Post by Tlaloc on Sept 17, 2013 4:19:13 GMT -8
Have you ever noticed that within the broad notion on sin, it seems that there is a disproportionate fixation on sex and sexuality? My hypothesis is that because sexuality is something so fundamental to the human experience, it is where (relative to other areas of sin) we as individuals will face the strongest and most temptation to 'sin' so to speak.
I think the reason that religions tend to be so fixated in this area, is because our sexualities are so fundamental to what it means for us to even be human. If you can gain some kind of psychological leverage over a person in this area, you gain an incredibly powerful way to exert psychological control over them. Convince someone that their sexuality is evil, and when they almost inevitably sin in this area the cognitive disconnect will do all the work for you. The person experiences a conflict between their desires, and their religious conviction that teaches them that those desires are debased and morally evil. If the indoctrination is strong enough, the person will feel guilt and the only avenue of escape from this guilt is the religion itself. This perpetuates a cycle that works to reinforce the strength of the religious conviction because you have essentially hijacked a major aspect of a person's psychological life. And if you've actually experienced what this guilt is like, then you'll understand just how vicious this sort of manipulation really is. (to even think of sex is a sin)
Of course, you cannot completely disallow sex if you want your religion to actually survive in the long run. Thus you sanctify it with the confines of a marriage arrangement of some sort. The restrictions that are placed on a married couple in regards to what the said couple may or may not do will vary from group to group. A Catholic couple for example, (on paper at least) must in all circumstances only engage in sexual activity that ultimately results in the "full marriage act" that is, if not explicitly intended to be procreative, must nonetheless be sex that is open to the possibility of procreation. Thus contraception and masturbatory activity is off limits. The justification for such restrictions is based off an over-simplistic, mediaeval notion of what sexuality actually is. The idea is that because the fundamental raison d'ĂȘtre of sexuality is procreative, all natural manifestations of sexuality must therefore also be procreative. Use otherwise, becomes unnatural. To use something unnaturally, is to use something in such a way that God did not intend. Thus you are committing a major sin against the natural order set by God when you engage in any sexual activity not open to the possibility of procreation. Of course, as I've said, this reasoning is based of a misconstrued idea of what human sexuality is. We have a sexuality, because it allows reproduction. It does not follow however that every "natural" manifestation of sexual behaviour is procreative. Sex and sexuality is more complex than to be reduced to a mere question of its mechanical function in one aspect of the whole dynamic. Of course, I think that the whole notion of natural law is nothing but a post hoc rationalisation for what really boils down to an already pre-gone conclusion that sex is icky and sinful. The reason sexuality is icky and sinful, is again all about psychological leverage.
Now of course, that's not to say that to take an unrestricted "free love" approach to sex is a good idea. I actually agree that part of being human is also showing restraint. But there are good reasons to avoid such an attitude without resorting to armchair notions of morality. The Christian and I are actually not at odds when he insists that sex should ideally be kept within a committed relationship. It's just that my reasons for thinking so are built around pragmatic concerns rather than notions of morality.
I think the reason that religions tend to be so fixated in this area, is because our sexualities are so fundamental to what it means for us to even be human. If you can gain some kind of psychological leverage over a person in this area, you gain an incredibly powerful way to exert psychological control over them. Convince someone that their sexuality is evil, and when they almost inevitably sin in this area the cognitive disconnect will do all the work for you. The person experiences a conflict between their desires, and their religious conviction that teaches them that those desires are debased and morally evil. If the indoctrination is strong enough, the person will feel guilt and the only avenue of escape from this guilt is the religion itself. This perpetuates a cycle that works to reinforce the strength of the religious conviction because you have essentially hijacked a major aspect of a person's psychological life. And if you've actually experienced what this guilt is like, then you'll understand just how vicious this sort of manipulation really is. (to even think of sex is a sin)
Of course, you cannot completely disallow sex if you want your religion to actually survive in the long run. Thus you sanctify it with the confines of a marriage arrangement of some sort. The restrictions that are placed on a married couple in regards to what the said couple may or may not do will vary from group to group. A Catholic couple for example, (on paper at least) must in all circumstances only engage in sexual activity that ultimately results in the "full marriage act" that is, if not explicitly intended to be procreative, must nonetheless be sex that is open to the possibility of procreation. Thus contraception and masturbatory activity is off limits. The justification for such restrictions is based off an over-simplistic, mediaeval notion of what sexuality actually is. The idea is that because the fundamental raison d'ĂȘtre of sexuality is procreative, all natural manifestations of sexuality must therefore also be procreative. Use otherwise, becomes unnatural. To use something unnaturally, is to use something in such a way that God did not intend. Thus you are committing a major sin against the natural order set by God when you engage in any sexual activity not open to the possibility of procreation. Of course, as I've said, this reasoning is based of a misconstrued idea of what human sexuality is. We have a sexuality, because it allows reproduction. It does not follow however that every "natural" manifestation of sexual behaviour is procreative. Sex and sexuality is more complex than to be reduced to a mere question of its mechanical function in one aspect of the whole dynamic. Of course, I think that the whole notion of natural law is nothing but a post hoc rationalisation for what really boils down to an already pre-gone conclusion that sex is icky and sinful. The reason sexuality is icky and sinful, is again all about psychological leverage.
Now of course, that's not to say that to take an unrestricted "free love" approach to sex is a good idea. I actually agree that part of being human is also showing restraint. But there are good reasons to avoid such an attitude without resorting to armchair notions of morality. The Christian and I are actually not at odds when he insists that sex should ideally be kept within a committed relationship. It's just that my reasons for thinking so are built around pragmatic concerns rather than notions of morality.