|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I have experience of only my brand of christianity. I am not just thinking "Gay vs Str8" here. I am thinking of all acts of intimacy between people of any gender.
Laws in the USA (now repealed, I think) to do with the positions allowed when a man and wife have sex, based on some sort of religious totem are a good example.
[Updated on: Thu, 14 July 2005 07:40]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First of all I do not think that what you say is true of all religions. But it certainly seems to be true of the three monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
I think that from the historical/sociological POV it stems from the social culture of the Israelites. A woman was not an independent individual: she belonged to a man as his personal property. She went from the tutelege of her father to that of her husband. An unmarried woman not living with her father, her husband or her future husband was not restricted sexually because she did not 'belong' to any man. To have a sexual encounter with an unmarried daughter was 'spoiling the goods' (and usually required marriage); to have a sexual encounter with a married woman was the equivalent of stealing another man's property.
Vestiges of this can still be found in the monotheistic religions today. In many Christian marriage services someone (the father or his locum) must 'give the bride away' - that is to say that they must permit the woman to marry this man. In the Jewish divorce ceremony to this day one of the phrases that the man writes is "you are now permitted to any man".
Well, you DID ask!
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
That explains the idea that chastity must exist prior to wedlock. But it does not explain why certain mating positions had been banned.
It also does not explain the period of unclean status after a woman's period, whci I know to have lingered into christianity with the "Churching of women" to restore them to mating status.
I do see that in olden times a women was property.
I also understand that religions want to dominate, so "use sex to mate and procreate" and thus overwhelm other religions with a mass of perfect little "my tribe" people.
But since sex is also fun, why limit people's fun? What is it about a religion that "must" make people cowed down and joyless?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
You hit the nail on the head with that last paragraph.
It's all about fun......
You wouldn't want the flock to think what they did for the church was fun...... That would dispel the notion that devoutedness toward the church was something less than suffering for the grace of god.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
>>But since sex is also fun, why limit people's fun? What is it about a religion that "must" make people cowed down and joyless?<<
Hmm. Well, I can't speak for all religions but what you have written above certainly does not hold for Judaism. Sex between husband and wife is encouraged on the holiest day of the week, the Sabbath; this is because it is considered part of "the joy of Sabbath".
Maybe what Tim is referring to came in when Christianity 'borrowed' the Jewish Sabbath, made it be on Sunday instead of Saturday, and introduced the puritanical concepts of religion. I believe that the classical puritan Christian 'horror' of sex in particular and fun in general derives from the mysogeny of Saint Paul. (But I have been known to be wrong.  )
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
But surely there must be some joy filled religions?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, it is only outside the bond of marriage that sex is frowned upon in Judaism - and, I think, Islam. Within the marriage bond it is supposed to be fun and enjoyment. So, are we sure that "sex must be miserable" is true of any religion except Christianity?
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
The scenario you painted eluded to christianity.....
Not many religions activly warrant sexual repression.
I am thinking hard and can think on not one other.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I rather agree with you, Marc.
As far I can think off the top of my head, while many other religions usually have particular restrictions on some sexual activity, some foods one can eat, some places one can go, some words one can say etc,(ie the full range of taboos), Christianity (including its offshoots) is the only one I can think of that has often pushed the idea that the things of "this world" are bad in general.(Buddhism is a rather different kettle of fish altogether, as I understand it) In other religions, self-denial or self-mortification seem to be more of a personal spiritual decision.
I've always rather thought this strand of not valuing the physical / the things of the body was largely due to the personal hangups and self-esteem problems of Saul of Tarsus ... but that may be because in general I see him as having shaped Christianity in a way that is different from my understanding of the actual gospels (both cannonical and apocryphal).
However, the strategic uses of christianity as a "jam tomorrow" religion that made it so useful during the period the roman empire was disintegrating may also have contributed to this: the view that the physical / the here and now is of trivial importance does not encourage self-estemm and pride in the body and its abilities and enjoyments.
just my own point of view of course (as someone who is happy to self-identify as Christian) - "your mileage may vary".
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Taking your point and JFR's point as one, which broadly I think they are, (or at least taking one point from each answer) how on earth did christianity come to have so many variations on why sex is not allowed, or why "that mode of sex" is not allowed.
Many non judaic based religions appear to actively encourage masturbation too! Every sperm is not sacred! In fact as part of fertility rituals it may and shoudl be spilled on the ground.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
> ((snip)) how on earth did christianity come to have so many variations on why sex is not allowed, or why "that mode of sex" is not allowed. ((snip))
>
Given the "it is better to marry than to burn" mentality, the ideal is no sex. But the many communities that enforced this rule tended to die out: recruitment was insufficent to make up for the lack of births. So the communities that survived were those that decided to relax the no sex rule. How they did so seems to be entirely arbitrary.
My understanding is that this was all happending in the middle of the 4th century (christian time) ... about the time that gay marriage was proscribed by the churches, marriage for priests was proscribed, etc. and also the time that the bible was edited as a whole, and started to have pretty much the constituent books we see today. However, its a long time (decades) since I read up on this, so I'm quite prepared to be wrong!
Just my own views of course. "Your mileage may vary".
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
So why must I (or did I have to before the relevant laws were repealed) only make love to a woman face to face? Wny may I not use a different position?
Why may I not masturbate?
Why may I not give pleasure to another male person? After all, women are out of the loop for 14 days every 28, and pretty much for 3-6 months after childbirth.
Why may a woman not give pleasure to another woman?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
>>So why must I ... only make love to a woman face to face? Wny may I not use a different position? Why may I not masturbate? Why may I not give pleasure to another male person?>After all, women are out of the loop for 14 days every 28, and pretty much for 3-6 months after childbirth.<<
This is a legacy from Judaism. In Orthodox Judaism a woman is "unclean" during the whole time she is bleeding and for seven days thereafter. This is probably to ensure that coitus will take place when the woman is most fertile - approximately two weeks before her next period.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But the first part of my response didn't get through. What I wrote regarding Timmy's first question was:
I think you have already been answered: this is the legacy of Paul of Tarsus.
The part of my response which did get through related to Timmy's second question about menstruation.
Computers! Ugh!
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
So why did anyone give Paul of Tarsus any credence at all?
"How dare oyu tell me what to do with my body!" Surely this woudl have been the reaction of any man or woman of tghe time? Or was christianity so compelling that they gave up control that easily?
And then why does Paul of Tarsus have to have a legacy anyway? He was just a bloke in a desert, kind of. At least John the Baptist gave you a bath!
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Ah, so men are kept in a state of tumescence until day 14! That makes sense.
Except that we masturbate. Ah, that explains Onan and why we must not.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
> So why did anyone give Paul of Tarsus any credence at all?
>
Saul of Tarsus ("Saint Paul" after his falling-over-in-the-street-on-the-way-to-Damascus act) was the guy who took a local sect and turned it into a major player with branches all over the place. Yes, I know that the disciples did much of the legwork, but they were all pretty much by nature followers. Saul was the leader who took over after the founders death.
My own view - based more on the differences that I feel between the Gospel documents and the 'Pauline' epistles and stuff than on historical sources - is that his asumption of leadership was the result of political opportunism coupled with ambivalence about his previous persection of Christians. Certainly, the adoption of a significant number of sybolic elements from Mithraism (eg December 25th birth, ritual cannibalism) could be taken as a sign that the new religion was in some ways adopting the best selling-points of its competitors. But the self-opressive element to christianity seems to me to have been purely of Saul's devising.
Very much my own personal views - again as a self-identified Christian. I certainly do not intend any lack of respect for the views that other Christians may hold.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
>Except that we masturbate. Ah, that explains Onan and why we must not.<
Well, not really. Ascribing masturbation to poor old Onan is a pious Victorian error. If you read the story [Genesis 38] carefully you will see that it concerns a case of coitus interruptus: Onan didn't want to get Tamar pregnant.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
A thought occured to me as I was reading something last evening.
Perhaps the "christian" attitude toward sex is a result of Christ being born without the use of a peepee.
If you can do it without the tool at all then you should "do it" for real with as little tooling as possible.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nice one! LOL
a bright spot in a difficult morning: thanks
NW
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
