Is sex a sin? If so, why aren't people repenting?

yea, it varies quite a bit. My mom's of the mind that God's everywhere and we dont NEED to go to church alot.

I'm baaaaaaack

If God is everywhere and sees everything, then that means that God is watching people have sex. Like, all the sex that people have, most of which they say He disapproves of. But if God disapproves of it so much, why is He always watching it? If I don't like what's on TV, I turn it off or change the channel. Why can't God just mind His own business and stop watching all these people have sex everywhere?

edited 17th May '12 1:56:24 PM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Well, he has to know what to tell people when they're at the pearly gates. " WELL, I SEE YOU'VE HAD EXTRA MARITAL SEX 593 TIMES. YOU DO KNOW THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT, CORRECT? "

I'm baaaaaaack

Yes. I never killed them, just porked them silly. Perv.

edited 17th May '12 3:47:28 PM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

God created humans to have a 24/7 live porn show!!! And it took 15 million years for the Gambit to pay off!

edited 17th May '12 3:47:55 PM by KingZeal

There's a great anecdote I head a while back, about American views on sex being tainted with the Protestant work ethic. You don't just release your sperm willy-nilly; you have to keep it in the bank and accumulate interest.

I'm a skeptical squirrel

...but kinda disturbing.

I'm baaaaaaack

I find that the majority of the contradictions in modern sexual politics, especially where religion is involved, comes from a distinct and drastic change in the state of conception and contraception.

In the times when most major and many minor remaining religions were being formed, if a couple had sex they had very good odds of producing a child, regardless of how well their state would allow them to raise that child. Having a child with out the support and stability being formally married provided was a fantastic way to lose at least one and possibly three or more citizens without any benefit to society. Religions and governments alike were against the loss of citizens. As such, they made rules and edicts that framed unrestrained sexuality as a sin to keep the populace from getting inconveniently and unsustainable knocked up.

In modern days, however, conception is a much decreased result of sexual activity due to the growth in effectiveness and availability of contraceptives, and stability is much more easily*

achieved even without a married household. This allows a greater sexual freedom than had ever existed in the time of religion's formation. But the major religions still have "no sex without marriage" on the books as a divine edict. You can't just say "Oh, God has totally changed his mind on this issue" without losing some face. Thus, modern religious leaders hold firm to a rule whose purpose has been undermined and, possibly, eliminated by modern advances.

"The marvel is not that the Bear posts well, but that the Bear posts at all."

The point isn't about that though. The Idea is that it's immoral to have sex outside of marriage, because it's only purpose is having children(In Catholicism anyway).

edited 18th May '12 6:51:54 AM by Joesolo

I'm baaaaaaack

That's false. Catholicism was never like that. According to recent historical accounts, not even the Puritans were as sheepish about sex as we believe.

If we want to go by the traditionalist interpretation, I think that something like that is in fact considered true: while the pleasure and the intimacy are certainly good things, to separate these things from reproduction is seen as to degrade sex from one of the most sacred acts that a human being can commit — the generation of new human life — to a "mere" pleasure, which is not something bad but just does not compare. From this perspective, it feels a bit like a waste of a gift, a little like if you were given a magnificent painting and used it as a tablecloth.

Personally, I do not think I agree entirely with this interpretation; but the common idea that Catholicism hates and despises sex is just flat out wrong. If anything, it could be accused of holding it in too much regard — to treat it as sacred, so sacred that anything that looks even vaguely as a "misuse" of it is to be avoided.

That's true, under certain aspects Catholicism can be thought of as a sex cult of a sort :-)

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Well, according to this Cracked article a lot of these notions are fabrications made after the fact, to make our modern culture seem more "progressive" and liberal.

I agree, sometimes there are exaggerations. Still, Humanae Vitae was written in 1968, and it very much supports the "the true and only purpose of sex is reproduction" mode of thinking.

edited 18th May '12 8:54:42 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

That's not what it says. According to Wikipedia, he's explicitly saying that sex for pleasure is A-OKAY as long as you do absolutely NOTHING to prevent a kid from being a possibility of it.

Wait, what is it exactly that we are arguing about?

In hindsight, perhaps I did express myself badly, but that seems to me entirely in keeping with the point of view that I was describing (and that, I think, the encyclical endorses).

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Oh wait, I think I've been totally in the wrong here.

I thought it was being argued that sex was disliked by fundamentalists of ages past and that they avoided it except to make kids.

Rereading, it seems you guys weren't saying that at all.

You put emphasis on one part and not another.

"it is held that the sexual act must "retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life", "

I'm baaaaaaack

Anything can be a sin if one thinks them so. Sex without context of procreation has been Older Than Print. Think of POW ages past on how they were treated in this regard. Animals including us just want to get high. We can and it is reasonable to

What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...

...unless it interferes with our higher callings.

"Pleasure for pleasure's sake" is an excellent recipe for a meaningless life. Sex is especially dangerous from that point of view — it is a very strong pleasure, and it can be addictive.

Sex is not evil: in fact, in its role as the means through which new human beings are brought into the world (I don't think that this is the only purpose of sex, but it certainly is one of its purposes) I will make no qualms in saying that it is sacred, in the fullest sense of the word.

But on the other hand, Sex is Not A Toy. Treating it as such strikes me as a cheapening of a wonderful thing at best, and a very quick path towards self-destruction at worst.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

I'm calling Values Dissonance dibs on this topic.

I may never agree with you on that, despite where I live. I masturbate because I can't have sex. I do it every day. Am I sinned to have fingered myself so?

What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...

Not for me to decide, or know.

The problem is that we all tend to approach the issue of sin, sexual or otherwise, as if it was about some sort of supernatural control freak who is going to get pissed at you if you don't do exactly what he says. This, I believe, is less than correct. I find that a better working definition of sin could be something along the lines of: "something is a sin if it makes you (or others) into less of what you could be".

So I think that the questions that one should ask him/herself, on very general terms, should be: is the way in which I am approaching the issue of sexuality enriching my life, or damaging it? How is it affecting how I relate with others? How is it affecting my drive, my passion, my goodwill? Am I being a slave to sexuality, or is it something that I enjoy but that I could do without if I had to?

And so on.

edited 20th May '12 7:32:28 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Huh? Why can't it be? Seems perfectly valid to have sex just for fun.

I vowed, and so did you: Beyond this wall- we would make it through.

The thing, I think, is that sex, for good or for evil, affects the intrinsic nature of a person much more than other pleasures like, I dunno, a good glass of wine or a nice book. Romantic attraction has been responsible for great poems and deeds; but also for awful poems, and — and that's far worse — for awful deeds.

Very little that belongs to humankind is truly harmless; but in particular, human sexuality is certainly not so. It is a major power — one that has to be respected in order to avoid being consumed by it.

edited 20th May '12 8:41:30 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Personally, I'd say the awful poems are worse, but point still made.

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

Sex can be a toy. But when it is treated as such people tend to do very stupid shit. There are numerous problems with sex and what it can cause. On a purely physical area we have: injury, illness, and pregnancy. In the emotional arena we have things like the pain caused from rape, adultery, casual sex that the person would prefer not be just a casual fling, the hell that pregnancy wrecks on women's minds, and more. Oh so much more. In the financial arena we have things like treatment, abortion, divorce, and so on. All of which are terribly expensive. This can also be hell in the social sphere. Adultery can very easily ruin relationships on a mass scale and lead to awkward pain for more than just you and the person you cheated on. Having experienced that first hand I must say it's quite a frightening thing how the misery spreads in so many ways to so many people.

And so sex causes problems. Lots of them. You don't need to demonize it or live in fear of recreational sex. Not at all. What you should do is be smart with your sex. Which is all I, from my Buddhist perspective, want from everyone. For people to understand and respect sex and all that it can do. And not run around cheating on people or having unprotected sex.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah