are wrong.
the list goes on and on.

All very true.
 

standing_alone

Well-Known Member
I don't know if your questions were just meant to be rhetorical, but I thought they might make some interesting discussion:

Sunstone said:
Suppose Suzy wants to have sex with Jeff. Jeff is a virgin and does not feel ready to have sex yet. But he also feels that, as a male, he is obligated to have sex. Does Suzy have a moral right to press Jeff for sex?

I wouldn't say it would be moral to press Jeff for sex, while she would certainly have the ability to. But, I also think it would be wrong (read: immoral) of her to do that; it is inconsiderate towards Jeff and, perhaps, treats him as a means to an end and not as an end in himself. It shows no respect for his feelings and such behavior lacks a certain amount of intimacy. Get what I mean? If you pressure someone for sex that isn't ready, aren't you in a sense, using them? Or at least not acknowledging their unique humaness?


Does Jeff have a moral right to flat out refuse sex?

And I would say yes. If he knows he's not ready for it and is uncomfortable with it, being pressured into it will only be harmful for him and could put a strain in his relationship or affect how he approaches or views sexual intimacy down the line. Being pressured into sex can have a negative effect on the ability to be sexually intimate. In fact, pressuring someone into sex shows a complete disregard for intimacy.

Are the couple obligated to look for a compromise of some sort?

Oh, I would think it would be an absolute must in any attempt to salvage or maintain a healthy relationship.

Should they consider purchasing a donkey for Suzy?

You know, Phil, this might just be the very most important question of them all. They might very well want to consider that option, although those sorts of decisions may end in a different result for different couples. No two relationships are exactly alike, as we know.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I don't know if your questions were just meant to be rhetorical, but I thought they might make some interesting discussion

Yes, I intended them as genuine questions -- although I'm certainly leaving how someone wants to interpret the donkey question up to the reader.

I wouldn't say it would be moral to press Jeff for sex, while she would certainly have the ability to. But, I also think it would be wrong (read: immoral) of her to do that; it is inconsiderate towards Jeff and, perhaps, treats him as a means to an end and not as an end in himself. It shows no respect for his feelings and such behavior lacks a certain amount of intimacy. Get what I mean? If you pressure someone for sex that isn't ready, aren't you in a sense, using them? Or at least not acknowledging their unique humaness?

I think we're in complete agreement here, Alyssa. Although, I imagine that many couples would not be in agreement with us -- at least not in practice. I've heard many stories of people having sex before they were ready to, because their partner wanted sex. And I also think it's common enough practice among sexually active couples to have sex even when one of the partners doesn't want it. Yet, no matter how often it's done, I still agree with you that it i's wrong.

To be sure, I'm not talking about situations in which one partner freely wishes to please the other even though he or she doesn't really feel like having sex. Instead, I'm talking about situations in which one partner feels pressured to have sex when they don't want to. That seems wrong.

And I would say yes. If he knows he's not ready for it and is uncomfortable with it, being pressured into it will only be harmful for him and could put a strain in his relationship or affect how he approaches or views sexual intimacy down the line. Being pressured into sex can have a negative effect on the ability to be sexually intimate.

Again, I'm in agreement with you with one caveat -- the negative effects of having sex before you're ready to have sex most certainly vary from person to person. That is, some people take it harder than others. For some it might be traumatic, while for others it's hardly of any importance at all.

In fact, pressuring someone into sex shows a complete disregard for intimacy.

I think that's a brilliant insight.

Oh, I would think it would be an absolute must in any attempt to salvage or maintain a healthy relationship.

In my experience, couples that cannot figure out how to negotiate with each other and reach mutually acceptable compromises are unhappy couples. Of course, it takes a great deal of hard work to do that, but it's certainly worth the work with the right person.

You know, Phil, this might just be the very most important question of them all. They might very well want to consider that option, although those sorts of decisions may end in a different result for different couples. No two relationships are exactly alike, as we know.

Naturally, a sympathetic donkey would be my preferred solution to Suzy's horniness. But, as you point out, other couples might have other ideas of what will work best for them.

I think the key in all of this is for the couple to reach a compromise that both freely consent to.
 

Joe_Stocks

Back from the Dead
Of course it is acceptable and sometimes virtuous.

For example, say you are in a committed relationship with another person and you believe you could spend the rest of your life with this person. But you, at times, are sexually attracted to another person and you know they would be ready and willing. Do you jepordoze your loving, committed relationship for a booty call? I would argue that the morally correct thing to do is to repress that desire and continue with your committed relationship.

You also can think of it in a Kantian way, what if everybody didn't repress all of their sexual urges? It would be chaos, with relationships destroyed and mutual trust out the door.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
I think sexual repression is acceptable only in those instances where the sexual act would be nonconsentual (pedophilia, rape, etc.), potentially harmful (incest), or certain acts that one's sexual partner(s) are not comfortable with (which I suppose goes back to the old consent factor). Those are the things that immediately come to mind and I think it's only healthy to repress those.

Repressing basic, natural, and harmless sexual attractions like homosexuality or heterosexuality serves no purpose but to guilt and cause harm to the individual possessing them. It is unhealthy to repress those.

What he said.
 
Top