Insanely Rigid Christian Sex Ethics
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-03-2013, 02:54 PM (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
28-03-2013, 03:05 PM
RE: Insanely Rigid Christian Sex Ethics
(28-03-2013 05:45 AM)Starcrash 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.

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.

A lot of Christians believe birth control a sin as well so your solution isn't really a solution, at least for those Christians.

KingsChosen is a lying douchebag
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2013, 05:23 PM
RE: Insanely Rigid Christian Sex Ethics
(28-03-2013 08:16 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  FINALLY coming back to the OP, what does Christianity have to do with it? I viewed the character in question as having "ew icky slimy dirty need to clean OMG SANITIZER BURNS DOWN THERE!" OCD issues with sex, rather than Puritanical views.

True enough, but that makes my point... Her aversion was pathological in nature, but if we are to believe Christian cookie cutter sexual morality (as I think our gracious host called it in the podcast that I am in part reacting to) there is no reason for her to overcome it, because she simply shouldn't be having sex anyway. Jeebus said not to.

I've also taken some criticism for saying what I did about teenagers. Without a doubt, cookie cutter morality has been a colossal failure there too. A documented failure, in the case of abstinence only sex miseducation. That being said, when teenagers do something, they often find a way to do it wrong. You name it: drinking, driving, drinking and driving. Maybe they need to make mistakes. Or maybe they wouldn't make the mistakes with a few more years of brain development under their hats. I don't know. So even though the rational response is to drill some real sex ed and precautions into their heads, one can understand why parents especially would latch onto something that suggests they can avoid the whole thing altogether. Understandable, not justifiable. No doubt I've offended more people, but I hope I am clear.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2013, 05:33 PM
RE: Insanely Rigid Christian Sex Ethics
The Insanely Rigid Sex Ethics is the name of my new band.

[Image: opforum1.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like frankiej's post
28-03-2013, 05:39 PM (This post was last modified: 06-04-2013 12:26 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
[+] 1 user Likes Doctor X's post
28-03-2013, 06:02 PM
RE: Insanely Rigid Christian Sex Ethics
(28-03-2013 02:50 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:1. Mostly agreed on the performance issue, disagreed on the rest, and I guess the rest was your point. This doesn't account for things like, say, arguing over money (which is the leading cause for divorce in the US, not infidelity), nor does it address the curiosity issue (I wonder what THAT woman would be like), nor things like a woman marries a guy and then discovers that he wants her to be just a kitchen slave and baby factory. (Yes, this happens, to my cousin in fact.) You don't touch on all the people who'd get married just to knock boots (which is a TERRIBLE reason), when they're totally unsuited to each other in every other way. And I won't even touch on opportunities to discover that one is gay before marrying, and the effects that discovery can have on an existing marriage. (Nor will I touch on possibly-inborn sexual predilections that cannot be satisfied in a closed, monogamous marriage.) I won't say people SHOULD have sex before marrying (or without marrying), that's up to them, but there are disadvantages to go with your listed advantages and it isn't anywhere near as clear-cut as you are witnessing.

2. True, for a suitably high number of generations. And theft could be ended if people didn't steal, the murder rate would plummet if people didn't kill, and drunk driving would be eliminated if people didn't drink. But be realistic: none of these has been achieved in history (save for 0 drunk driving before motor vehicles), and none of them are going to happen now. The most you can do is force them into the shadows, and history teaches us that in the shadows is exactly where STDs are the most prolific and the most damaging.

3. I'm sure someone else will throw out the "so what if it's in a book" thing. For myself, I'll suggest you compare notes with some of your fellow Christians, especially the socially conservative fundamentalists trying to rule our private lives. Most of them don't seem to be on the same page as you. Come back when you believers can actually agree on what it is you believe in.

4. And the part you left out, the humungous elephant in the room that you don't acknowledge. While sex does come with risks (unwanted pregnancies, STD transmission, broken hearts), these can be reduced to extremely low levels with modern contraception, protection, and open communication. Add to this that sex is a fun, rich, fulfilling experience, and you haven't really made much of a case for the conventional notion of Biblical marriage. Maybe there's a case to be made for it, but you haven't made it.

FINALLY coming back to the OP, what does Christianity have to do with it? I viewed the character in question as having "ew icky slimy dirty need to clean OMG SANITIZER BURNS DOWN THERE!" OCD issues with sex, rather than Puritanical views.
I did touch on the curiosity issue. Please know also that I've been in a healthy church for many, many years and seen abstinent couples go on through 20 years and more of wedded bliss with a fraction of the curious mindset that accompanies those who have been touched by early lack of chastity and/or exposure to pornography. I personally have no problem with being with someone who has been with other lovers, but most men despite any profligacy want to marry virgins. Think about that carefully for a bit. I'm sorry you feel that way. It is that clear cut. It is. A wife doesn't have to ask her virgin husband on their wedding night "Was I as good as Sherry? Mary? Laquishia? Bob? Julio?"

2. "And theft could be ended if people didn't steal, the murder rate would plummet if people didn't kill, and drunk driving would be eliminated if people didn't drink. But be realistic: none of these has been achieved in history (save for 0 drunk driving before motor vehicles), and none of them are going to happen now."

Sadly, you are 100% right. What would need to happen for all the above to occur? One possibility, everyone is a very moral freethinker. Another: Everyone is a sincere and devout born again Christian. My circle is chaste, doesn't drink and drive or steal, etc. Waiting for the full Kingdom! However, this not all happening yet is still not a moral or logical license to sleep around with the STD pool of over 50% of Americans having one, if you include minor Herpes and etc.

3. Most born agains I now are social conservatives who 100% agree on abstinence and etc. but it still takes devout young people to (not) do it.

4. It's not a low risk world, not with so many having STDs. People killing women with HPV while being symptom-free. No, its Russian Roulette out there and no condom can protect someone from a broken heart. I wasn't always a Christian. I have some sincere regrets and if you've been sexually active outside marriage, you do also on a 1-to-1 ratio. You face death, I do too, and if you've been out there on the loose, you face regret.

5. As for a Christian mindset being Puritan in nature, I don't know why so many people view Christians as all being addicted to feelings of guilt (perhaps Catholic notions of purity)? No, laser-hot sex is had with someone based on independence, not being baby factory, trust, and real freedom. If I score a hot babe tonight, what will I be concerned with? Performance, likely, or some kind of strange keeping score. If I score with my hot wife tonight--different story. No rush, no fuss. Sex if we want and making love or whatever we want or need. Did you know Paul compares the joy of wedded intercourse to knowing God? God invented the orgasms. A great argument for Theism, if you ask me. Thumbsup

Thanks for your sincere, well-reasoned and well-thought out comments. Please take my responses in the kind spirit in which they are intended.

1) I meant the curiosity of "I wonder if another partner would be different/more exciting/whatever", as the years go by. Greener grass and all that. For myself, I have no particular attraction to virgins. I prefer someone who knows what she enjoys and what she doesn't, who has experimented enough to know her tastes and decided that I fit them. I derive more emotional security from that, then from "she's with me because she hasn't had the experience to know better." Conversations with other males in my social circles, insofar as they've touched on sexual preferences, have reflected similar leanings. There is indeed that stereotype about men preferring virgins, which I'd speculate has some validity in conservative circles but doesn't bear out in my own. I couldn't say what the truth is in balance, but "it takes all kinds" seems to fit here.

2) Don't forget strict Islamists, they'd fit the bill too. That said, there's an important gap between presentation and reality to be recognized here. Unless your circle of born-agains is extremely small, I doubt you can be completely confident in your endorsement of their moral uprightness. If a man was cheating on his wife, or if a couple sometimes went into a sex club to swap partners every now and then, would you know? Would they tell you? Sure, you could say that they wouldn't be devout born-again Christians in that case, but would you recognize it? And if you would have no way of recognizing it, can we believe you now when you say that no one in your circle is doing these things now? This is not me fishing for a weak way to undermine your claim. Rather, it is a huge problem in an attempt to redo the world to fit the model of conventional Christian marriage. Make it too much the status quo, bring too much social disapproval and peer pressure and outright bigotry to that effect, and you drive the less-common practices into the shadow, failing to eliminate them while creating the image that you have. This creates the perception that you've achieved the goal, but not the actual fact. In any case, all that's a tangent. Call it 2a from here on. My point was, sure, you could eliminate most STDs that way (you'd probably have to do something about those with other transmission vectors, like shared needles, but whatever). But you'd never pull it off, because it can't be done, not with human nature being what it is. Individuals can do it. Small groups can. Large groups that deliberately select and filter and prime their memberships for such selectively asexual behavior can. But humanity as a whole cannot. You can't get there from here. (Okay, if you nuked humanity out of existence you could, but at some point you say the cure's worse than the disease.)

3. I was talking less about abstinence before marriage, and more on accepted sexual behavior after marriage. You brought up oral sex between spouses, for example. Does the born-again community all agree that's A-OK?

4. Condoms don't protect against broken hearts (you want clear communication and honesty for that), but they do protect against most of the worst STDs. Limiting types of sexual activity prevents transmission of the other diseases -- to the best of my knowledge, there isn't a single STD that can be transmitted during manual stimulation with latex gloves or sterilized toys. Other preventative measures: readily available and encouraged testing, a society that doesn't condemn or stigmatize the sickness (so people aren't rewarded for hiding it), and a community's willingness to educate on the wide variety of alternatives beyond abstinence or unprotected phallic/vaginal intercourse. Done right, the transmission rate can be dropped to pretty much 0 without a universal abstinence-or-closed-marriage policy, and a 0 transmission rate renders the 50% infection rate you're quoting meaningless save as a humanitarian issue. I'd also argue that's a much more feasible alternative than the abstinence-or-marriage approach, simply because of the difficulty of getting everyone to adopt the latter. Which, in turn, means that STDs aren't a strong argument for abstinence. Hey, if someone wants to keep pure for God or however it's phrased in your circle, that's their call, I won't complain. (Okay, fine, I might whine pathetically a bit if it's a woman I want to get with, but not too much because I have some shreds of dignity, and anyway it's still completely her call.) But abstinence motivated solely by STD paranoia is one of the poorer ways of dealing with STD paranoia.

5. I personally associate the word Puritan more with rigid rules of "moral" social conduct, than specifically with motivation by guilt. What goes through your head during sex is your business. Personally, if I were married I suspect I'd be pretty focused on performance anyway, because I'd want my wife to enjoy it (not to say that's any different for you). In any case, that comment was directed at the OP rather than at you. (If you knew that and picked up on it anyway in order to roll with it, that's cool.)

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2013, 11:57 AM
RE: Insanely Rigid Christian Sex Ethics
Quote:Paul rather admitted to not having orgasms with women.

That, along with the existence of Celine Dion, is a rather strong argument against theism.
Really, where? Most commentators think he was widowed and thus had the right to speak about marriage... the more so since he was a Pharisee and Rabbi... whereas, I'm convinced you'll never wed since in your pride, you'll never find anyone to match your expectations. PS. The theme from Titanic is a great song.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2013, 12:03 PM
RE: Insanely Rigid Christian Sex Ethics
Quote:1) I meant the curiosity of "I wonder if another partner would be different/more exciting/whatever", as the years go by. Greener grass and all that. For myself, I have no particular attraction to virgins. I prefer someone who knows what she enjoys and what she doesn't, who has experimented enough to know her tastes and decided that I fit them. I derive more emotional security from that, then from "she's with me because she hasn't had the experience to know better." Conversations with other males in my social circles, insofar as they've touched on sexual preferences, have reflected similar leanings. There is indeed that stereotype about men preferring virgins, which I'd speculate has some validity in conservative circles but doesn't bear out in my own. I couldn't say what the truth is in balance, but "it takes all kinds" seems to fit here.
I understand, and I originally wrote the virgins thing on both sides is a preference for a plurality, however, we're not talking about trying to understand sex through practice, we're talking about past and present hurts, jealousies, and etc.
Quote:2) Don't forget strict Islamists, they'd fit the bill too. That said, there's an important gap between presentation and reality to be recognized here. Unless your circle of born-agains is extremely small, I doubt you can be completely confident in your endorsement of their moral uprightness. If a man was cheating on his wife, or if a couple sometimes went into a sex club to swap partners every now and then, would you know? Would they tell you? Sure, you could say that they wouldn't be devout born-again Christians in that case, but would you recognize it? And if you would have no way of recognizing it, can we believe you now when you say that no one in your circle is doing these things now? This is not me fishing for a weak way to undermine your claim. Rather, it is a huge problem in an attempt to redo the world to fit the model of conventional Christian marriage. Make it too much the status quo, bring too much social disapproval and peer pressure and outright bigotry to that effect, and you drive the less-common practices into the shadow, failing to eliminate them while creating the image that you have. This creates the perception that you've achieved the goal, but not the actual fact. In any case, all that's a tangent. Call it 2a from here on. My point was, sure, you could eliminate most STDs that way (you'd probably have to do something about those with other transmission vectors, like shared needles, but whatever). But you'd never pull it off, because it can't be done, not with human nature being what it is. Individuals can do it. Small groups can. Large groups that deliberately select and filter and prime their memberships for such selectively asexual behavior can. But humanity as a whole cannot. You can't get there from here. (Okay, if you nuked humanity out of existence you could, but at some point you say the cure's worse than the disease.)
The divorce rate in my church movement is under 2%. Accountability and transparency go far. But we're moving off the point. 1. Responsibility begins with you and me. If the whole society is off, when do I stand up and say I won't contribute to the disease pool. 2. Men are asymptomatic with and killing women with HPV. This is real and we will be accountable.
Quote:3. I was talking less about abstinence before marriage, and more on accepted sexual behavior after marriage. You brought up oral sex between spouses, for example. Does the born-again community all agree that's A-OK?
Most of the ones outside of the Appalachias, I'm sure. Does it hurt your partner mentally or physically? Oral sex is alluded to in Song of Solomon.
Quote:4. Condoms don't protect against broken hearts (you want clear communication and honesty for that), but they do protect against most of the worst STDs. Limiting types of sexual activity prevents transmission of the other diseases -- to the best of my knowledge, there isn't a single STD that can be transmitted during manual stimulation with latex gloves or sterilized toys. Other preventative measures: readily available and encouraged testing, a society that doesn't condemn or stigmatize the sickness (so people aren't rewarded for hiding it), and a community's willingness to educate on the wide variety of alternatives beyond abstinence or unprotected phallic/vaginal intercourse. Done right, the transmission rate can be dropped to pretty much 0 without a universal abstinence-or-closed-marriage policy, and a 0 transmission rate renders the 50% infection rate you're quoting meaningless save as a humanitarian issue. I'd also argue that's a much more feasible alternative than the abstinence-or-marriage approach, simply because of the difficulty of getting everyone to adopt the latter. Which, in turn, means that STDs aren't a strong argument for abstinence. Hey, if someone wants to keep pure for God or however it's phrased in your circle, that's their call, I won't complain. (Okay, fine, I might whine pathetically a bit if it's a woman I want to get with, but not too much because I have some shreds of dignity, and anyway it's still completely her call.) But abstinence motivated solely by STD paranoia is one of the poorer ways of dealing with STD paranoia.
And let's listen to one another carefully. Sex with my spouse is a lot more exciting than manual stimulation while wearing latex gloves! The Bible says, "To the pure, all things are pure". And awesome!
Quote:5. I personally associate the word Puritan more with rigid rules of "moral" social conduct, than specifically with motivation by guilt. What goes through your head during sex is your business. Personally, if I were married I suspect I'd be pretty focused on performance anyway, because I'd want my wife to enjoy it (not to say that's any different for you). In any case, that comment was directed at the OP rather than at you. (If you knew that and picked up on it anyway in order to roll with it, that's cool.)
We're cool. Again, the hottest possible sex falls under the Bible NT practices. Very, very hot.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: