Happy Atheist Forum

I've never really understood this. Why has sex and sexuality been so repressed by religion? Was it just another system of control? Why was Mary a virgin? That's just the stupidest idea ever, in my opinion.

Sex is awesome. It should be celebrated, not stifled.

Embarrassment.
Control.
Repression.
Distinction.

There are dozens of reasons. It all basically just snowballed. At religion's conception, humans were trying to a) understand nature and their newfound humanity, and b) distinguish themselves from animals. Animals' sex lives are... open, to say the least. See where this is going?

The idea of Mary being a virgin was (if I remember correctly) simply a way for the New Testament to fulfill some Old Testament prophesies. It was far from original and, from a historical standpoint, rather hokey. Later on, when Christianity was being spread all over Europe--where most of the people were in one way or another Pagan or, at the very least, members of a loosely-connected group of polytheistic religions (collections of superstitions more than a "religion")--it was a way to separate the Christians from the Pagans. As time went on, it became a way to distinguish your specific brand of Christianity from another, one which is antagonistic to yours: "Well, sexuality has been looked down upon, so if we're more prudish than that sect, then we're better!" And so on. And so on.

Idiotic.

Sex is great, and should definitely be celebrated, as you said. It's also more complicated than just what I've said. In Asia, for example, you will find some of the most conservative cultures in the world (sexually) with little to no influence of Christianity. Then, on the other hand, you have the Japanese...  

Nice. Thanks for the reply!

I love the Japanese. No where else in the world can you find vending machines which contain used panties!! I find it funny that women can't be seen to have shaved if being filmed for pornographic purposes but then they can do and act as depraved as they like with the only limitation being the pixelation of varous acts.

Seems a bit topsy-turvy to me but i love them for it.

I seriously have to visit that culture.

Well, go! Just try to avoid Tokyo. It's waaaay too busy. On the otherhand, it's absolutely necessary that you visit the Harijuku district.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Well, go! Just try to avoid Tokyo. It's waaaay too busy. On the otherhand, it's absolutely necessary that you visit the Harijuku district.

I definitely will (once i've been promoted at work and have spare cash, hehe). My ex-girlfriend is Japanese and keeps asking me to visit. That, in itself, is enough motivation for me to drop everything and get my ass to Osaka.

Quote from: "karadan"I've never really understood this. Why has sex and sexuality been so repressed by religion? Was it just another system of control? Why was Mary a virgin? That's just the stupidest idea ever, in my opinion.

Sex is awesome. It should be celebrated, not stifled.

Cat is right, sex is power ... it (and violence LOL) is part of our basic nature

I've thought for sometime that most (if not all) of the things we do can be attributed to our basic need to find a compatible partner.

Kyu

As I grew up I was told that sex of ANY kind before marriage was equal to irreversible failure. Many people (catholic girls?) have this belief, but that's generally a personal, individual choice. I grew up through my teenage and early dating years in a group that shared this belief which had been forced upon us. The intention was to keep us focused on God, keep us safe and create social cohesion. It starts out like a good idea, but things eventually take a turn for the worst.

Everyone was in the same boat, with everything, so we were all extremely close with one another. We were so "Special" though, we felt that only those in our group were worth dating. Initial dating was also more intellectual than physical. We had all of this spiritual stuff to discuss and it made couples feel stronger than normal; forced to pursue something "deeper" than sex. As the euphoria wore off though, you'd start to struggle with the sexual tension that only now seemed appropriate. It really began to have the reverse effect of what was intended. People couldn't stop thinking about sex, and yet they had no out. When you were with another person, everything was that much more arousing too. It was either torture to resist each other, or you gave in, either by accident or choice (in whatever form). Those who slipped up would fade out of the group, not being able to get reconcile their guilt with all that they had taken on faith.

My whole life has been a social experiment. In the end, everyone has regrets, guilt and friends they went too far with.

mary was a virgin to prove that jesus was the son of god. i would have a hard time arguing that i am the son of god, because i came from a humans penis in sperm form. i have a physical father. jesus did not, so it gave the claim a little more credibility. plus all the other religions were using that. and maybe the repression of sex is an attempt to take power from the woman and give it to the man. if men dont participate in sex and suppress those urges, then women loose some (if not all) of their power over men. for some reason, the church (historically, at least) hates when women are given any power.

I am naturally shy and awkward around women(though I'm nothing of the sort when I'm in public.   :cool:

What do you guys think of the "Abstinence Only" education?

I think it's BS!

It's a prejudice thought, and prejudism has its way of working itself into religion. This is just another reason for the "righteous" to point fingers. Many people, religious or not, seem to think illy of lewds.

I don't have a problem with the teaching of "Abstinence Only." It's a good way avoiding STDs and other complications. Not to mention sex is overrated.

Religion despises everything that bring people fun, joy and happiness. I think that the reason behind is that that religion thinks that only God can bring true eternal bliss and happiness. Having fun is evil, because it turns people away from God. People who are having fun with sex are substituting the love from God with the pleasures of the human flesh. Abstinence it therefore the ideal rule, because it keeps people "pure" from temptation from the "devil". Since religion would die out quickly in case they would forbid sex completely, they allow people to have sex but for reproduction reasons only. Having fun with sex, remains a big No, No. BTW I always wondered why the Pope, who uses his organ for peeing only, has any moral rights to make decisions about the sex life of millions of his followers. Anyway, I think that the sexual oppression by religion is a disgrace. It is sick and evil and has ruined the lives of too many people on this planet. Religion will never stop doing that for one simple reason. People, who feel miserable are more tempted to believe that there is an happier afterlife waiting for them than people who are happy. So it is in the interest of religion to make people feel bad, because they would gain much more followers than by making people feel good about themselves.

I think you're onto something with the pleasure bit.

sexual repression totally screwed me up. I think waaaaay to highly of sex and I'm bound to both disappoint and be disappointed when I get around to losing my virginity. All my life it's been "wait until marriage" but now I'm "allowed" and I don't know what the hell to do! lol.

this is to the guys

i believe that sex too early in a relationship is damaging. your brain, in desiring sex from another, does something very interesting: it makes you interested in the other person, it makes you feel like being more romantic, it changes you. once the sex is had, your brain reverts to normal, and if you havent truly bonded with the person on more than a physical level, you will become bored with them pretty quickly. this is what i think should be taught to kids, not wait until marriage, just wait six months to a year if its someone you care about (or just use your judgment). if its all about the punani, then let her know of your intentions.

They don't want people to have fun.

Why not?

We gotta repress something, and I don't think food and water would be very stable...  

Quote from: "karadan"Sex is awesome. It should be celebrated, not stifled.

Some religions of the past and present do celebrate sex.  Don't some Wiccan groups have ritualized orgies (I realize they don't all choose to do that)?

Quote from: "Arthur Dent"I think you're onto something with the pleasure bit.

sexual repression totally screwed me up. I think waaaaay to highly of sex and I'm bound to both disappoint and be disappointed when I get around to losing my virginity. All my life it's been "wait until marriage" but now I'm "allowed" and I don't know what the hell to do! lol.

Wow.. The experience is amazing when with someone you like a lot (in my case with someone i had liked for years) which really hightened the experience. If you do it with someone just for the hell of it, then you run the risk of it feeling awkward and weird. That can have a lasting effect on any future endeavours you might have.

Don't worry about not having done it yet. Just make sure that when the time comes, to do it with someone you know and like because the experience will be explosively amazing.

Just finished reading an article about religiosity and teenage sexuality. Citation and abstract:

QuoteHardy, S. A., & Raffaelli, M. (2003). Adolescent religiosity and sexuality: An investigation of reciprocal influences. Journal of Adolescence, 26(6), 731.

The present study examined potential bi-directional associations between religiosity and first sexual intercourse. The sample, drawn from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, included 303 teens (22% Hispanic, 35% Black, 43% White; 53% male) aged 15â€"16 in 1996 and 17â€"18 in 1998. All teens included in the sample were virgins at Time 1. In the longitudinal analyses, higher Time 1 religiosity (a composite of importance of religion and frequency of church attendance) was associated with a lower likelihood of first sexual intercourse between Time 1 and Time 2. However, transition to sexual activity between Time 1 and Time 2 was not significantly related to Time 2 religiosity. Thus, results do not support a bi-directional association; instead, it appears that teens with higher levels of religiosity tend to delay sexual involvement more than those with lower levels of religiosity.

(I wanted to type up some of the highlights. No citations or page numbers, and sentences don't necessarily come one after another in the original text. Paragraphs are still separated... this is literally what I have highlighted, and emphasis is mine.)

QuoteBecause of these potential consequences, scholars have searched for factors associated with delayed sexual initiation. One such factor is religiosity, or religious attitudes and behaviors. Most research on religion and sexuality has sought to understand whether, and to what extent, religiosity influences sexual behavior. This research suggests that religiosity likely delays the onset of sexual intercourse, and may reduce sexual activity thereafter. ...the purpose of this study was to extend the existing research on bi-directional associates between religiosity and adolescent sexual behavior.

One possible avenue by which religion may influence the timing of an adolescent's transition to sexual activity may be by acting as a source of social control. ...humans all have an innate drive towards deviance that can be restrained by bonds to social organizations... although teens might have a tendency toward sexual involvement, if they are bonded to a social organization with conservative norms regarding sexual behavior (such as a religious organization), they should be motivated to delay sexual behavior.

Part of the basis for religion as a social control is that it provides consequences for deviance, such as guilt, shame, public embarrassment, and threat or expectation of divine punishment. Knowledge and fear of these consequences provides motivation for conformity to religious doctrines. If religious individuals do choose to deviate from the norms of their religion... associated psychological distress...  cognitive dissonance... a contradiction between what an individual believes and how he or she behaves. They may experience cognitive dissonance in the form of feelings of "unworthiness."

Almost all studies of religiosity and teen sexual behavior posit a unidirectional linkage whereby religiosity influences sexual behavior. Part of the association reported between religiosity and first sexual intercourse might be due to the reciprocal influence of transitioning to sexual experience on subsequent religiosity [this was not supported, by the way. -curio]. However, this possibility has not been adequately explored.

Church attendance significantly predicts sexual attitudes (permissiveness) and behaviors (coital experience and number of sex partners), whereas sexual permissiveness but not coital experience predicted religious attendance. Another... study... reported that religiosity did not significantly predict frequency of sexual intercourse in the past year, but frequency of sexual intercourse negatively predicted religiosity.

The sample consisted of 15-18 year old virgins. Higher initial religiosity was linked to lower likelihood of transition to sexual intercourse for female teens but not male teens (after controlling for sex attitudes), but engaging in sexual activity was not associated with a subsequent change in religiosity for male teens or female teens.

While higher religiosity is often associated with delayed first sexual intercourse or lower likelihood of sexual experience, the few studies that have examined the reciprocal effect of transition to sexual activity on religiosity have yielded mixed results.

First, it was hypothesized that teens who reported higher religiosity would be less likely to transition to sexual activity than those who reported lower religiosity. Second, it was hypothesized that teens who transitioned to sexual activity would experience a significant decrease in religiosity.

[The study determined levels of "religiosity" by using answers to these two questions: "How important would you say religion is to you?" and "In the past year about how often have you attended religious services?". Just wanted to throw that in there. -curio]

The hypothesis that becoming sexually active might influence subsequent religiosity was not supported.

Of the existing studies that have utilized similar measures of religiosity, most have found higher religiosity to be related to delayed first sexual intercourse or lower likelihood of sexual experience. Religiosity can act as a "protective factor" against teen sexual intercourse.

Teens who had their first sexual intercourse between the two study time points [T1 being at 15-16 years old, T2 being two years later. -curio] did not show a significant reduction in religiosity, although such a reduction was predicted based on cognitive dissonance and social control theories and past cross-sectional findings.

Religiosity might not lead teens to postpone sexual intercourse; rather, some third variable, such as temperamental differences related to risk-preference, may be responsible for both high importance placed on religion and delayed first sexual intercourse. Causal ordering of events can be better assessed the more time points that are included, and the closer they are together. The analytic sample was limited to teens who were virgins at the initial time point, leading to the exclusion of 40% of the original sample of 15-16 year olds.

It is conceivable that once these mechanisms become  clearer, information will be available for the development of interventions from a variety of perspectives (e.g. programs to help teens postpone sexual activity and reduce sexual risk-taking), including programs that are not religion-based. Some research suggests that religion might influence sexual behavior by affecting attitudes towards sex, such that teens with more conservative sexual attitudes engage in lower levels of sexual risk-taking. An intervention to promote religiosity among teens would undoubtedly be controversial, attempts to change attitudes and beliefs regarding sexuality (e.g. promoting individual and group norms that discourage early sexual involvement) are typically accepted.

It's a lot. I know. But, now at least when a theist says that teens having sex will turn them away from God (or some other version of that argument), you have empirical evidence that shows the opposite. Some things popped out to me, though:

• All participants were virgins at 15/16 years old, and "virgin" was the control theme.
• There were many limitations to this study.
• Fear is suggested as a way to delay sexual "risk-taking"
• Somehow, instead of educating teens about sex, it is better to simply delay sex until they are older.

I'll put this as scholarly as I can: WTF?!

In Japan the average age people lose their virginity is years older than it is in the US.  I think the repression and fear tactics make it more likely kids will have sex and more likely that it will be unsafe.

Sex is repressed in the western world because we have descended from a patriarchal society.  In the past, women were little more than talking cattle as far as society was concerned.  The requirement of virginity was to insure the paternity of any offspring.  The tradition of the honeymoon came about to make double sure any first children were the legal husband's.

Historically, religion flourishes in hard times.  When people are leading enjoyable lives fewer people turn to religion.  In this time of relative, overall not-too-bad times it probably helps to restrict any method of finding joy.

I'll post something more coherent when my fever comes down.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"The tradition of the honeymoon came about to make double sure any first children were the legal husband's
.

I never knew that, interesting.

Quote from: "Sophus"I don't have a problem with the teaching of "Abstinence Only." It's a good way avoiding STDs and other complications. Not to mention sex is overrated.

Thank you!  I always feel like I am the only one that thinks that.  Nothing really entertaining or exciting about it to me.

I agree with the above posts that for social reasons sex was included in religion, after all religion was used to control the masses, just makes sense they'd include it there.

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Sophus"I don't have a problem with the teaching of "Abstinence Only." It's a good way avoiding STDs and other complications. Not to mention sex is overrated.

Thank you!  I always feel like I am the only one that thinks that.  Nothing really entertaining or exciting about it to me.

While asexuality is a sexual orientation, it's relatively uncommon, so programs to prevent the spread of STD's and to prevent unwanted pregnancies need to be aimed at the rest of the spectrum of sexuality.

People don't understand that traditional sex education also teaches abstinence but without the hellfire or humiliation tactics.  I think that the humiliation techniques used in abstinence only programs are harmful but I believe the religious component in abstinence only programs is completely inappropriate for public schools.

Teaching children about how their bodies work does not increase their interest in having sex.  In countries where sex education is taught seriously, the average age of first sex is higher and the rate of STD's is lower.  Education is not a bad thing.  US sex education programs are at best completely half-assed but still better than the Abstinence Only program with religious overtones foisted upon some students at the cost of $50 million per year.  Traditional sex ed is usually taught as part of health class and doesn't cost anything in addition to the regular curriculum.

I agree, abstinance only education makes about as much sense as driving without a seatbelt in the belief that if you are careful enough, you will never crash.

Young people will always make a choice about sex, the very best you can do is to outline all the options open to them and then the consequences of those actions. "Because I said so" never works, as people quite rightly question it.

Quote from: "Tom62"BTW I always wondered why the Pope, who uses his organ for peeing only, has any moral rights to make decisions about the sex life of millions of his followers.

That's not pee, that's concentrated evil coming out of there!

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgamesnet.vo.llnwd.net%2Fo1%2Fgamestar%2Fobjects%2F211875_main.jpg&hash=38a40cdef45450307f9c2d54ec55d261eb0541bc)

Quote from: "Kylyssa"The tradition of the honeymoon came about to make double sure any first children were the legal husband's.

Not sure if what you said is true, or if this is true, but I actually just got an e-mail with little known "facts" which had this to say about honeymoons:
 

QuoteIt was the accepted practice in Babylon 4,000 years ago that for a month after the wedding, the bride's father would supply his son-in-law with all the mead he could drink. Mead is a honey beer and because their calendar was lunar based, this period was called the honey month, which we know today as the honeymoon.

Quote from: "Oxford English Dictionary"1656 BLOUNT Glossogr., Hony-moon, applyed to those marryed persons that love well at first, and decline in affection afterwards; it is hony now, but it will change as the Moon.

So, who knows. Heh.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "Oxford English Dictionary"1656 BLOUNT Glossogr., Hony-moon, applyed to those marryed persons that love well at first, and decline in affection afterwards; it is hony now, but it will change as the Moon.

So, who knows. Heh.

They all sound like good definitions to me.  

Sexual control is for social and political control, it is only tangentially connected with religion.

A better question is why don't people think for themselves and just ignore the baseless 'opinions' that surround them?