• 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!

How does your religion view sex and sexuality?

Deidre

Well-Known Member
I come from a Christian background, so we all know what that religion preaches. lol

I'm curious if there are any religions out there that aren't so stifling in terms of sexual expression, and human sexuality?
 
Last edited:

Indagator

Member
Basically anything Non-Abrahamic i think.

Buddhism? Paganism?

There is also some strange feminist druid(?) cult that have sex with the earth, trees, etc... I am sure they pretty open minded about sex ;)
 

Deidre

Well-Known Member
Lol! Sex with trees? Hmmm.

Not so much the act of sex but how do other religions view sex in general?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I come from a Christian background, so we all know what that religion preaches. lol

I'm curious if there are any religions out there that aren't so stifling in terms of sexual expression, and human sexuality?

Pretty much every other cultural religion that has family and community as a tenant in its faith. Even though many religions accept people's sexuality as a whole outside of the Abrahamic view given their history and politics, there is still a cultural embedded sense of "male and female." The further back you go, though, it's not as strict. For example, there used to be a lot of LGBTQ in history before the 1800s. When Christianity came into the main front, Henry VII in England (and probably other countries) made sodomy against the law and punishable by death. Anything that disrupts the building of family was punishable not specifically sexuality but woman's status, race, and the like. In 1961, the US finally dropped all its sodomy laws. However, of course you have a lot of people of all sexualities way back since history started. You can trace it back by different books and articles they written, poetry, theatre, and social get togethers.

I'm putting together LGBTQ history timeline. Very interesting. But sexuality, in general, is put down by abrahamic religions. I don't know of other religions that specifically hate the person for their sexuality to call them sin, ill, or disturbed. They just promote a cultural unit and community without regards of who you are physically attracted to.

Of course my religion or spiritual practice doesn't have that strict uphold. Actually, sexuality is a great way to open yourself up to who you are without hiding as if nature hasn't seen you naked from the day you were born. Probably why a lot of Wiccans do rituals in skyclad.
 

Muslim-UK

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
"They (your wives) are your garment and you are a garment for them" Qur'an 2:187

“And among His Signs is this, that He created for you wives from among yourselves, that you may find repose in them, and He has put between you affection and mercy. Verily, in that are indeed signs for a people who reflect.” Qur'an 30:21

Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was known as a loving husband and a family man. He was known to speak frankly to his companions, both men and women, when they asked him about matters of a sexual nature. For example his responses to questions included such wise advice as, “None of you should fall upon his wife like an animal; let their be a ‘messenger’ between you.” “And what is a messenger?” they asked, and he replied: “Kisses and words.”

Prophet Muhammad was never embarrassed and strove to provide clear and understandable answers about all sorts of subjects including menstruation and orgasm. A woman once asked the Prophet if she needed to take a bath after a wet dream to which he replied, “Yes, if she sees liquid.”

God has ordained that our spouses be like our garments and that the husband and wife protect each other and be close companions. However marriage has many psychological, emotional and physical aspects to it and all matters relating to physical, emotional and spiritual health must be addressed, because all three areas are vital for the marriage to survive in a healthy way. God has given permission for married couples to fulfil their desires in many and varied ways and positions.

“Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth when and how you will, and put forth [righteousness] for yourselves. And fear God, and know that you will (one day) meet Him…” Qur'an 2:223

The Qur'an and the traditions of Prophet Muhammad also educate and advise us of any prohibitions within the confines of marriage. It is taken and understood from the above verse of the Qur'an that within a marriage both the man and woman have the right to enjoy each other’s bodies and intimate companionship however they must avoid having sex when the woman is menstruating or bleeding after childbirth and they must never engage in anal sex.

Islam forbids men and women from leading a secluded life away from the opposite sex, this is because we are created as creatures needing human touch and affection.
 

VioletVortex

Well-Known Member
My religion is very individualized, so it's really up to the discretion of the followers as to what would make their lives the most fruitful. I think that sex in all of its safe, consensual forms is good, but it should not consume one's life.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I come from a Christian background, so we all know what that religion preaches. lol

I'm curious if there are any religions out there that aren't so stifling in terms of sexual expression, and human sexuality?
There are most definitely Christian denominations (and Jewish ones, too) that support very liberal norms for sexual expression -- and that includes marrying couples of the same gender. I can cite -- in Canada, at least -- the United Church of Canada (one of our largest denominations), and Reform Judaism. The struggles within the Anglican (Episcopalian in the US) are ongoing, but there is a lot of support for "unorthodox" sexual expression among many groups within that communion.

But I think it's important to remember, too, that religions very often reflect the views of their congregations. The congregation that doesn't like what their current pastor (or priest, rabbi, minister or leader) is preaching is actually quite likely to replace him or her with someone who better represents what the congregation thinks about the matter. Religion isn't always quite so "top-down" as we often think it is.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I come from a Christian background, so we all know what that religion preaches. lol

I'm curious if there are any religions out there that aren't so stifling in terms of sexual expression, and human sexuality?
But in the end, I think you have to lay a lot of blame on 2 individuals -- Saul of Tarsus (Paul), who very probably was gay, and the good Bishop of Hippo, St. Augustine, who probably did lust after one man at least, but also spent an awful lot of time in activities that he later declared nasty, bad, evil, and possibly not even very good with women. The deep sexual conflict in both these men have probably contributed to more grief than either would care to admit to. If only they'd felt better about themselves, you know?
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
There are most definitely Christian denominations (and Jewish ones, too) that support very liberal norms for sexual expression -- and that includes marrying couples of the same gender. I can cite -- in Canada, at least -- the United Church of Canada (one of our largest denominations), and Reform Judaism. The struggles within the Anglican (Episcopalian in the US) are ongoing, but there is a lot of support for "unorthodox" sexual expression among many groups within that communion.
But I think it's important to remember, too, that religions very often reflect the views of their congregations. The congregation that doesn't like what their current pastor (or priest, rabbi, minister or leader) is preaching is actually quite likely to replace him or her with someone who better represents what the congregation thinks about the matter. Religion isn't always quite so "top-down" as we often think it is.

Yes, especially within the realm of ' Christendom ' their religious views often reflect the views of their congregations.
Or, as 2 Timothy 4:3 mentions the 'flock' wants teachers (preachers) to tickle their ears, say what they want to hear.
They are like the people mentioned at Psalms 10:4; Psalms 92:7 who will be destroyed forever.
Thus, they have been lulled into 'spiritual sleep' ignoring such verses as Hebrews 13:4 that God will judge........
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
An expression of humanity. The soul being considered gender less makes for some interesting interpretations of sex in humans in general. For example in every human is feminity and masculinity. Some branches even stress one or the other in its adherents. In some Shakta sects, men must embrace inner feminity in order to worship.

To be married and not be sexually satisfied is a sin, well that's too strong a word. But it's considered a marriage in need of help either way. Though premarital sex is still frowned upon. Varying degrees of acceptance of gay marriage as well. I accept it, some conservatives don't. But most agree people should live their lives in peace.

In other words it's up to personal interpretation.
 

Sclavus

Member
I don't view sex the same way as many of my fellow Christians. For one, "sex" is a very specific term to describe penile-vaginal penetration. I believe sex before marriage is a sin, but I also don't view marriage the same way as other Christians. I do hold to somewhat similar views on homosexuality as many Christians, but just because I think something is a sin doesn't mean it's any of my business whether people do it.

If you're not straight, you should still have the same rights as everybody else. What you do is between you, the people you do it with, and God. I don't really care if gay people get married or if the guy peeing in the bathroom stall next to me used to have a vagina. As long as no one tries to involve me in what they're doing, it's none of my business. I get along fine with my LGBTQ+ friends, even though they know what I think. I also get along with my straight friends who have cheated in relationships, been involved in porn, etc., despite our sins. I certainly don't have any room for pitching stones.

Just because something is arousing doesn't mean it's sinful. I have reservations about pornography, but that's kind of tangential to this thread. I can see a woman, be aroused, and not fall into sin. I could have a girlfriend, be intimate with her, and not fall into sin. I also don't view masturbation as inherently sinful.
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Not as dirty as carp spawning, but less efficient. Just an observation, not really a religious position.
 

SabahTheLoner

Master of the Art of Couch Potato Cuddles
From a Satanist point of veiw, most forms of sexual expression is healthy. It's really up to the person what to do in the bedroom and as long as all parties are okay with what's going on and it isn't hurting anyone, then it shouldn't be a major concern.
 

Deidre

Well-Known Member
I don't view sex the same way as many of my fellow Christians. For one, "sex" is a very specific term to describe penile-vaginal penetration. I believe sex before marriage is a sin, but I also don't view marriage the same way as other Christians. I do hold to somewhat similar views on homosexuality as many Christians, but just because I think something is a sin doesn't mean it's any of my business whether people do it.

If you're not straight, you should still have the same rights as everybody else. What you do is between you, the people you do it with, and God. I don't really care if gay people get married or if the guy peeing in the bathroom stall next to me used to have a vagina. As long as no one tries to involve me in what they're doing, it's none of my business. I get along fine with my LGBTQ+ friends, even though they know what I think. I also get along with my straight friends who have cheated in relationships, been involved in porn, etc., despite our sins. I certainly don't have any room for pitching stones.

Just because something is arousing doesn't mean it's sinful. I have reservations about pornography, but that's kind of tangential to this thread. I can see a woman, be aroused, and not fall into sin. I could have a girlfriend, be intimate with her, and not fall into sin. I also don't view masturbation as inherently sinful.

I'll use the term ''sin'' for a moment, for the sake of the conversation, and flow of what you're saying here. I think that it's safe to say, as a believer, one can look at anything at all, and be tempted to sin over it. One can abuse food, and become gluttonous. One can abuse sex, and become addicted. One can go from an occasional drinker, to becoming an alcoholic. So, with all things ...there is the propensity for temptation. Temptation ''to sin.'' But, why is there such an emphasis on sexual ''sin,'' over say a person who overeats? There are many gluttonous preachers out there who shake their finger at homosexuals. It's like...why is there this need to compare sin to sin, as if God views a person's sins differently? It has always seemed to me, even when I was a practicing Christian, that whatever sins we struggle with, we don't believe they are all that bad. But, if we don't struggle with a particular sin, it's easy to point at those who do. The whole ''take the plank out of your own eye,'' passage comes to mind. Do you see the same thing I see in Christianity? This obsessive need that ''the church'' has to condemn mainly sexual sin, but let other sins slide?
 

Deidre

Well-Known Member
Pretty much every other cultural religion that has family and community as a tenant in its faith. Even though many religions accept people's sexuality as a whole outside of the Abrahamic view given their history and politics, there is still a cultural embedded sense of "male and female." The further back you go, though, it's not as strict. For example, there used to be a lot of LGBTQ in history before the 1800s. When Christianity came into the main front, Henry VII in England (and probably other countries) made sodomy against the law and punishable by death. Anything that disrupts the building of family was punishable not specifically sexuality but woman's status, race, and the like. In 1961, the US finally dropped all its sodomy laws. However, of course you have a lot of people of all sexualities way back since history started. You can trace it back by different books and articles they written, poetry, theatre, and social get togethers.

I'm putting together LGBTQ history timeline. Very interesting. But sexuality, in general, is put down by abrahamic religions. I don't know of other religions that specifically hate the person for their sexuality to call them sin, ill, or disturbed. They just promote a cultural unit and community without regards of who you are physically attracted to.

Of course my religion or spiritual practice doesn't have that strict uphold. Actually, sexuality is a great way to open yourself up to who you are without hiding as if nature hasn't seen you naked from the day you were born. Probably why a lot of Wiccans do rituals in skyclad.

I've always been a pretty cautious person by nature, so sleeping with random strangers always seemed risky to me, just from a secular perspective. When I think of the religious aspects of it all, I can somewhat understand that the ''rules'' may be designed to help people to not take unnecessary risks with their bodies. So, that makes sense. But, it seems like the Abrahamic faiths have issues with very basic human desires, suggesting that people should feel shame for just having natural feelings of arousal. That's so crazy that oral sex was once punishable by death. lol And then act like a god instructed for such a law to exist. You always bring up good points, Carlita.
 

Sclavus

Member
I'll use the term ''sin'' for a moment, for the sake of the conversation, and flow of what you're saying here. I think that it's safe to say, as a believer, one can look at anything at all, and be tempted to sin over it. One can abuse food, and become gluttonous. One can abuse sex, and become addicted. One can go from an occasional drinker, to becoming an alcoholic. So, with all things ...there is the propensity for temptation. Temptation ''to sin.'' But, why is there such an emphasis on sexual ''sin,'' over say a person who overeats? There are many gluttonous preachers out there who shake their finger at homosexuals. It's like...why is there this need to compare sin to sin, as if God views a person's sins differently? It has always seemed to me, even when I was a practicing Christian, that whatever sins we struggle with, we don't believe they are all that bad. But, if we don't struggle with a particular sin, it's easy to point at those who do. The whole ''take the plank out of your own eye,'' passage comes to mind. Do you see the same thing I see in Christianity? This obsessive need that ''the church'' has to condemn mainly sexual sin, but let other sins slide?
Absolutely. There's this compulsion to rank sins. Certainly, certain actions result in certain consequences. Jumping off a bunk bed, you might break an ankle, but you'll break your everything if you jump off a two-hundred-foot cliff.

The churches I've seen usually consider some sins to be worse than others, but sin is sin, and that puts the celibate nun who eats too much in the same boat as a rapist. Certainly, from a human perspective, rape is worse than gluttony, but from a spiritual standpoint, we're all on a level playing field in the fact we've all sinned.

I do believe sexual sin occurs, but it's no worse than any other sin, and each Christian has enough sin in their own life, it should keep them from condemning the sins of others. I've also found that the sins many people speak the loudest against often become their downfall. Many a Christian has ranted against sexual sin, only to be caught in adultery.

Sin is sin, and I think we all do it. I'm not eager to point at others to condemn them, because I sin as well, so I've no room to pitch stones without hitting myself in the process.
 

Deidre

Well-Known Member
My religion is very individualized, so it's really up to the discretion of the followers as to what would make their lives the most fruitful. I think that sex in all of its safe, consensual forms is good, but it should not consume one's life.
I don't personally have an interest in exploring your faith, but I find it SO curious. So very different than any faith i've explored. You find the light (or enlightenment) through darkness, is that the main premise?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I've always been a pretty cautious person by nature, so sleeping with random strangers always seemed risky to me, just from a secular perspective. When I think of the religious aspects of it all, I can somewhat understand that the ''rules'' may be designed to help people to not take unnecessary risks with their bodies. So, that makes sense. But, it seems like the Abrahamic faiths have issues with very basic human desires, suggesting that people should feel shame for just having natural feelings of arousal. That's so crazy that oral sex was once punishable by death. lol And then act like a god instructed for such a law to exist. You always bring up good points, Carlita.

It's really stupid ideology, to tell you honestly. It really doesn't have to do with sexual orientation as they didn't know anything about orientations before the Kindsy Studies (and related ones) that said sexuality is on a sliding scale from heterosexual on one side and homosexual on the other. It was more sexual acts. So, women would get arrested for sleeping with anyone outside of marriage. People get arrested in general for having any type of sex and intimacy outside of male/female intercourse.

The ideas were one that we were spread diseases (during the AIDS epidemic). Another reason somewhere in the 50s or 60s, they thought we had such a high limbido that we would go around abusing children. Sadly, that lasted even to the 90s with the boy scout thing and then manifested again with the priest molestation thing.

But, yeah, in history class just learning about the reasons for the two World Wars and events just make me upset and thinking at the same time how our world is just stupid in decision making in regards to land ownership and reasons for war.

But, yeah, it's a Catholic thing that influenced everyone else's views in the abrahamic view in the states. Ralph Wildo Emerson, a poet and gay man with other people helped get over that "males act this way and women act that way" through transcendentalism. He wrote and believed spirituality outside of rituals and dogma. That's when there was a boom in people being more sexually open. Today, the PRIDE marches (and probably feminist movements and other sex/gender movements) are pretty light. All after World War 2.

-

I notice you're leaning back into atheism. What happened to christianity? You were going strong with that.
 
Last edited:
Top