Religion and Sex

[TheGreekDollmaker]

This is mostly a psycological and biological subject as to why we are so obsessed with sex and why religion is so critical about sex.

Basecly, as someone else pointed out in this thread the reason why religion wants to restrict sex is because:

*The church wants to have more control of people.The more control you have over a group of people,the more easier is to spread your ideas.*

*General Confusion of older generations of people from 100 years ago too basecly after Jesus was Born about sex and our natural biological desire and impeding willingness to have sex so much.*

Of course to understand why the churches is doing something like that i need to lay out some groundwork.

A warning: I dont have any PHDs or paid education about Psycology.This is mostly a self researched study.

It mostly has to do with the Fundamental Human Neurosis and the Fundamental Female Neurosis

To understand The FHN (Fundametal Human Neurosis For short) understand what a neurosis is.Ivan Parvol gave a definition of psycological Neurosis as ''The stress induced when a single stimulus evokes two or more responses.''

Now the FHN is mostly the knowlage all organisms have about their impdating death.As such most, if all of our decisions in life have to do with us trying to avoid death at every turn we can, and a good way to do that is too go up in the social hiearchy.

After that we have the Fundemetal Female Neurosis is the biological need of Females to increase the value of sex, despite their basic biological purpose, to reprocuse as much they can.

So basecly if you manage to control this, to control people by changing their impeding knowlage of sex and the human strive for sex and the Fundemental Female Neurosis you could theoritically controll people down to their style of life and their decisions.

Now what does this have to do with religion? It mostly has to do with the confusion over sex from older generations of poeple.
Poeple back than didnt know why they were having this natural urge for sex.They had no knowlage of what was driving the so much to procreation.So they basecly just said that the gods did it.

Through that changed when some other religions came into play.Some religions became more strict on sex.

But this caltural restriction of sex wasnt really that important in the earlier days.When the middle ages through came that changed a lot.
The 7 Deadly sins came into play and that changed everything.They thought that everything that had to do with human nature was currupted and the work of the devil.

It was here through that the Church managed to control people 100% of the way by restricting their other biological need and purpose in life.They managed to get around the Fundemental Female Neurosis and our decisions based around it.

Now the Church had managed to take care of the Fundemental Human Neurosis from the start.Hell most religions did.By saying that Death was only the start and there was an afterlife they managed to change on some level the desicions of people as well as their lifestyles.

I also forgot to mention something back up there when i was laying the groundwork.Theres another biological effect sex has on our selfs.Since we know of our impeding death we base our biological lifes and decisions around sex ,our biological purpose in life, and around death.In little words our biological self's purpose is to avoid death and make as many babies as possible.

Since Decisions around death was already taken care of when the Churches explained about the afterlife decisions around biological procreation werent tkaen care of since the middle ages.By restricting our decisions on sex and our biological lust they had complete control of people.

Now of course a lot of stuff has changed since than but the idea stays the same with the Catholic Church.Thats why they say that you should wait until 18 and that you shouldnt use condoms since that would be sex without concequences.

 

[Giliell]

Problem is that religious people often fail to realise that the times for which those rules were good have gone by.

I'm not sure if I have a grasp on your message entirely, but your point has reminded me of something. Some of the justifications for 'marriage' and such (and by extension, chastity) have pointed out that abstinence is beneficial to the women who might be abandoned and so forced to raise a child in economic destitution, which is obviously detrimental for women. I could probably write an essay on the topic, but just to point out that this particular 'necessity' depends on the climate of any given culture. For instance, In societies that standardise the 'nuclear family' this may be more of a concern - and in societies where moral judgment tends to land on the woman I think this tends to happen more frequently - but this still is not the standard for all cultures. Some of that "good" might have been an illusion anyway.

I diodn't say the rules were beneficial for women, they most certainly aren't since those are rules that manifest patriarchy. But they are good rules to run a bronze age patriarchal society.
The rules in ancient Rome were good rules to run a society based on slave-ownership and military conquest. They just weren't beneficial for the slaves and the conquered