(August 22, 2015 at 12:18 am)loganonekenobi Wrote: Finaly found the post thread button. Now you're in for it.http://atheistforums.org/images/smilies/fsm-grin.gif
The thread is catchy don't you think but can you think of a place in our lives that is more invaded by religion than sex?
Religion can be invasive into any and all aspects of one's life. There are religious dietary requirements in several religions, rules about clothing, tattoos and piercings and other body mutilation, and all manner of conduct. Additionally, religions often have requirements about what people are supposed to think and believe, which seems pretty invasive to me. So I do not think that sex is a special case for the things in one's life about which religion might have something to say.
(August 22, 2015 at 12:18 am)loganonekenobi Wrote: I'dd like to hear the various thoughts on why it is that the creator of all the universe (if your are a believer) would care what our sex lives involved.
It's is a hot topic not only in the christian religion but also in every major faith in the world.
Why do you think that is?
Why sex matters to a religion is a different issue than why it matters to a hypothetical god. In the case of religion, successful (i.e., common or popular) religions all involve believers having lots of children. We see a stark difference in numbers in the case of Catholics (whose official position opposes all birth control other than something like the
rhythm method that is not very good) and
Shakers (whose official position requires celibacy for their members). The reason why it is important for believers to have children is because that is the most common method of getting new members. And that explains why the Shakers are
almost completely nonexistent today.
(August 22, 2015 at 12:18 am)loganonekenobi Wrote: If you are a practitioner of said religions that tightly funnle sex into procreation only in special relationships then how does that affect your life. Practitioner or not we are all still human. I don't recall God giving me any special ability to deal with temptation when it cam to desire when i was a Christian.
If you are not a believer then why would the clever deity creating man want to control the sex of others?
What purpose do you think it serves to limit sexual behavior beyond what is sensible ei: use protection so as to avoid unpleasant things like pregnancy and disease?
You have to remember that effective birth control and STD protection (and cures for some STDs) are relatively modern. Societal attitudes are rooted in a longer period of time.
(August 22, 2015 at 12:18 am)loganonekenobi Wrote: In the culture i grew up in I questioned why it was that a man who had lots of sex was a "stud" (positive connotation) but a woman who did the same thing was a "slut" (negative connotation). It seemed that in this day and age where birth control and disease prevention are prevalent that such terms need no longer apply to any gender.
Maybe you other more historicaly educated people can answer why this culture/thought still persists. Do you think religion has something to do with it?
There are biological reasons why attitudes are different toward men and women regarding sex. With a man, no matter how much sex he has, he will never get pregnant. So he need never worry about becoming pregnant.
Also, before modern medical testing, a man could not ever truly
know if he was the father of a child or not. His "knowledge" was dependent upon the woman's fidelity, and so in order for him to have anything close to knowledge, it was necessary to have great social pressure on women to be faithful. Even that was not a perfect guarantee, but it was as good as was possible in the past.
Societal attitudes do not change in a moment. Particularly if the reason given for the attitude has not changed. In the case of religion and sex, the practical aspects are not emphasized; it is a command from the gods that has been used to try to impose restrictions on people's activities, and so the practical aspects changing will have little affect on those who are convinced by the religion.
Additionally, people are often jealous, regardless of whether or not they have to worry about pregnancies and STDs. Some who try "open" relationships find out that they do not like them and become jealous of what their partner does. What one wants out of life is largely a function of emotion, not reason. That
wanting is itself emotion, not reason. (As an aside, that is what is wrong with the idea of a being of pure logic and reason; such a being will not want anything, and therefore will not do anything. It is emotion which supplies the motivation to act at all.)
I think you will find very many atheists who choose to live in monogamous relationships instead of choosing something else. My guess is, the typical married atheist would dislike his or her spouse having sex with someone else just as much as a typical religious person would.
If you want, you can set up a poll here (not that that would be scientific), and ask atheists if they care if their sexual partner(s) have sex with other people during their relationship. My guess is, most will be the same as the religious people on that.
Furthermore, modern advances in protection against unwanted pregnancies and STDs are not perfect, so there is still a risk involved. A smaller risk is not the same as no risk. So unwanted pregnancies and STDs are still a factor in one's decisions regarding sex, or, at least, should be.