I was raised in a Fundamentalist household. Now, I have actually always been a freethinker intellectually, but behaviorally (at least as far as the “Don’t’s” are concerned!) I have been a practicing Christian in the sense that I attend Church regularly, don’t drink,smoke,use drugs,curse or swear, or engage in sexual activity. Now comes the dilemma— I have always considered sex to be dirty in some sense. While I am attracted to women, I have never liked to see women totally naked. (For some reason I do not find female genitalia visually appealing.) I do, however, find myself very much attracted to “scantily-clad” women. I also have some strange fetishes (which I have never acted upon, except as pure fantasy, in sex of the “solo variety”, if you know what I mean!) which first manifested in my prepubescent years. Now, speaking as a 42 year-old male virgin with virtuously no dating experience, I cannot help but think that perhaps my religious background has contributed to my oddness! Does any one else on this board feel that very conservative Chrisian religious backgrounds tend to produce sexual deviance, or at least strange,reticent attitudes towards sex? Perhaps I am way off-base here, but I would like some opinions!
Some priests, including conservative ones have the right idea about sex: that it shouldn’t be done because it is ‘dirty’, but precisely because it is so good and holy, and it shouldn’t be relegated to mere recreational ziplessness.
It was Paul, who is said to have died a virgin, that set off the ‘sex is dirty, but needed’ attitude. He also had a dim view of marriage even among heterosexuals.
Well, you’re likely to find a highly receptive audience here. You’re tossing red meat to the lions, so to speak.
Fundamentalism does not necessitate the teaching of sex-dirty. I do not teach my children such, two teen boys and an older daughter. I do teach the the virtues of sexual restraint and the potentials of indescriminate sexual activity. That said, they are hardly…prudes. 
As to the characterization of Paul, much has been made of his supposed misogynistic attitudes and barely concealed irritation at marriage. I find both to be rather simplistic readings of his epistles. It must be understood in the context of his audience and the difficulties he had with pervasive sexual sin in and amongst those he had personally taught. It must have been with a sense of personal failure that he so sternly worded his letters; the frustration and level of concern over the lapses among believers whom he was unable to correct in person must have caused his short temper. My humble opinion, be it ever so.
How did you come to that conclusion? None of Paul’s writings claim that sex is dirty. He did express a preference for celibate, undistracted devotion to serving God, but that’s hardly the same as declaring sex to be dirty.
By sexual restraint, do you mean ‘absolutely not unless you’re married’ or do you mean ‘be selective about who you’re sleeping with’?
Of course some fundies have weird-ass ideas about sex. The Southern Baptist Convention endorses maledom/femsub relationships. They oughtta start including ballgags with their wedding ceremonies.
Other fundies embrace the sex-is-dirty attitude as the OP describes. To answer the OP, yeah, it sure sounds like they fucked you over good. I can’t say for sure because I don’t know you personally and I don’t know your full personal history. Could be a mild religious anti-sex bias intersected with something in your character to create a major block to sexual expression, so I won’t just say that it IS the case, but you seem to suspect that it is.
Here’s a gem I found a few year ago. Enjoy 
Timely advice in preparation for upcoming weddings.
The following is a reprint from The Madison Institute Newsletter,
Fall Issue, 1894:
INSTRUCTION AND ADVICE
FOR THE YOUNG BRIDE
on the
Conduct and Procedure of the
Intimate and Personal Relationship
of the Marriage State
for the
Greater Spiritual Sanctity of this
Blessed Sacrament and the Glory of God
by
Ruth Smythers
beloved wife of
The Reverend L.D. Smythers
Pastor of the Arcadian Methodist
Church of the Eastern Regional Conference
Published in the year
of our Lord 1894
Spiritual Guidance Press
New York City
INSTRUCTION AND ADVICE FOR THE YOUNG BRIDE
To the sensitive young woman who has had the benefits of proper
upbringing, the wedding day is, ironically, both the happiest and most
terrifying day of her life. On the positive side, there is the
wedding itself, in which the bride is the central attraction in a
beautiful and inspiring ceremony, symbolizing her triumph in securing
a male to provide for all her needs for the rest of her life. On the
negative side, there is the wedding night, during which the bride must
pay the piper, so to speak, by facing for the first time the terrible
experience of sex.
At this point, dear reader, let me concede one shocking truth.
Some young women actually anticipate the wedding night ordeal with
curiosity and pleasure! Beware such an attitude! A selfish and
sensual husband can easily take advantage of such a bride. One
cardinal rule of marriage should never be forgotten: GIVE LITTLE,
GIVE SELDOM, AND ABOVE ALL, GIVE GRUDGINGLY. Otherwise
what could have been a proper marriage could become an orgy of sexual lust…
copyright 1894 The Madison Institute.
[Material edited due to copyrighted concerns. Please post a link or a small excerpt only for all copyrighted works. --Gaudere]
gytalf2000, you are a unique case! I don’t want to “mess” with you, by any means! All I can say is read Song of Solomon. The Lord means for two married people to “rock each other’s worlds!” NEVER give up hope! (like I have…)
Evil Captor, your judgmental attitude isn’t needed or wanted here. And gytalf2000 didn’t ask for your diagnosis, although I’ll let him speak for himself about that.
Fundamentalists teach that sex is God’s gift to married couples only. There is every reason that monogamy should be practiced (freedom from STDs, healthier relationships, and so on) and only one reason I can think of for premarital/adulterous/whatever sex: satisfying desires.
ccwaterback, here is the Snopes link concerning your post.
Au contraire. You fundamentalists need to be constantly reminded that your viewpoint is warped. God knows what would happen if we let you wander around thinking everybody was OK with your opinions.
BTW, I wasn’t DISSING the OP, just giving my considered opinion of the origin of his problem. Careful reading of the OP will show that he is no longer a fundie.
Followed by the citing of an urban legend as evidence that Christians think sex is dirty.
And yet -
Oh yes, God forbid anyone should express a religiously based opinion about sex without the usual chorus of abusive assholery.
Sadomasochism, homosexuality, adultery - all perfectly fine.
But the opinion that sex should be reserved for married couples is a “warped viewpoint”, and the only such viewpoint that needs to be immediately attacked.
Any bets on how quick the subject gets changed?
Regards,
Shodan
Nah, Shodan you got it all wrong. The problem with fundies is that they don’t know “consensual” from a hole in the ground because it’s all the word of God to them. And because they organize politically to enforce their warped views on the rest of us. If it were a case of fundies saying, “Hey, we’re gonna require this sort of behavior of anyone who wants to be a fundie, and we invite all others to share in our vision of what’s proper” – that’d be one thing. I’d still think fundies were warped, but it’d be like the Amish – their beliefs would be their business, not mine. Instead, the fundies organize to enforce their vision on everyone else, whether they share it or not. That kind of cultural aggression demands an aggressive response.
But thanks for playing.
Thanks for all the replies! I have enjoyed reading them, especially the reprint from the 1894 publication. That was hilarious! Now, let me reiterate and expand on what I stated earlier— on a purely intellectual level, I am not Fundamentalist. I have always had my doubts about taking the Bible literally about various matters (Creation, the Flood, etc.). However, I seemed to internalize the “Thou Shalt Nots” pretty well, and my circle of friends and family are fairly conservative religiously (mostly “Church of Christ”), so I attend services almost every Sunday, even though my private beliefs do not coincide so well with the sermons all the time!
Now, returning to the subject of sex-- I was dating a Catholic girl during my late twenties, and on our fifth date, she was ready to get horizontal! I told her I did not feel sex was appropriate outside of marriage, and her jaw practically dropped to the floor! She said that she simply could not imagine any Catholic guy she had ever known to refuse sex! She said they just might feel guilty enough about it later to go to confession, but they would never under any circumstances not have sex with an attractive and willing partner! We actually wound up having a fascinating conversation about this. She asked me if it had been difficult for me to refrain from sexual activity. It was at this point that I mentioned my strange fetishes and masturbatory fantasies. That was a major mistake! She broke up with me soon afterwards!
Hmmmmmmm…
Lots of former “Church of Christ”'ers here at SDMB. See this thread for some comments of your former co-religionists: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=196121
Certainly your background was a contributor to your atypical attitudes regarding sex, et. al. But I suspect from your comments that given any background, some sort of atypia in these areas would have emerged anyway. I’m a big believer in nature playing an equal if not greater role than nurture for a lot of fundamental human behavior.
I guess the question is how much this stuff bothers you.
No pre-maritial sex. And by the way, the talks about HIV/AIDS, the other 22 STD’s, pregnancy, etc., haven’t had half the impact of my oldest step-daughter. She’s now 30 with an 8 year old son. She’s always been a single parent, though the father is “around”. Having a child, paying the bills, doctor/dentist appointments, sleepless nights, finding suitable daycare, all on her own. The “father” sees the boy as fulfillment of his own insufficiencies and is seeking vicarious satisfaction by forcing the boy into a sports regime in hopes of creating the next Tiger Woods/Lance Armstrong/Michael Jordan. Child support and visitation take a distinct second place in his “lifestyle”. Seeing the difficulties she’s had over the years has been the biggest real-life example of what NOT to do for my kids.
Amen, NaSultainne. There’s been no comment so far on the fact that when the “rules” were made, even the “give seldom, give grudgingly” rule, sex equalled babies. I’ve researched my family tree (other trees may vary). Four generations ago, eight to ten children was average. Six generations ago it was twelve to eighteen. This, at a time when resources were a good deal scanter than at present.
“Give seldom” was the only family planning available in a time when babies either had two years’ access to a well fed, nursing mother or their chance of dying soared. Dead babies are no fun. And since the urge to procreate is strong, the social pressure necessary to curb it would need to be strong. And it would still fail.
We’re seeing post birth control changes. The strongest need that fueled the social pressure has been lifted somewhat and what behavior is socially acceptable has changed and is still changing. But there are other reasons to have a “reticent attitude” toward sex. Good ones have already been mentioned.
I’m personally appalled at how badly people are willing to treat other people in order to “get some”.
That to me just sounds like a really good example of why it’s important to always use reliable birth control correctly, not a reason to refuse sex in a relationship. Unless of course you see having a kid as punishment for irresponsibility, which it seems you do since you point to this woman as an example of what not to do. It’s that ‘Look what she did and now see how she’s paying for it’ attitude that gets me.
In all the years I’ve been sexually active, I’ve used birth control every time, and I’ve never had even one scare about anything that was the result of consensual sex. I was worried about disease when I was raped, but everything checked out fine.
I might not have been raised Fundie, but I was taught that sex was dirty, wrong and should not be talked about. As a teenager self fulfillment also meant guilt. How could such a bright, pretty young girl think such dark, dirty thoughts? I was my worst enemy, my sexual fantasies scared me at times. I thought I was the only one with such “bad” thoughts. Not until I was way into my 20’s and married to another very sexually closed male did I realize that sex wasn’t dirty. Though we still had sex in the dark and it was just a physical exercise, though it did feel good at times. Once I started on this realization, my inner self awakened. My senses had peaked and I realized sex wasn’t dirty, that I wasn’t doing anything nasty, that God wasn’t going to send me to hell. Truly, I never realized how wonderful sharing myself with a man could be until I finally divorced and met my current love. He sent me to all new levels and heights, places I never thought I’d see. I too never thought the genitalia of the opposite sex was all that to look at. But boy, now do I enjoy gazing upon the male body, namely that of my love. I believe practice makes perfect, look past the fantasies for a while, focus on physical body. Enjoy yourself, and that of the other person. Fantasies are just dreams we make up in our head. Some are worth acting out, others are best left up there or better yet, forgotten for good.
I grew up Fundie, but sex was always presented to me as this amazing wonderful thing I could participate in ONLY in the bounds of marriage. After marriage, anything goes, as long as both partners are happy with it.
After a fundamentalists tries to convince me that evolution can’t exist along side the existance of God, I pretty much tune out everything else since they are completely devoid of logical thought.