Insanely Rigid Christian Sex Ethics
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-03-2013, 08:03 PM
Insanely Rigid Christian Sex Ethics
This deep thought occurred to me while watching "Glee!" a while ago. I'll bet that's a sentence that hasn't been said or written before...

Anyway, one of the characters is a 30ish woman who has a variety of obsesssive compulsive issues and is also a virgin at her (relatively speaking) advanced age. iIn this story arc, she was struggling with her inability to give or receive sexual pleasure. Then it occurred to me: From the Christian point of view, she had been right all along. She was not married and never had been, therefore she had no business having sex with anyone, including herself. She was over thirty years old, and yet (according to Christianity) she was not old enough or responsible enough to have sex, and furthermore, was not allowed to have sex, because she was not married. This would apply if she was 40, or 50, or 60.

Christian sexual ethics have some credibility if you are talking about teenagers. Teens are going to have sex anyway, but it does often lead to undesirable results, and probably should not be encouraged. But when you're trying to apply the same strictures to mature adults? By what reason? By what right? The whole thing looks insane to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2013, 10:02 PM
RE: Insanely Rigid Christian Sex Ethics
Well, you mention sex, and Glee... Blush

And I remember that Friday morning, watching my Gwynnies dance around in leather on that show for three hours... Censored

What were we talking about? Huh

[Image: 10339580_583235681775606_5139032440228868471_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2013, 12:16 AM (This post was last modified: 06-04-2013 12:31 AM by Doctor X.)
RE: Insanely Rigid Christian Sex Ethics
******

Those who administer and moderate in order to exercise personal agenda merely feed into the negative stereotype of Atheism
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Doctor X's post
28-03-2013, 12:24 AM
RE: Insanely Rigid Christian Sex Ethics
(27-03-2013 08:03 PM)matthewwest Wrote:  This deep thought occurred to me while watching "Glee!" a while ago. I'll bet that's a sentence that hasn't been said or written before...

Anyway, one of the characters is a 30ish woman who has a variety of obsesssive compulsive issues and is also a virgin at her (relatively speaking) advanced age. iIn this story arc, she was struggling with her inability to give or receive sexual pleasure. Then it occurred to me: From the Christian point of view, she had been right all along. She was not married and never had been, therefore she had no business having sex with anyone, including herself. She was over thirty years old, and yet (according to Christianity) she was not old enough or responsible enough to have sex, and furthermore, was not allowed to have sex, because she was not married. This would apply if she was 40, or 50, or 60.

Christian sexual ethics have some credibility if you are talking about teenagers. Teens are going to have sex anyway, but it does often lead to undesirable results, and probably should not be encouraged. But when you're trying to apply the same strictures to mature adults? By what reason? By what right? The whole thing looks insane to me.

I always figured that the purpose of prohibiting unwed couples from engaging in sex was to prevent unmarried women from getting pregnant and to prevent the transmission of disease.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2013, 12:29 AM
RE: Insanely Rigid Christian Sex Ethics
(28-03-2013 12:24 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I always figured that the purpose of prohibiting unwed couples from engaging in sex was to prevent unmarried women from getting pregnant and to prevent the transmission of disease.

Right, work off the assumption that they can control their sexual urges during their sexual prime. Hate to break it to you, but not even the Puritans could manage that. Their solution to dealing with unexpected, unwed pregnancies was the shotgun wedding.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2013, 12:41 AM
RE: Insanely Rigid Christian Sex Ethics
(28-03-2013 12:29 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  
(28-03-2013 12:24 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I always figured that the purpose of prohibiting unwed couples from engaging in sex was to prevent unmarried women from getting pregnant and to prevent the transmission of disease.

Right, work off the assumption that they can control their sexual urges during their sexual prime. Hate to break it to you, but not even the Puritans could manage that. Their solution to dealing with unexpected, unwed pregnancies was the shotgun wedding.

Just because it wasn't/isn't 100% successful doesn't mean that unwed pregnancies or disease wasn't/isn't curtailed.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2013, 04:03 AM
RE: Insanely Rigid Christian Sex Ethics
(27-03-2013 08:03 PM)matthewwest Wrote:  This deep thought occurred to me while watching "Glee!" a while ago. I'll bet that's a sentence that hasn't been said or written before...

Anyway, one of the characters is a 30ish woman who has a variety of obsesssive compulsive issues and is also a virgin at her (relatively speaking) advanced age. iIn this story arc, she was struggling with her inability to give or receive sexual pleasure. Then it occurred to me: From the Christian point of view, she had been right all along. She was not married and never had been, therefore she had no business having sex with anyone, including herself. She was over thirty years old, and yet (according to Christianity) she was not old enough or responsible enough to have sex, and furthermore, was not allowed to have sex, because she was not married. This would apply if she was 40, or 50, or 60.

Christian sexual ethics have some credibility if you are talking about teenagers. Teens are going to have sex anyway, but it does often lead to undesirable results, and probably should not be encouraged. But when you're trying to apply the same strictures to mature adults? By what reason? By what right? The whole thing looks insane to me.
What undesirable results? The majority of teens who have sex don't suffer any problems.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Juv's post
28-03-2013, 05:08 AM
RE: Insanely Rigid Christian Sex Ethics
(27-03-2013 08:03 PM)matthewwest Wrote:  Christian sexual ethics have some credibility if you are talking about teenagers. Teens are going to have sex anyway, but it does often lead to undesirable results, and probably should not be encouraged.

Christian ethics never have any credibility, especially where sex is concerned. One doesn't have to encourage teens to have sex any more than we have to encourage them to go through puberty. We (parents) do have a responsibility to teach them how to be safe and, how to determine when is the best time for them to have sex with someone other than themselves. As soon as my son demonstrated an interest in dating, I discussed the pros and cons of sex with him, encouraged him to abstain for as long as possible and finally, promised him that he would never have to leave the house for a date without a supply of condoms.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bbeljefe's post
28-03-2013, 05:45 AM
RE: Insanely Rigid Christian Sex Ethics
(28-03-2013 12:24 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I always figured that the purpose of prohibiting unwed couples from engaging in sex was to prevent unmarried women from getting pregnant and to prevent the transmission of disease.

This is the typical Christian thinking behind this, and yet... if we're talking about two virgins (no disease) having sex with reliable protection (such as scarring or plugging of the uterus) then is it still evil, despite having the penalties removed? I've often heard it argued that eating pigs was "made unsinful" for this same reason, that the danger from eating pigs had been mitigated by technology. Would it apply here as well? Or, more likely, would you still be arguing against unwed sex no matter what the penalty was?

It frustrates me when Christians use arguments that aren't convincing even to them. Just admit that the reason you don't sin is because it's arbitrarily in the bible. We'll still look down on you for doing something so illogical, but at least you'll be honest in doing so.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Starcrash's post
28-03-2013, 06:12 AM (This post was last modified: 06-04-2013 12:32 AM by Doctor X.)
RE: Insanely Rigid Christian Sex Ethics
******

Those who administer and moderate in order to exercise personal agenda merely feed into the negative stereotype of Atheism
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: