To get back to the original question of why fundamentalist Christians are so worried about what people do with their genitals ...
The short answer is "divine command theory" combined with "corporate punishment".
If for the sake of argument god commands us to not have sex outside of marriage, and ...
If god will punish us if we disobey, and ...
If god will in fact punish children for the sins of fathers, punish whole nations for insufficient fealty to his commands, etc. ...
Then you will do the following:
1) Not have sex outside of marriage
2) Be terribly concerned that not too many others in your family / village / tribe / nation have sex outside of marriage, lest you get punished along with them if god gets honked off at the group.
3) Build up whole structures of thought and tradition and practice to try to keep yourself and others from "sinning" in this way, and try to cajole / shame people into observing them.
This explains, really, why fundamentalists are authoritarian meddlers in the lives of people outside their group, on any number of topics ... not just those directly or indirectly related to sex.
But this begs the question why sexual expression and conduct and rigidly-defined sexual and gender roles are so prominent, as opposed to something else. In my salad days, for example, it was considered subversive and non-conformant for men to have facial hair of any kind. Why wasn't THAT enough as a way to define tribal membership??
I think it's because if you can get people to reign in something as primal and strong as their sex drive in the service of group norms, other stuff tends to fall into place. If you give up sexual freedom and even identity, and give up some of your money as well ... if you're that beaten down and afraid of being ostracized, and have that much invested, you're very unlikely to be anything but meekly conformant in all other areas as well.
The short answer is "divine command theory" combined with "corporate punishment".
If for the sake of argument god commands us to not have sex outside of marriage, and ...
If god will punish us if we disobey, and ...
If god will in fact punish children for the sins of fathers, punish whole nations for insufficient fealty to his commands, etc. ...
Then you will do the following:
1) Not have sex outside of marriage
2) Be terribly concerned that not too many others in your family / village / tribe / nation have sex outside of marriage, lest you get punished along with them if god gets honked off at the group.
3) Build up whole structures of thought and tradition and practice to try to keep yourself and others from "sinning" in this way, and try to cajole / shame people into observing them.
This explains, really, why fundamentalists are authoritarian meddlers in the lives of people outside their group, on any number of topics ... not just those directly or indirectly related to sex.
But this begs the question why sexual expression and conduct and rigidly-defined sexual and gender roles are so prominent, as opposed to something else. In my salad days, for example, it was considered subversive and non-conformant for men to have facial hair of any kind. Why wasn't THAT enough as a way to define tribal membership??
I think it's because if you can get people to reign in something as primal and strong as their sex drive in the service of group norms, other stuff tends to fall into place. If you give up sexual freedom and even identity, and give up some of your money as well ... if you're that beaten down and afraid of being ostracized, and have that much invested, you're very unlikely to be anything but meekly conformant in all other areas as well.
