This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Sex & God: How Religion Distorts Sexuality

Sex & God: How Religion Distorts Sexuality - Comments

drumdaddy's Avatar Comment 1 by drumdaddy

Aside from the occasional shouts of "Oh, God" there is no religion in sex.

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:15:27 UTC | #912096

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Comment 2 by Schrodinger's Cat

Half the reason the world is such a screwed up place is because God spends 99% of his time in people's bedrooms being a cosmic voyeur.

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:36:37 UTC | #912105

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 3 by Premiseless

Comment 1 by drumdaddy :

Aside from the occasional shouts of "Oh, God" there is no religion in sex.

I think this is why Alaskan airlines pulled Psalm 69. Too many passengers were interrupting the seating arrangements on flights over 30 minutes long. 69:30. Far too spiritual. Interactive rotation too. I always wondered whether olympic gymnasts originated in this area of the world?

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:43:40 UTC | #912115

some asshole's Avatar Comment 4 by some asshole

I think the idiotic claim that Mary was a virgin figures into sexual obsession of Christi(ns)anity. Just think of all the misery that has been caused by one idiot who believed his wife when she told him that no, she wasn't having an affair--why, it must be immaculate conception!

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 01:22:37 UTC | #912120

Agrajag's Avatar Comment 5 by Agrajag

Comment 4 by some asshole Just think of all the misery that has been caused by one idiot who believed his wife when she told him that no, she wasn't having an affair--why, it must be immaculate conception!

Point taken, but remember it was Mary who was "immaculately" conceived, not Jesus.
Steve

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 04:22:07 UTC | #912133

Cook@Tahiti's Avatar Comment 6 by Cook@Tahiti

Compared with European films, American movies are very prudish when it comes to nudity. However anything goes when it comes to violence. This perverse distortion between nudity and violence has been mainly due to religion (i.e. National Legion of Decency and its aftermath in the MPAA)

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 05:02:25 UTC | #912137

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 7 by Premiseless

Comment 5 by Agrajag :

Comment 4 by some asshole Just think of all the misery that has been caused by one idiot who believed his wife when she told him that no, she wasn't having an affair--why, it must be immaculate conception!

Point taken, but remember it was Mary who was "immaculately" conceived, not Jesus. Steve

Yes , the amount of suffering caused by the person/s who had a phobia about themselves being shot out of the end of a phallus then pressured betwixt a pair of labia on their journey into life is truly lamentable.

We shouldn't want it any other way, though Robert Winston might be inclined to point out that science provides us the only "immaculate" breach of this pure and sinless procedure all humans have been painfully familiar with at some time in their lives.

The psychological misery of denial of human reproduction is a devious, distorted, suspicion inducing mental illness poisoning the minds of all brainwashed into its direct and indirect perverted learning academies. The human race will do well to be rid of it entirely, as a disease to the mind and general health.

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 05:31:29 UTC | #912139

InYourFaceNewYorker's Avatar Comment 8 by InYourFaceNewYorker

Comment 6 by Rtambree :

Compared with European films, American movies are very prudish when it comes to nudity. However anything goes when it comes to violence. This perverse distortion between nudity and violence has been mainly due to religion (i.e. National Legion of Decency and its aftermath in the MPAA)

Yes, it drives me crazy how America demonizes sex more than violence!

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 05:46:27 UTC | #912141

Carlinlives's Avatar Comment 9 by Carlinlives

Comment 4 by some asshole :

I think the idiotic claim that Mary was a virgin figures into sexual obsession of Christi(ns)anity. Just think of all the misery that has been caused by one idiot who believed his wife when she told him that no, she wasn't having an affair--why, it must be immaculate conception!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It is really even more comical than that: early Christians trying to retro-fit the "facts" (which is all a lot of the new testament is - making stuff up centuries later to dovetail with OT prophecies) of JC's birth with a shoddy translation job, which Richard Dawkins has written about here. It would be very funny if it had not caused so many people -- mainly women-- so much grief through the ages.

"Several distressed correspondents have queried the mistranslation of 'young woman' into 'virgin' in the biblical prophecy, and have demanded a reply from me. Hurting religious sensibilities is a perilous business these days so I had better oblige. Actually, it is a pleasure, for scientists can't often get satisfyingly dusty in the library indulging in a real academic foot-note. The point is in fact well known to biblical scholars, and not disputed by them. The Hebrew word in Isaiah is (almah), which undisputedly means 'young woman', with no implication of virginity. If 'virgin' had been intended (bethulah) could have been used instead (the ambiguous English word 'maiden' illustrates how easy it can be to slide between the two meanings). The 'mutation' occurred when the pre-Christian Greek translation known as the Septuagint rendered almah into ... (parthenos), which really does usually mean virgin. Matthew (not, of course, the Apostle and contemporary of Jesus, but the gospel-maker writing long afterwards), quoted Isaiah in what seems to be a derivative of the Septuagint version (all but two of the fifteen Greek words are identical) when he said Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 'Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel' (Authorised English translation). It is widely accepted among Christian scholars that the story of the virgin birth of Jesus was a late interpolation, put in presumably by Greek-speaking disciples in order that the (mistranslated) prophecy should be seen to be fulfilled. Modern versions such as the New English Bible correctly give 'young woman' in Isaiah. They equally correctly leave 'virgin' in Matthew, since there they are translating from the Greek."

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 07:02:28 UTC | #912144

rationalmind's Avatar Comment 10 by rationalmind

Comment 9 by Carlinlives :

Comment 4 by some asshole :

I think the idiotic claim that Mary was a virgin figures into sexual obsession of Christi(ns)anity. Just think of all the misery that has been caused by one idiot who believed his wife when she told him that no, she wasn't having an affair--why, it must be immaculate conception!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It is really even more comical than that: early Christians trying to retro-fit the "facts" (which is all a lot of the new testament is - making stuff up centuries later to dovetail with OT prophecies) of JC's birth with a shoddy translation job, which Richard Dawkins has written about here. It would be very funny if it had not caused so many people -- mainly women-- so much grief through the ages.

"Several distressed correspondents have queried the mistranslation of 'young woman' into 'virgin' in the biblical prophecy, and have demanded a reply from me. Hurting religious sensibilities is a perilous business these days so I had better oblige. Actually, it is a pleasure, for scientists can't often get satisfyingly dusty in the library indulging in a real academic foot-note. The point is in fact well known to biblical scholars, and not disputed by them. The Hebrew word in Isaiah is (almah), which undisputedly means 'young woman', with no implication of virginity. If 'virgin' had been intended (bethulah) could have been used instead (the ambiguous English word 'maiden' illustrates how easy it can be to slide between the two meanings). The 'mutation' occurred when the pre-Christian Greek translation known as the Septuagint rendered almah into ... (parthenos), which really does usually mean virgin. Matthew (not, of course, the Apostle and contemporary of Jesus, but the gospel-maker writing long afterwards), quoted Isaiah in what seems to be a derivative of the Septuagint version (all but two of the fifteen Greek words are identical) when he said Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 'Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel' (Authorised English translation). It is widely accepted among Christian scholars that the story of the virgin birth of Jesus was a late interpolation, put in presumably by Greek-speaking disciples in order that the (mistranslated) prophecy should be seen to be fulfilled. Modern versions such as the New English Bible correctly give 'young woman' in Isaiah. They equally correctly leave 'virgin' in Matthew, since there they are translating from the Greek."

Yes, the well known immaculate misconception.

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 07:24:44 UTC | #912145

xmaseveeve's Avatar Comment 11 by xmaseveeve

Could I just say that I was quite shocked at the outraged posturing of Michael Masden (Madsen?) and the twins of evil (Playboy models) in 'Big Brother'? The scarlet woman Denise Welch is now a hero of mine. Religious Americans have a different brand of sanctimonious superiority from Anne Widdecombe or Mary Whitehouse. The self-righteous, humourless horror at an older woman flashing her boobs or flirting can be puritanical in a specific way and I think anti-intellectualism comes from the same irrational contempt for those who have eaten of the tree of knowledge, carnal or otherwise. (The necessary hypocrisy was fascinating.) Well done Denise! (Incidentally, I love Americans!)

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 07:34:42 UTC | #912146

Dixiedog's Avatar Comment 12 by Dixiedog

Even as a teenager I thought it mad that the Supreme Being was watching me have a crafty wank in the toilet. The big non-existent perv.

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 09:59:37 UTC | #912163

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 13 by Alan4discussion

I see the C of E deputy meddler is mouthing off buy-bull again!

Archbishop urges state not to 'dictate' over marriage - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16771101

Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu Dr Sentamu said the Bible said marriage could only be between a man and a woman

David Cameron would be acting like a "dictator" if he allowed same-sex unions to be called marriages, the Archbishop of York has said.

Dr John Sentamu, the second most senior Church of England cleric, said the government should not overrule the Bible on the issue.

Marriage must be between a man and a woman, he told the Daily Telegraph.

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 10:47:37 UTC | #912172

zengardener's Avatar Comment 14 by zengardener

David Cameron would be acting like a "dictator" if he allowed same-sex unions to be called marriages, the Archbishop of York has said.

Dr John Sentamu, the second most senior Church of England cleric, said the government should not overrule the Bible on the issue.

Who is dictating who?

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:30:00 UTC | #912179

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 15 by Premiseless

"We must appeal to the authority of men who died umpteen centuries ago about how we dictate how others can choose to live in harmony. See they could even write - here look! Weren't they much cleverer in those days?"

Excuse me? Whose authority did you say? And what else did they write - just so we can know how good a grasp they had on humanitarian values?

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:36:57 UTC | #912182

Finch's Avatar Comment 16 by Finch

We live in a county, here in the States, that has a very large population of Anabaptists (Amish, Mennonite, and Brethren) who have developed a theology about women and sex based on "submission" and hierarchy within marriage (and society, in general) based on writings attributed to Paul regarding "wives submit to your husbands" (Eph5:22) and "the head of the woman is man" (1Cor11:3). Anabaptists, here, are amazingly compassionate in helping those less fortunate in the States and in other countries by collectively giving time, money, and food (in huge quantities) to Anabaptist organizations that distribute it accordingly. They're also pacifists regarding war and all forms of violence. Very commendable.

However, regarding women and sex, they've developed some bizarre beliefs about modesty and such...everything from women wearing certain length skirts to cover ankles (or certain colors)...to an extra flap of cloth over the breasts to cover the curves...to men not being allowed to roll up their sleeves because the elbow resembles breasts...to men wearing ties because it directs one's attention to the penis. So, on and on it goes.

The most damaging, IMO, is the church's teaching on submission. Quite literally, regarding sex within marriage, a women must submit to her husband's sexual advances regardless of her own desires and wishes or else she can be brought to the bishop and disciplined for their non-compliance. This usually happens after lots of guilt and shame is placed upon her for resisting authority. Females are essentially groomed with this garbage from young to adulthood. Even the more "liberal" denominations still have this twinge of teaching.

It makes this male feminist cringe.

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 12:29:03 UTC | #912190

AtheistButt's Avatar Comment 17 by AtheistButt

I suppose that, as a bunch of atheists, we could or should be proud of being ignorant of some of the finer (i.e., more fundamentally stupid) points of religious doctrine. However, as Agrajag at 5 has pointed out, there is a difference between the 'virgin birth' (i.e. Jesus was born of a virgin) and the imacculate conception (i.e. Mary was conceived without original sin). I know it shouldn't be important, but if you're arguing with some religious goon, don't give them a reason to smirk.

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 14:10:06 UTC | #912205

QuestioningKat's Avatar Comment 18 by QuestioningKat

I recall listening to a podcast with this author. I think it was Living after Faith. Religion has destroyed many people's lives in regards to sex. Think of the countless millions or more of homosexuals who have lived a half life of guilt, torment, pain, confusion, and fear of being found out. You would think that this has ended, but it still continues. How many teens still commit suicide? How many women forced under burkas also are forced to tolerate her husband's advances? How many schools allow same sex couples to attend prom?

Teen girls are taught abstinence as a way to prevent pregnancy and avoid the costs of raising an "accidental" child. They are less likely to be taught about using common sense and discernment to weed out the advances of unworthy males. They are usually not taught about finding a fit and loving partner. Frequently, she then unwisely has her first sexual experience with an asshole. She's lucky if she doesn't conceive a child. She may even marry her first boyfriend to fulfill the requirement of waiting until marriage. In time, she realizes the marriage was a big mistake, but she stays in bad situation because of her religion. It's as if female birds rejecting the advances of a male's elaborate dance and plumage have more sense than humans. It's as if religion and the antithesis or religion have both made people stupid about making wise decisions.

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 15:10:04 UTC | #912216

potteryshard's Avatar Comment 19 by potteryshard

I don't think it takes a great deal of fancy verbal footwork to explain religion's emphasis and dependence on control of sexual practices. It's all about power. "I've got a headache" just can't compete with "God says...".

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 16:32:59 UTC | #912238

Mr DArcy's Avatar Comment 20 by Mr DArcy

Then of course, there's the practical side of going forth and multiplying, - more little Christians, Jews, Muslims etc. It's seems to be their "duty" to outbreed the competition. At least in Britain, many Catholics have learnt to ignore the Pope's teachings on contraception. In the good old days when you expected 6 of your ten children to die off, and possibly the mother too, it made sense to have big families. A bit like the daddy long legs syndrome, the more offspring you have the greater the chance that at least one will survive to procreate again!

The Shakers got it all wrong. They had so many restrictions on who and when sex could take place that they died out! Whereas the devout Jews around Stamford Hill in north London, now need 10 seater people carriers for their broods! I'm glad I don't have to pay their bills.

Now I feel like a shag, - where's the nearest Catholic nun?

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:33:25 UTC | #912254

Stonyground's Avatar Comment 21 by Stonyground

There is more to that story about the mistranlation of 'young woman' In the book of Isaiah. If the whole story is read it can be seen that the claim that the prophesy is anything to do with Jesus is bogus. Not only that but the outcome of the upcoming war that the prophesy was about went the opposite way to how Isaiah said it would.

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:03:01 UTC | #912268

Wolfgang Brosche's Avatar Comment 22 by Wolfgang Brosche

It all has to do with the question: How can I get a merciful and benevolent God; who do I make God benevolent? (this question by the way implies, that God is man-made - but this seems to be an idea too sophisticated for religious people). There are several ways to achieve this goal which can be observed in almost any religion: of course there is prayer and ritual, obedience and humbleness - and sacrifice: what is the greatest sacrifice man can offer? One´s own life, the life of ones´s children and the sacrifice of constituent features of one´s own personality - "sex" is one of the most important of course.
Many ancient Gods "demanded" human sacrifice - the Christian God still does: he even killed his own son; nevertheless the Christian Clergy still tries to tell us this was an act of love - there is nothing more cruel or cynical. Monks and Nuns, hermits in any religion, sacrifice a most important force of their personality - sex! Sex is something so overwhelmingly wonderful and attractive what makes it an ideal sacrifice to get a benevolent and merciful god. Thus especially the monotheistic religions must control the sexuality of their followers in order to create a friendly god! And there are many useful sideeffects: controlling the sex-life of people means also to control their social life, their friendships, their family-life, the social status of men and women and much more.

m

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:38:57 UTC | #912272

Roedy's Avatar Comment 23 by Roedy

I remember when my beagle puppy Sheldon had not yet figured out defecating was OK so long as he did it outside. Up until then, he was like some poor Catholic convinced perfectly normal bodily urges were unacceptable.

The Catholic is like a bull with a ring through his nose. He feels so guilty he will do whatever his tormentors demand. When you consider how much pain the church can cause that way, especially if they start very young, what they do should be illegal. It is a form of human enslavement. The church warps the minds of the young like some brain parasite, and forces them to provide if with nourishment for a lifetime.

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 21:20:17 UTC | #912300

Border Collie's Avatar Comment 24 by Border Collie

It's all about control. If they can control the strongest human drives, they've gotcha. Of course, they've never controlled their perverse desires, but we're supposed to pretend that situation doesn't exist. A pox on ALL clergy.

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 23:16:01 UTC | #912334

Greyman's Avatar Comment 25 by Greyman

Comment 13 by Alan4discussion :

I see the C of E deputy meddler is mouthing off buy-bull again!

Archbishop urges state not to 'dictate' over marriage - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16771101 Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu Dr Sentamu said the Bible said marriage could only be between a man and a woman

David Cameron would be acting like a "dictator" if he allowed same-sex unions to be called marriages, the Archbishop of York has said.

Dr John Sentamu, the second most senior Church of England cleric, said the government should not overrule the Bible on the issue.

Marriage must be between a man and a woman, he told the Daily Telegraph.

Of course, the Biblical reference on this issue is Matthew 19:3-12 and Mark 10:2-12, where Jesus is purportedly ruling against divorce and remarriage.

Wait.  Why was the Church of England separated from the Catholic Church again?

Sun, 29 Jan 2012 00:26:59 UTC | #912348

xmaseveeve's Avatar Comment 26 by xmaseveeve

I loved that about a tie being an arrow pointing at your willy. You don't want anyone to suspect where it is - usually growing on their foreheads anyway. They must really hate Yogi bear. God created his own porn booth, a breeding farm in a goldfish bowl.

Headache? God says take an aspirin. Floppy willy? A viagra. Oh no, wait - it's still the woman's fault, and we can't have anyone enjoying it. Make love not sense.

They give out viagra in old folks ' homes - stops them falling out of bed.

Sun, 29 Jan 2012 05:07:39 UTC | #912412

susanlatimer's Avatar Comment 27 by susanlatimer

comment 26 by xmaseveeve

I loved that about a tie being an arrow pointing at your willy. You don't want anyone to suspect where it is.

It could have something to do with religion not wanting to reveal its secret headquarters. There's something treasonous about arrows pointing at willies. It gives away the whole game. The brains behind Abrahamic religions are traced back to willies on so many levels. The fears and aspirations of willies.

Sun, 29 Jan 2012 05:18:41 UTC | #912414

IDLERACER's Avatar Comment 28 by IDLERACER

Of course God wants sex to be thought of as dirty and disgusting. Why else would he have placed the vaginal canal between the urethra and the anus? And for that matter, have urine and semen squirt out of the same hole?

Sun, 29 Jan 2012 07:10:21 UTC | #912423

xmaseveeve's Avatar Comment 29 by xmaseveeve

Comment 27, Susan, 'The brains behind Abrahamic religions are traced back to willies on so many levels.'

They are obsessed with them! Imagine the Pope and the Arsebishop of C*nterbary sitting with Jesus and Mo, sloshing back the guiness (a pint of creme de menthe for the Pope ther - Christ nae wunner they kerry him aboot in a wee chair) and singing, 'Whoh...... if it wisny fur yer willies, where wid ye be?' Ideal drinking song and none of them is wearing a tie, I see. Proof indeed that they think they've got their willies well planked. They never look down, kid themselves on that they're action men under the frilly goonies. You must always ignore the serpent.

comment 28 'Why else would he have placed the vaginal canal between the urethra and the anus? And for that matter, have urine and semen squirt out of the same hole?'

Intelligent design my arse - silly sod put the toilets next to the recreation area. (Reminds me of Paul O'Grady saying he went out with a guy with so many piercings that he was like a budgie's adventure playground.)

Sun, 29 Jan 2012 07:49:24 UTC | #912426

susanlatimer's Avatar Comment 30 by susanlatimer

'Whoh...... if it wisny fur yer willies, where wid ye be?' Ideal drinking song

I can hear the melody already and see the chalices swaying back and forth.

Sun, 29 Jan 2012 07:57:32 UTC | #912429