Religions that have strict restrictions on sexuality

[1137]

Sexuality, both as act and metaphor, is at the very core of life, the universe, and all mysticism. As a religious forum, the last concerns me here the most. The union of opposites is, at it's core, the entire source of all reality from a mystical perspective. God and non-god, light and dark, oneness and duality, the above and below, virtue and sin, on and on and on. Why try to cover up something that's (a) so natural and (b) so useful and enlightening in mystical contexts? Do these religions desire to hide the deeper secrets from us? The church, for instance, can only function if they focus on the light and control the darkness. Likewise, sexual intercourse is perhaps the only time and way in day to day life to experience the loss of ego and the loss of personal identity, even if only for moments. Once the ego and self are out of the equation, religions that rely on them die out. To use our most popular religion again, without the fear for oneself, Christianity could not function.

Or maybe they're just prudes. Thoughts?

 

[jeager106]

Sexuality, both as act and metaphor, is at the very core of life, the universe, and all mysticism. As a religious forum, the last concerns me here the most. The union of opposites is, at it's core, the entire source of all reality from a mystical perspective. God and non-god, light and dark, oneness and duality, the above and below, virtue and sin, on and on and on. Why try to cover up something that's (a) so natural and (b) so useful and enlightening in mystical contexts? Do these religions desire to hide the deeper secrets from us? The church, for instance, can only function if they focus on the light and control the darkness. Likewise, sexual intercourse is perhaps the only time and way in day to day life to experience the loss of ego and the loss of personal identity, even if only for moments. Once the ego and self are out of the equation, religions that rely on them die out. To use our most popular religion again, without the fear for oneself, Christianity could not function.

Or maybe they're just prudes. Thoughts?

Just prudes.

 

[George-ananda]

Some religious teachers believe that 'detachment from desires' is the way to end suffering and promote a mind at peace.

So for most people a 'controlled' sexual life is encouraged as a middle-ground. The highest level aspirants will not engage in sex in any form; the belief is sex generates vibrations of the lower animal mind and they believe man is between the animal and the divine and the goal is to reach divinity.

So restrictions are not prudish just for prudishness' sake but for helping the aspirant reach his goal.

 

[Revasser]

You control something as fundamental as sex, that's a big step to imposing great control over an entire population.

Whether you want to do that via force and fear of punishment or via pseudo-mystical mumbo jumbo, the result is largely the same. When you cede control of something so personal and basic to your humanity, you are probably much better prepared to give up sovereignty of other things.

I imagine it can also play into tribalism in that people who do not adhere X religions arbitrary sexual conduct rules can be quickly defined as "other"

 

[The Sum of Awe]

My first thought is the 'ick' factor has something to do with it.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Another idea would be someone who wasn't able to get laid because he was a whack job with a Bible signed by Jesus, and was jealous so he told everyone it was a sin to make himself feel superior

 

[fschmidt]

Likewise, sexual intercourse is perhaps the only time and way in day to day life to experience the loss of ego and the loss of personal identity, even if only for moments.

A perfect expression of Luciferianism or psychopathy or just modern culture, all of which amount to pretty much the same thing. Serious religions (which are almost extinct) provide other ways of giving up ego.

Sex is controlled for the same reason that murder, robbery, and rape are controlled, namely that if it isn't controlled, society goes to hell.

 

[wizanda]

Think we need to use a gnostic lens to see this:
Matter is dense vibration, thus it can lead us lower down.
Love is high vibration, thus can help us ascend.
Religious peoples being prudish is fear driven, thus leads us down.
Thus sexuality should be imbraced in the divine, not from a lower egotistical nature.

 

[Looncall]

Sexuality, both as act and metaphor, is at the very core of life, the universe, and all mysticism. As a religious forum, the last concerns me here the most. The union of opposites is, at it's core, the entire source of all reality from a mystical perspective. God and non-god, light and dark, oneness and duality, the above and below, virtue and sin, on and on and on. Why try to cover up something that's (a) so natural and (b) so useful and enlightening in mystical contexts? Do these religions desire to hide the deeper secrets from us? The church, for instance, can only function if they focus on the light and control the darkness. Likewise, sexual intercourse is perhaps the only time and way in day to day life to experience the loss of ego and the loss of personal identity, even if only for moments. Once the ego and self are out of the equation, religions that rely on them die out. To use our most popular religion again, without the fear for oneself, Christianity could not function.

Or maybe they're just prudes. Thoughts?

A hypothesis:

I notice that religions from hostile environments have severe restrictions on sex. The Abrahamic religions, for example, arose in desert places. There, producing and raising children is difficult and inheritance issues may be more acute. I suppose the religions just express such harsh realities. A big problem is that when the harsh realities recede, the religions cannot give up their (now) unnecessary attitudes since they have tied them to superstitions.

I am open to any exceptions to the harsh environment/prudish religion idea. I have not happened to think of any such exceptions.

 

[Koldo]

the belief is sex generates vibrations of the lower animal mind and they believe man is between the animal and the divine and the goal is to reach divinity.

I am genuinely curious how this belief came to be.

 

[rusra02]

Sexuality, both as act and metaphor, is at the very core of life, the universe, and all mysticism. As a religious forum, the last concerns me here the most. The union of opposites is, at it's core, the entire source of all reality from a mystical perspective. God and non-god, light and dark, oneness and duality, the above and below, virtue and sin, on and on and on. Why try to cover up something that's (a) so natural and (b) so useful and enlightening in mystical contexts? Do these religions desire to hide the deeper secrets from us? The church, for instance, can only function if they focus on the light and control the darkness. Likewise, sexual intercourse is perhaps the only time and way in day to day life to experience the loss of ego and the loss of personal identity, even if only for moments. Once the ego and self are out of the equation, religions that rely on them die out. To use our most popular religion again, without the fear for oneself, Christianity could not function.

Or maybe they're just prudes. Thoughts?

I believe it is prudent to consult the Creator of sex for guidance in this matter. Contrary to what many believe, the Bible does not consider sexual relations sinful. However, this gift is to be enjoyed only by married couples who commit to each other. (Genesis 2:24) as with many gifts from God, sex has been perverted to unintended practices that are condemned by man's Creator. (Hebrews 13:4)

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So restrictions are not prudish just for prudishness' sake but for helping the aspirant reach his goal.

I guess the distinction is that such restrictions are self-imposed for a specific purpose, as opposed to being imposed by some external authority?

 

[Glaurung]

In this world of contraception, antibiotics and modern medical infrastructure, I think that many who take these things as a granted reality have really lost sight of just how dangerous sex can be. When a single sex act can result in contracting a disease that will eventually kill you without modern drugs, or there's no condoms or pills to make 'slip-ups' less likely, I think you can start to appreciate the value in being a little discriminatory with your sexual activity. Sexual exclusivity and marriage mitigate if not eliminate many of those risks, and since sexuality is a major part of the human reality, there's no surprise that religion has an involvement in it.

That doesn't mean that just because sexual promiscuity is much less dangerous in the industrialised world, that moral systems that denounce it are just prudish or hate pleasure. These systems have a view on the human state and have developed a context for sex that is inseparable from the morals which has developed in each religious culture. Christianity for the most part, only asks that sexual activity remains monogamous and in marriage. Which is generally (even today) a good idea anyway.

Religion is so anti-sex, yet adherents keep managing to have it and breed.

Besides from what I've seen, the hook-up culture doesn't seem to deliver much satisfaction. In fact, it seems to be the the opposite. And I have it on good authority that causal sex is drastically overrated in the long run.

 

[George-ananda]

I guess the distinction is that such restrictions are self-imposed for a specific purpose, as opposed to being imposed by some external authority?

Can any external authority really IMPOSE sexual behavior?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Can any external authority really IMPOSE sexual behavior?

The Catholic Church has been quite good at it.

 

[George-ananda]

I am genuinely curious how this belief came to be.

Masters (who many respect) see levels of planes beyond the physical; from the grossest to the finest/most subtle. Pleasurable vibrations of the grosser (denser) planes keep man at the grosser level.

But again, the middle ground ('controlled' sexual behavior) is generally recommended for the average spiritually developed person. Higher aspirants will commonly not engage in sexuality; they don't want the draw to the lower planes.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Sexuality, both as act and metaphor, is at the very core of life, the universe, and all mysticism. As a religious forum, the last concerns me here the most. The union of opposites is, at it's core, the entire source of all reality from a mystical perspective. God and non-god, light and dark, oneness and duality, the above and below, virtue and sin, on and on and on. Why try to cover up something that's (a) so natural and (b) so useful and enlightening in mystical contexts? Do these religions desire to hide the deeper secrets from us? The church, for instance, can only function if they focus on the light and control the darkness. Likewise, sexual intercourse is perhaps the only time and way in day to day life to experience the loss of ego and the loss of personal identity, even if only for moments. Once the ego and self are out of the equation, religions that rely on them die out. To use our most popular religion again, without the fear for oneself, Christianity could not function.

Or maybe they're just prudes. Thoughts?

Perhaps, it is as you present in some religions. Philosophically, in the hindu-dharma sexuality both as an act and metaphor is accepted as one of the highest rituals - sriShTi yagna (~ the divine ritual of creation). It wasn't considered as something to be shameful of, examples abound of ancient temples (a place where primary purpose is the contemplation of transcendental) with motifs of divine-couple engaged in sriShTi yagna. Though, it is an altogether different matter how it is viewed and reacted upon currently in the society, but then one must also consider that the society is constantly shaped more by external factors and institutions than solely by its philosophical roots. Perhaps this is true with other religions too, but i'm not sure.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Moishe3rd]

Sexuality, both as act and metaphor, is at the very core of life, the universe, and all mysticism. As a religious forum, the last concerns me here the most. The union of opposites is, at it's core, the entire source of all reality from a mystical perspective. God and non-god, light and dark, oneness and duality, the above and below, virtue and sin, on and on and on. Why try to cover up something that's (a) so natural and (b) so useful and enlightening in mystical contexts? Do these religions desire to hide the deeper secrets from us? The church, for instance, can only function if they focus on the light and control the darkness. Likewise, sexual intercourse is perhaps the only time and way in day to day life to experience the loss of ego and the loss of personal identity, even if only for moments. Once the ego and self are out of the equation, religions that rely on them die out. To use our most popular religion again, without the fear for oneself, Christianity could not function.

Or maybe they're just prudes. Thoughts?

I would humbly suggest that you are not very well versed in religion.
With the exception of monastic sects whose purpose is ultimate control over one's sexuality, nearly all religions are enthusiastically pro sex.

Many people confuse reality with fantasy. It's part of the human condition.
The reality is that much of human life is enthralled by sex and lies.
Man as animal tends to be subjugated to his sexual desires. That's how biology; environmental stimuli; genetic urges; what have you, function.
This, combined with Man's intellect and emotions, feeds the need for one's Ego to be paramount; to come out "on top." False narratives; lies; fantasies, are manufactured in order for individuals to feel that they are in control.

Control over one's sexuality and sexual urges is demanded by G-d in order to channel that particular energy and, to control it for one's own spiritual purposes.
Religion simply mandates that it is beneficial to control one's sexuality rather than letting one's animal sexual nature be in control.

 

[Nooj]

Sexuality, both as act and metaphor, is at the very core of life, the universe, and all mysticism.

i don't think so. i think love is. and sexuality, as well as other aspects of life, is a part of love.

Why try to cover up something that's (a) so natural and (b) so useful and enlightening in mystical contexts?

sexuality is dangerous. like many other aspects of our life.

we can turn it to good or to bad. through our sexuality, as sexual beings, we can do enormous harm or enormous good. often we seem to harm. this is why we need to develop wisdom first of all in order to be good sexual beings, not harmful sexual beings.

i don't believe that as ignorant people, we can be enlightened by sex. i think that would just entrap us within ignorant (and harmful) sex. sex is not the great enlightener, anymore than the world and nature is. it is only enlightened to those people who have wisdom (enlightened). they see the world and live in it as wise people, sages, who can derive enlightenment from anything and anywhere.

Likewise, sexual intercourse is perhaps the only time and way in day to day life to experience the loss of ego and the loss of personal identity, even if only for moments.

that's not true, and i'd suggest it's truly sad and shocking if that is the only time and way in daily life to experience the loss of ego and the loss of personal identity.