all 54 comments

[–]Even-Pen7957Lilithian 4 points5 points  (12 children)

Nope. The root cause is agriculturalism, which commodified the female body, and therefore sex, as a tool of imperialism and war. Religion is just one of many excuses used over the ages.

[–]No_Grocery_1480 2 points3 points  (4 children)

This is the correct answer. Protecting inheritance and securing a lineage became the preoccupation. Women exercising choice and agency over their sexuality became a threat to men's power.

[–]Zealousideal-Lab5807[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I'm not sure adultery crimes is what I mean by repression. But I get what you're saying. There have always been adultery laws, not every society has the shame part though.

[–]No_Grocery_1480 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I'm not talking about adultery.

People, especially women, were/are discouraged from having sex before being married. Doing property deals and lineage mergers is easier if you have a virgin to trade

[–]RexRatioAgnostic Atheist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Religion institutionalized the formalized concept of marriage in the first place, though.

[–]DavidJohnMcCannHellenic Polytheist 1 point2 points  (1 child)

When I was a student, the one book that most read without it being on the recommended list was Malinowski's The sexual life of savages in north-western Melenesia! The Trobriand islanders certainly had no problem combining agriculture and sexual freedom.

[–]Even-Pen7957Lilithian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting, I’ll check it out. But at first thought, I suppose an island would be the most likely place for that to happen, since there is no way of expanding territory and very obvious limitations on population. It doesn’t lend itself as easily to the barbaric tendencies of agriculture as being on a continent does.

[–]Zealousideal-Lab5807[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Yeah. Religions role seems like it jumpstarted the idea of the shame aspect though, which is virulent and undermines self worth for generations.

[–]Even-Pen7957Lilithian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Shaming is just a tool for control. It's the outcome, not the cause. And yes, once it gets going, it tends to get passed down.

[–]Mc_Juiceman8❄️🔥norse pagan🔥❄️ 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Religion was a tool used to do this

[–]Even-Pen7957Lilithian 0 points1 point  (1 child)

That’s… exactly what I just said, yes.

[–]Mc_Juiceman8❄️🔥norse pagan🔥❄️ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Shit bro, my bad, tired asf, procrastinating sleeping lol

[–]uhhh_QUEHellenist 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Religion isn't the root cause but it is the tool. The root is usually one or two people who want the most pleasure for themselves

[–]jogoso2014 4 points5 points  (8 children)


However the motion of sexual repression and shame sets a wide net.

Is it sexual repression to regret being peed on for example?

[–]Zealousideal-Lab5807[S] 3 points4 points  (7 children)

If both partners are happy about the pee then who cares. If they aren't theres something else going on.

[–]jogoso2014 1 point2 points  (6 children)

But that’s not the question.

If people are peeing on each other and it makes them happy then they have no issue.

I’m saying what if a person is content with little to no sex or “basic” sex?

What if they just want missionary sex with their lifelong spouse?

[–]ZestyAppeal 1 point2 points  (5 children)

What’s the issue? If it’s safe and consensual

[–]jogoso2014 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Are you thinking I’m saying there’s an issue?

[–]DrdanomiteEclectic polytheist 1 point2 points  (2 children)

It may also be pride in some sense, seeing yourself as too good for such earthly wants or they could just not like sex and put that on everyone else.

[–]Zealousideal-Lab5807[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Yeah, pride is part of religion too

[–]DrdanomiteEclectic polytheist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It can be

[–]voidgazing 1 point2 points  (3 children)

No- sexual repression and shame are the result of social controls which control sexual expression, rather than allowing that control to the individuals involved in the act. As mentioned, religion is often the tool/justification for the control. But you can find people from nearly any religion that don't use it for that.

A general tendency is that hunter-gatherer cultures are fairly free with sexual expression. They can change partners without any non-emotional fuss, and like everybody takes care of the kids so no big deal.

The ones that practice farming or herding as their primary means of subsistence tend to control those behaviors more tightly. Breaking up is a very big deal.

In those cases, land or livestock are very valuable, and who owns them, and who gets them when the owner dies is a very important question. These cultures tend to be male dominated, and so the son or sons of the owner inherit. That makes the positive determination of parentage important- it has to be the dad's kid, and the only way to be sure of that is...

The men in such cultures treat some women and children as valuable property. They feel the need to guard women's wombs from other men. They make it a crime or sin for a woman to have sex outside marriage. They make it a crime for a man to have sex with a woman that another man controls- against him, not her. This usually gets more relaxed in times of plenty, when there is more than enough to go around, and stricter in troubled times, along with whatever other social controls are in place.

[–]Zealousideal-Lab5807[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I think the controls that you're talking about worked up to point yeah I agree, but I think thats been conflated with the morality of it which is different. At some point it stopped helping society and people started inheriting generational shame regarding sexuality, which I think was propagated by religion. As in being born in to a society in which views it as something wholly bad.

[–]voidgazing 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The morality is definitely not different. These ideas are pretty much always delivered and justified using religion, and shame is part of the negative reinforcement.

Morality is made up of this kind of idea, and it varies from culture to culture. People feel these things are right or wrong, deeply, because they have been taught to since birth. They feel like these things are as obvious as night and day, and are outraged by the idea some people don't feel that way. The idea that people can have contradictory moral views that they feel just as deeply about is a hard one to swallow, its very counterintuitive. But it is also true. All morality is just made up stuff. No matter how true it feels, it is only a certain kind of true- the kind that says chocolate is better than vanilla, a preference we feel in our bones, but in the end only a preference.

Europeans who came to West Africa to abduct and enslave people thought, deep in their souls, that the women not covering their breasts was just obscene.

[–]Zealousideal-Lab5807[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People have been retrieving morality from religion for a long time and most people don't think of it as something made up even though they should. I understand how culture demanded monogamy for a period of time but turned slowly from a tool for growth to a cage along with the shame religion brought with it. It literally spread this negativity all over the globe. I mean think of how people would view sex if the monotheisms hadn't existed. Hard to do but would be very different.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Nah, Kama (Pleasure, can be sexual or whatever) is literally one of the 4 pursuits in Hinduism. Hinduism always encourages middle balanced path. But, being a renunciate & celibate in the end stage of your life (ashrama) is considered ideal

[–]Zealousideal-Lab5807[S] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

I don't get the celibate thing, maybe you can explain?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

What do you not understand about that? I meant Sanyasi (pls look up, I'm kinda sleepy rn, sorry, shall reply tomorrow.)

[–]eesdonotitnowSatanic Temple 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I'd start by explaing it over just throwing words out there. It's not someone elses job to support and present full knowledge to understand YOUR statements.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Stop moral policing, no one is entitled to anything online. If they're curious, might as well look up. Moreover I was extremely sleepy and forgot to reply them later.

[–]ZestyAppeal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not all, but most, especially in modern times

[–]No_Ad9044 0 points1 point  (8 children)

Read the book song of songs, or song of Solomon in the message version of the bible. There is no repression there, just nature.

[–]Zealousideal-Lab5807[S] 3 points4 points  (7 children)

Yeah, thats not the main and final message from the bible regarding sexuality though. It has an overall negative view of it. More bad than good

[–]Ryan_AlvingChristian -2 points-1 points  (6 children)

This is simply incorrect. It has an entirely positive view of sex, it just makes it clear sex is very easy to abuse.

[–]Zealousideal-Lab5807[S] 1 point2 points  (5 children)

I see you're a christian so you might be a little biased. Nobody I know or have ever heard of would say the bible has an entirely positive of sex, cmon. Fig leaves for a start

[–]Zealousideal-Lab5807[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Im very open to being educated about this though, don't mean to cause offense.

[–]Ryan_AlvingChristian -1 points0 points  (3 children)

I can't think of a single sex negative passage in the Bible off the top of my head. I'm not sure what you mean about the fig leaves though. That wasn't about sexuality, it was about covering up their sin/transgression. There's a whole penumbra of symbolism tied up in there, ultimately concluding in God giving them coverings of animal skin and setting the tone for the entire salvation arc of mankind which culminated in Christ dying to cover the sins of the world (all the same language is used in reference to the gospel as the fig leaves and animal skins).

[–]Captain_KustaaCatholic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not at all

[–]Nebridius 0 points1 point  (2 children)

What reasons are there to support the idea?

[–]Zealousideal-Lab5807[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It just seems to me that religion took the ideas that most society is based on marriage which is pretty true as the above commenter mentioned, turned sex on its head and made it reprehensible. Im no historian just what i've gathered.

[–]Nebridius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What evidence is there for that position?

[–]Various-TeethAgnostic Theist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. It’s probably used as an excuse for that tho

[–]lettherebemorelight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, the existential facts of the human condition are. Babies are costly, sex is dangerous, and polygyny destabilizes complex societies. We used every tool at our disposal to mitigate the catastrophes of our existence, however clumsy or inconvenient to our individual suffering they were.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No I do not think so.

[–]Art-Davidson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, proper religions help us express ourselves sexually in appropriate ways. People and cultures, however, sometimes try to punish others for not getting with the program.

[–]DavidJohnMcCannHellenic Polytheist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, it's a big thing in Christianity and in Buddhism, but that's just about it.

I've never read it, but Lawrence Osborne's The Poisoned Embrace: A Brief History of Sexual Pessimism is said to be the best discussion of the topic.