Sex and Your Religious Beliefs

[mooeypoo]

I think raping anyone is wrong. If the coma patient has previously given implied consent to having sex (maybe she's your wife), then it might not be wrong, but would at best be extremely disturbing.

We agree the coma patient rape is wrong not because of the sex-for-pleasure act, but because of the abuse we see in it. First, there's a conception about coma patients that they might actually feel and think and are conscious through their coma (whether this is true or not is irrelevant, this conception affects our sense of whether or not it's good or bad). So we see this act as not just a rape, but a rape of someone who can't fight back.

 

Honestly, I see it as disturbing as well, *BUT* if I examine my own arguments, then *if* the coma patient is -- for sure, without any question whatsoever -- non conscious at all, then I am not sure I would see this act as immoral. Weird, yea, but not immoral. I feel like I can't really say it's immoral and remain consistent.

 

Same goes to having sex with corpses. Do I condone it? egh, no, I see it as totally disgusting, but if forced to say why, I would go to emotional reasons like feeling as if it disrespect the dead, but seeing as I don't believe anything is left inside the body after we die, I can't really claim that this is rape. Or that it's "against the will" (there's no longer will..) so it may well be disgusting and disturbing, and can expose other potential psychological problems with the person who does that, but it isn't immoral per-say.

 

 

Well in Genesis God cursed the entire earth due to Adam's sin, and later before the flood said "And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. --Genesis 6:12" This seems to include animals, so I think that God got disgusted by his own natural creations as well. Elsewhere the Bible talks about how we are naturally inclined to sin.

And yet, he kept all the "good guys", got rid of all the "bad guys", assuming we, the decedents, are descendants from the good folk. In terms of our free will we might be able to corrupt ourselves (against god's intentions) but our physical makeup -- which isn't our choosing -- should be what god intended. No?

 

Of course, that also raises a question about the infallibility of God, and the all-powerful nature, etc etc, *and* let us not forget that God *regrets* his decision to destroy the entire Earth and promises Noah never to do that again.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I think this probably stems from the natural inclination not to mate with your family members, especially parents. It could all be social, but I think there is a natural component. Then you have sexually repressed monks and nuns trying to convince themselves and society that going without is the gold standard.

I don't understand the connection. You don't have to have sex with your parents to enjoy sex.. you can have sex with yourself. And with a random individual (safely). Or with your boyfriend/girlfriend for pleasure (hence, while using contraceptives).

 

What does it have to do with parents?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Just in the point of masturbation, there are scientific evidence that it helps more than just "pleasure".

 

• It may help in the prevention of prostate cancer: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118853726/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
  
• Apparently, it could bring hay fever relief for men:
  http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16872-masturbation-could-bring-hay-fever-relief-for-men.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
  
• It increases self esteem by exploring one's sexual expression: http://www.healthline.com/galecontent/masturbation-1
  
• It improves relationships (this particular article is an opinion, not a study, unlike the others, but I thought it's worth a read too): http://badgerherald.com/oped/2007/04/19/masturbation_key_to_.php
  
• Significantly lowers mortality (by 50%, it seems!): http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7123/1641
  

And there are more, but these are just a few snapshots. Apparently, sex for pleasure isn't just "nice" and "fun", it seems there are scientific correlation to improved health.

 

~moo

[Severian]

Just in the point of masturbation, there are scientific evidence that it helps more than just "pleasure".

 

That is rather naughty of you, especially as you are a mod. None of these articles present any evidence to support your claim (though the first link was broken so I couldn't check it).

 

The most scientific-seeming is the last one, but it is not claiming what you say - it claims a link between sex and mortality, not masturbation. Also, the naivety of the researchers does seem a little bit staggering. They basically asked a group of men how often they had sex and assume they are getting the truth! Their only comment is "Recalled number of orgasms has been shown previously to offer a reliable measure of male sexual activity." Yeah, right!

 

Also, their discussion of correlation vs causation is extremely weak. (They even admit a bias caused by men refusing to answer the question about how often they have sex, but then just ignore it!)

[john5746]

I don't understand the connection. You don't have to have sex with your parents to enjoy sex.. you can have sex with yourself. And with a random individual (safely). Or with your boyfriend/girlfriend for pleasure (hence, while using contraceptives).

 

What does it have to do with parents?

 

Reading again, I was very obtuse. I was trying to get at where the sex act as "dirty" might come from. Social cohesion is apparent, but I also think there might be genetic components as well. We need to do it only with the wife in a certain position only to have children. Anything else is just wrong.

[mooeypoo]

That is rather naughty of you, especially as you are a mod. None of these articles present any evidence to support your claim (though the first link was broken so I couldn't check it).

I'll check them out when I get back home... this is weird, I looked them up. But I'll double check.

 

The most scientific-seeming is the last one, but it is not claiming what you say - it claims a link between sex and mortality, not masturbation.

Right, still -- that means that sex is not *just* meant for reproduction. And that sex - for fun or for 'duty' has positive outcomes. Combined with the fact that sexual acts deliver hormonal *PLEASURE* to the brain, then what would support a claim that it's not meant to be practiced for pleasure?

 

Also, the naivety of the researchers does seem a little bit staggering. They basically asked a group of men how often they had sex and assume they are getting the truth! Their only comment is "Recalled number of orgasms has been shown previously to offer a reliable measure of male sexual activity." Yeah, right!

 

It's a bit more than that, but okay, fair enough, it was "poll". Let me do a bit more digging and give you the science articles I read. This was a 'scratching the surface' endeavor.

 

 

~moo

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Reading again, I was very obtuse. I was trying to get at where the sex act as "dirty" might come from. Social cohesion is apparent, but I also think there might be genetic components as well. We need to do it only with the wife in a certain position only to have children. Anything else is just wrong.

Why?

 

It's obviously not wrong BIOLOGICALLY, otherwise it wouldn't have been pleasureable. Twisting your knee the other way is wrong, and your body lets you know by making it hurt. Eating too much is bad for you, and your body lets you know by feeling heavy and sick. Eating sugary foods is good for you (in moderation) and your body lets you know by producing pleasure in the brain. Having sex is good for you (in moderation) and your body lets you know by producing pleasure in the brain.

 

How is it consistent to say that any position, timing or 'purpose' is bad?

[Severian]

It's a bit more than that, but okay, fair enough, it was "poll". Let me do a bit more digging and give you the science articles I read. This was a 'scratching the surface' endeavor.

 

It was also a poll of men in Wales, so in effect it was promoting the health benefits of shagging sheep.

[john5746]

 

Reading again, I was very obtuse. I was trying to get at where the sex act as "dirty" might come from. Social cohesion is apparent, but I also think there might be genetic components as well. We need to do it only with the wife in a certain position only to have children. Anything else is just wrong.

 

It's obviously not wrong BIOLOGICALLY, otherwise it wouldn't have been pleasureable. Twisting your knee the other way is wrong, and your body lets you know by making it hurt. Eating too much is bad for you, and your body lets you know by feeling heavy and sick. Eating sugary foods is good for you (in moderation) and your body lets you know by producing pleasure in the brain. Having sex is good for you (in moderation) and your body lets you know by producing pleasure in the brain.

 

How is it consistent to say that any position, timing or 'purpose' is bad?

 

 

LOL, I'm really screwing up with my posts. I was being sarcastic in regards to a position, etc. Back to my original point, I am thinking that those who found sex with their parents and siblings to be less desirable probably created more fit offspring. Could this be one thing that is underneath the sex is "dirty" meme? It would start with sex is not good with parents or offspring and since we can experience these feelings when we watch, then just watching the act of those family members becomes disgusting. This impulse then is eventually extended culturally to everyone except your spouse and finally the divine standard becomes no sex at all, at least in some cultures. Or maybe its just the male wanting a virgin, so he is sure the offspring is his.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It was also a poll of men in Wales, so in effect it was promoting the health benefits of shagging sheep.

 

Better than a poll of catholic priests.

[swaha]

actually human being is the only organism who has been designed to work not only for themselves but for others. so if u spend ur time without having conrol on sex u shall spend a life not doing many things required. by the way tobacco also gives hormonal pleasure but is it good?

[mooeypoo]

actually human being is the only organism who has been designed to work not only for themselves but for others.

??

 

There are many many organisms out there, and animals, that work for the benefit of the group and their herds or colonies. Humans are far from being unique in being "designed" to work for others.

[Mr Skeptic]

Right, ants are even more social than humans.

[swaha]

Right, ants are even more social than humans.

 

does ant save trees? does ant save tigers? does ant save other groups? does ant pet dogs? does ant live in the era of science? we have other works than eat sleep have shelter & have sex. okay?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

??

 

There are many many organisms out there, and animals, that work for the benefit of the group and their herds or colonies. Humans are far from being unique in being "designed" to work for others.

 

how much is that work compared to us?

[mooeypoo]

Your questions make no sense at all.

does ant save trees?

Yes. Do ants actively destroy entire forests by chopping down its trees?

does ant save tigers?

What!? Uh.. do humans build intricate hierarchical societies that maintain a delicate microcosm? You can find what humans do that animals don't do, and you can find what animals do and humans can't do. What's your point? Morality? Effect on the planet...? be specific, swaha, because you're making no sense and you're making arbitrary judgments that have no support.

does ant save other groups?

Absolutely. YOu should read a bit about balance in nature and the way different animals maintain the microcosm they -- and other animals -- live in.

 

You make ZERO sense here. You should explain what you mean. And be more specific.

 

But assuming you meant that humans affect the planet more, you're making a judgment arbitrarily. Are you SERIOUSLY claiming that humans are the most important animals? Are you claiming other animals aren't important in the preservation of the planet? By your logic, that would mean that since Humans are the only animal to actively DESTROY the planet with carbon emissions, plastics in the ocean and toxic waste, we're probably the LEAST helpful animal, and therefore all animals surpass us.

 

We do much more damage than we do good, in terms of "preserving nature", so if that's your bar, we're probably the lowest form of life on this planet.

[Mr Skeptic]

does ant save trees?

 

Yes. Ants protect trees from predators large and small. Ants choose certain trees over others and kill off their competition, creating orchards. Ants farm fungi for food. Ants help fertilize the soil so plants grow better.

 

does ant save tigers? does ant save other groups?

 

Yes. Ants scavenge dead things, producing fertilizer for plants and reducing disease in animals (including tigers).

 

does ant pet dogs?

 

Yes. Ants keep aphids as pets, and also keep other ants as pets.

 

does ant live in the era of science?

 

Ants have lived for longer than man has known about science. Ants invented agriculture well before we did.

 

we have other works than eat sleep have shelter & have sex. okay?

 

Most ants work diligently for the benefit of their hive, forgoing sex so they can more efficiently provide for the hive. Among humans only a very few are willing to forgo sex for any cause, but those few that do are generally considered very virtuous. But among ants this is the norm. Also, greed is unheard of among the ants.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

We do much more damage than we do good, in terms of "preserving nature", so if that's your bar, we're probably the lowest form of life on this planet.

 

For now at least. Though I do hope we'll come to our senses, preserve our biodiversity and eventually even protect it by taking it to other planets.

[swaha]

@brother willing to be ants!

would u like to become an ant then?

after knowing so many facts i think if u have love fr nature & world should become an ant!

pls dont mind!

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

by the way ants cant go to moon learn so many things & protect their own rights being insulted by me. its only u can do. not ants! so pls dont be ants. be humans & learn the good of ants!

[mooeypoo]

Swaha, you're making no sense and you're moving the goal post.

 

This thread is about sex and religious beliefs. You made a remarkably random comment about how ants are so insignificant compared to humans, a comment which Mr Skeptic tore apart by using proper evidence-based science. You seem to attempt an emotional response that has no relevancy here.

 

You made a claim, and you had an answer. The fact that ants are creatures with communities, that affect this world have no bearing on whether or not we should be ants, or whether or not we should have sex.

 

Can you get back on topic, please? Or explain what you meant in this rather random trail of thought here, which you seem to change directions in when you encounter resistance.

[swaha]

yes i can. actually are we not animals too? what makes us different is we think of ourselves, our community, our world actually we need to. to do so we have to sacrifice some pleasures. having control on ourselves is not so easy for us so those who do so is called great. celibacy is something that we have to practise for we have other important things. if a person at young age starts doing sex wont it become like addiction & by any chance a person becomes a parent how is he/she to sustain the child? anyway see the danger involved also like AIDS.

 

my point is not only fr sex but control over ur senses is necessary in al cases.

God bless u.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

i really meant it, dont be an ant but do learn from an ant!

[mooeypoo]

You are making assumptions that are baseless, though.

yes i can. actually are we not animals too? what makes us different is we think of ourselves, our community, our world actually we need to.

How do you know other animals don't? Do you read their minds? We can't know this for sure.

 

to do so we have to sacrifice some pleasures. having control on ourselves is not so easy for us so those who do so is called great. celibacy is something that we have to practise for we have other important things.

Why? What does celibacy give you that helps you help the world?

 

It seems to me that if we care about nature, we should do as nature "intended" and have sex more.

 

if a person at young age starts doing sex wont it become like addiction & by any chance a person becomes a parent how is he/she to sustain the child? anyway see the danger involved also like AIDS.

No it won't, you have millions of people in the world who have sex, are not addicted to it, and practice safely. Your statement is generalized.

 

 

my point is not only fr sex but control over ur senses is necessary in al cases.

God bless u.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

i really meant it, dont be an ant but do learn from an ant!

Two things here.

 

First off, your answer is a bit misrepresenting the question. No one said that you shouldn't control yourself; that is, I don't think there's any question that addiction to sex (like *any* addiction) is not good for you. But there's a huge range between addiction and usage.

 

There are millions of people in the world that practice safe sex. You have given no valid reason why not to.

 

When you say that we need to avoid the instinct of, say, killing someone, then there can be made a logical case of *WHY* we should avoid it. What does it give us, practically, to avoid it, vs what it "costs" to not do something we want.

 

Saying that we should avoid it but giving no reason is moot.. why should we avoid it? why is it so bad? if it was created by god (or nature) and god (or nature) made it enjoyable, then why not do it? Why not enjoy what god (or nature) gave us?

 

~moo

[swaha]

i havent told anything as good or bad.

there are 4 books in our religion called vedas. composed over 3500years ago. the people didnt have any script that time in our country. the whole books went on for ages through hearing. u would object that there must be mistakes in those. but when we find the same words, same phrases & same sequence in the same book over a whole country (7th largest) which totally have different cultures in various parts we have toadmit their memories & concentration power.

 

one of the most imporatnt reasons of people's concentration stated in the vedas is celibacy.

sacrificing pleasures & control on ourselves can give us patience, tolerance, concentration.

if u say i am claiming something impossible all i can say is i am a girl of 19 has been able to memorise a lot of scriptures of our culture of the language i dont understand.

we didnt have mnemonic science at that time, atleast no proof of mnemonic science existing in india.

god bless u.

[jryan]

I always liked the Woody Allen line from "Love and Death": "A great Philosophers once said that sex without love is an empty experience.... but as empty experiences go it's probably at the top..."

 

My religion teaches that sexual pleasure without allowing the possibility of procreation is immoral.

 

I find that both compelling and hard to follow.

 

Most of human troubles revolve around actions that abdicate responsibility in the pursuit of personal pleasure. Drug use, alcohol use, recreational sex... all hold the promise of controllability and easy pleasure, but usually all of them end up biting most people, and most people drift away from such cheap pleasures as they get older and wiser.

 

So my faith tries to impose wisdom before I am wise but accepts that I will fail in meeting the goal, and will one day see the wisdom.

 

Now that I am getting into middle age I am seeing many of the people in my life that I used to carouse with in my youth either leaving that lifestyle behind, dying from the abuse of one or more of those easy pleasures, or living a rather pathetic life, unwilling to grow up and wondering how they got to the age they were having failed to find meaning in their lives.

[safehealthy46]

Sexual morality has varied greatly over time and between cultures. A society's sexual norms—standards of sexual conduct—can be linked to religious beliefs, or social and environmental conditions, or all of these. Sexuality and reproduction are fundamental elements in human interaction and society worldwide. Furthermore, "sexual restrictions" is one of the universals of culture peculiar to all human societies.

Accordingly, most religions have seen a need to address the question of a "proper" role for sexuality in human interactions. Different religions have different codes of sexual morality, which regulate sexual activity or assign normative values to certain sexually charged actions or thoughts. Each major religion has developed moral codes covering issues of sexuality, morality, ethics etc. These moral codes seek to regulate the situations which can give rise to sexual interest and to influence people's sexual activities and practices.

Religious or cultural beliefs making you feel guilty about sex?

[harlock]

Today immigration is for sex for the most part...

Sex-tourism isn't as good as we think...

I think humans need to rationalise sex also, religion or not!

[swansont]

23 minutes ago, harlock said:

Today immigration is for sex for the most part...

Citation needed.

[harlock]

On 1/16/2019 at 2:55 PM, swansont said:

Citation needed.

Why? Is it very important?...

[Itoero]

On ‎1‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 2:31 PM, harlock said:

Today immigration is for sex for the most part...

Sex-tourism isn't as good as we think...

I think humans need to rationalise sex also, religion or not!

Immigration is the international movement of people into a destination country of which they are not natives or where they do not possess citizenship in order to settle or reside there. Tourism implies travelling without the goal of settling/residing at  the place you're travelling to.

Asian countries, especially Thailand, India, the Philippines, Cambodia, and Nepal are common destinations for sex tourists, as well as countries in Central and South America.

[zapatos]

12 hours ago, harlock said:

Why? 

Because that is how things are done. If someone makes a claim they are expected to support it upon request. That ensures the quality of the discussion, and protects the speaker from being thought of as someone who makes things up.

[harlock]

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

Because that is how things are done. If someone makes a claim they are expected to support it upon request. That ensures the quality of the discussion, and protects the speaker from being thought of as someone who makes things up.

I've no source about it however it's understandable: governments call them refugees escaping from war  but for the most part they're all young and strong guys who harass society for sex. What about no women and children? It's only an understandable situation.

Edited January 18, 2019 by harlock