I do have to say that humans are sexual beings. It's messed up that a god who supposedly made us perfectly would give us sexual impulses and urges, then say "Just kidding!! I don't want you to have sex at all! At least not until you're married and plan on procreating." The idea that sex should be exclusive to married couples is obviously a desired social behavior to promote population growth. Which was important in the region/time that the monotheistic religions come from.
On a happier note, Hindus came up with the Kama Sutra. I'm not entirely clear on the Buddhist ideas of sexuality. My biggest problem with Taoism is their view on sex, it's okay, but not too much, that clouds one's mind from being in harmony with the universe. I don't know if any religion has gotten what I view as "right" and "proper" when it comes to sex and sexuality.

(August 28, 2012 at 12:38 pm)Chuck Wrote: Because their god boy Jesus probably never got any.

Bullshit. He wore loose fitting robes and hung around 12 other guys who liked to kiss each other. I say Jesus was a raging homosexual and he was banging Peter on a nightly basis. The whole bitch fest with Judas was just a bitter break up.

Regarding the OP:

Performance anxiety. Thinking that god was watching while you're getting your groove on must be a mind fuck.

(August 28, 2012 at 7:13 pm)Stimbo Wrote: @ Chuck - I don't think that xtianity originated in the Dark Age, if that's how I came across, in fact I see it pretty much as you described in that the Dark Age became infamously so because of the religion's oppression. However, I don't think it can be denied that the religion certainly flourished during the period. Feudal societies tend not to last very long without some form of control of the masses and there's only so much you can do militarily before you run out of population. Keeping the populace fearful, most effectively through superstition which is viciously self-feeding in that it makes the people create their own fear with just a little push to get it started.

I don't think The sort of religious oppression characteristic of European dark ages is essential for long term survival of a feudal system. Look at Japan. Control was perfectly adaquate and sustained for longer than in europe without a single overpowering creed or clergy. Japan managed without so overpowering a religion to be just as feudal, but less dark, for arguably more stable, less regressive in thesense of turning its back on past achievements, than dark ages Europe.

I don't think Christianity flourished because it adapted its previoisly less oppresive itself to the needs of the dark ages by becoming more oppressive. Rather, Christianity was always chomping at the bits to maximize its ability to excert unaccountable oppression in name of god, and its lust for unaccountable oppression help shape the dark ages in such a way that it was darker than need be so Christian can become more oppressive and less accountable than it could otherwise be.

---

(August 28, 2012 at 9:03 pm)TaraJo Wrote:

(August 28, 2012 at 12:38 pm)Chuck Wrote: Because their god boy Jesus probably never got any.

Bullshit. He wore loose fitting robes and hung around 12 other guys who liked to kiss each other. I say Jesus was a raging homosexual and he was banging Peter on a nightly basis. The whole bitch fest with Judas was just a bitter break up.

Hey, that did not contradict what I said.

(August 28, 2012 at 11:37 am)Ciel_Rouge Wrote: I mean one could make a whole list out of that:

1. obsession with virginity which in reality means no sex for women or much less sex before marriage or before a certain age (by the way - don't you think that being a virgin after reaching puberty and beginning to have periods is just unhealthy and un-hygienic?)

2. the absurd mutually exclusive simultanous ban on abortion and contraception and condoms in particular - I really do observe hardcore Catholics and orthodox in Poland adhere to this - it is like inviting diseases and unwanted pregnancies

3. discouraging masturbation resulting in one's disconnection and ignorance of own body as well as severe stresss

4. hatred towards adult entertainment and sensuality in mainstream culture

Christians dont hate sex at all. Nothing in the bible about hatred of sex.

Wanton promiscuity? Lying? Cheating? Theft? Adultery? Ignoring the sanctity of life/procreation?

Yep - the bible takes the moral high ground there.

Show me the atheistic moral argument against beastiality.
If atheism had a bible what would it say about men sleeping around... (what she doesnt know wont hurt her.)
Atheists make a lot of noise about closet pedophiles hiding in the clergy (along with all the closet atheists in the clergy) but not much noise about child abuse everywhere else - eg. Internet child pornography. How exactly does an atheist demonstrate that pictures of naked children on the Internet is objectively immoral?

Since you're so progressive and open-minded about sex (unlike those religious prudes,) wanna hear the pedophile's argument?
...look, they are enjoying it. (Same argument applies to beastiality)
...we pay them money
...opposing underage sex is a bigoted, prudish, old-fashioned attitude.
...nobody is physically harmed (Victimless crime)
...we have their parents permission
...when they grow up they will wonder what all the fuss was about. They will be more open minded about sex - unlike all those Christians who hate sex.

Lion IRC, one non-Christian sexual ethic would be: "Do others as you would have them do you."

(August 28, 2012 at 10:42 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Lion IRC, one non-Christian sexual ethic would be: "Do others as you would have them do you."

How old-fashioned and reactionary.
What about inter-species sex?
I suppose others applies only to YOUR personal subjective definition of "others" right?
They eat dogs in many Asian countries and yet DONT want to be eaten.

(August 28, 2012 at 10:45 pm)Lion IRC Wrote:

(August 28, 2012 at 10:42 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Lion IRC, one non-Christian sexual ethic would be: "Do others as you would have them do you."

How old-fashioned and reactionary.
What about inter-species sex?
I suppose others applies only to YOUR personal subjective definition of "others" right?

In keeping with the ethic laid out above, if there's evidence that the animal doesn't enjoy it, then it's wrong. If there's no evidence either way, it'd probably be good to play it safe and assume the animal wouldn't enjoy it. If there's hard evidence (and only if) that the animal would indeed enjoy it, it's not something I'd partake in, but I honestly can't see anything wrong with it.

LOL
What slippery slope?

(August 28, 2012 at 11:09 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: LOL
What slippery slope?

It takes a special kind of person to actually use the name of a fallacy when committing said fallacy.