Are puritanical religions to blame for people indulging in dark sexual practices?
There is not much said on this topic, and what is is mostly subjective, but I think there is an argument in favour.
Namely that people who have sexual desires which are labelled bad by a religion, whether implicitly or explicitly cannot freely express themselves and are forced to find a means of expression which runs counter to the relevant doctrine on sexuality. This may also engender resentment towards the religion in general.
What then happens is an ongoing rebellion against repressive ideas; the person who chooses to live a lifestyle which is antagonistic toward a religious (and socially ingrained) mindset must continually be in conflict with the religion which condemns them. In effect this conflict, being initiated by the church is counter productive as it is fighting established psychological behaviour and/or genetic factors. The only thing that is produced is further conflict within the affected individuals, sending them into a state of greater chaos. I argue that it is in such a state that individuals veer towards dark and potentially damaging froms of sexuality.
The obvious counter to this argument is that the individuals already had a predisposition towards dark sexual desires. Well maybe they did, but I think it stands that the process outlined above serves to make those desires darker.
I also think this argument applies equally to purely social repression, but let us only consider legal forms of sexuality for this argument.
Can you provide an example of a society that was not dominated by a “puritanical” religion in which those “dark” desires were never acted upon? Can you provide a citation to support your claim?
Somehow, wholesome and sexual desire just don’t go hand in hand in my book. Would you mind providing examples of dark, sexual practices? I’m getting images of having sex with the lights off but I’m sure that’s not what you mean.
Or maybe t&d’s point was that you’re not really clear?
What qualifies as “dark”?
A couple hundred years ago there were cultures where it was not ‘dark’ (meaning hidden, frowned upon, etc) for a rich man to go buy himself a thirteen year old girl who was a guaranteed version.
Today there are people who enjoy spanking and being spanked. ‘Dark’?
And then there are people who consider anything other than missionary-under-the-covers-lights-out-no-talking to be ‘dark’ and deviant.
So? What’ll it be?
-Joe, hasn’t had the lights out in quite some time
That isn’t incredibly subjective or anything… oh wait, it is.
I think puritanical religions are by definition more likely to describe larger portions of the human sexual spectrum as “dark” or “wrong” but I’m not certain what that has to do with the rest of us.
**
**
Are we talking about pedophilia? Rape? Incest? Things that everyone can agree on or are we going for things that just puritans frown on like homosexuality or sex outside of marriage? Sex with the lights on?
Realistically I doubt that it matters at all. I suspect that the vast majority of people are “freaks” in the bedroom in one way or another regardless of the social or religious climate.
In my book, wholesomeness and sexual desire are closely intertwined. But I’m also having trouble understanding what kind of ‘dark’ practices the OP is talking about, especially if he is limiting himself to ‘legal forms’ of sex.
Definition of “dark sexual desire” for the purposes of this argument: "A desire to participate in a sexual act involving one or more human beings which is condemned by one or more ‘puritanical religions’ or ‘puritanical religious sects’ but is legal in a western liberal democracy.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Meta-Gumble
**Definition of “dark sexual desire” for the purposes of this argument: "A desire to participate in a sexual act involving one or more human beings which is condemned by one or more ‘puritanical religions’ or ‘puritanical religious sects’ but is legal in a western liberal democracy.
**
So, just to clarify, do you really mean to state that sexual activity that is not condoned by one or more “puritanical religions” is not wholesome or joyous?
I’m sorry. That is either a perfectly circular argument or it is meaningless.
“Dark practices” are those disparaged by puritans and puritanical thinking both defines and causes “dark practices.”
So if there were no puritanical thoughts, no sexual practices would be “dark.” So what?
If you meant that there are practices in which humans should not engage, I think your argument is going to fall flat, because you seem to suggest that no one would do them if they were not “forbidden fruit.” However, this implies that they were never practiced until some imaginative puritan decided to dream them up and forbid them. I really doubt that this is a tenable theory.
Meta-Gumble, why are you making us guess what you are talking about? Mastrubation? Pre- or extra-marital sex? Homosexuality? Group sex? S&M? Water sports? Fisting? Rimming? Felching? There’s a broad spectrum of sexual activity that may be frowned upon, in varying degrees, by various religious traditions, though they may be legal. But I don’t see how you can attribute any of these, um, proclivities, to those religious traditions.
[quote]
Originally posted by Meta-Gumble
Definition of “dark sexual desire” for the purposes of this argument: "A desire to participate in a sexual act involving one or more human beings which is condemned by one or more ‘puritanical religions’ or ‘puritanical religious sects’ but is legal in a western liberal democracy.
The latter definition should be taken as replacing the original (which was meant to be taken as a kind of semi-humorous statement), not co-existing with it.
tomndebb:
I am not saying that “dark sexual practices” as practices that are actually not healthy exist as a consequence of puritanical thought, but that puritanical thought acts as an incentive to practice them.
The purity that is advocated by the puritanical religion becomes unreachable (according to the religious doctrine) by those whose desires are labelled ‘bad’. They come to either think they have no chance of purity and hence salvation, or that the religion is a load of crap. Hence purity becomes irrelevant and it does not seem to matter what kind of sex to indulge in.
And, as I noted, I suspect that you will find this position untenable. Can you name any sexual practice that occurs more frequently in a society that forbids or discourages it than in any other society?
If you mean, “Are puritanical religions that label certain sexual practices as dark responsible for their being dark?” then the answer is trivially ‘yes’.
If you mean, “Are puritanical religions that label certain sexual practices as dark responsible for the number of people that act on them?” then the answer is probably not going to be easily addressed. Certainly by pointing things out to people that an institution disagrees with, those who disagree with the institution may find pressures to act on these things purely as a reactive or rebellious response. But it could also be said that they are rebelling against the institution because they don’t like things they were already doing being called ‘dark’. I am not sure how to gauge the difference.
If you are saying, “Are puritanical religiouns to blame for the actual creation of what they call dark sexual practices” then I’d say that’s a resounding ‘no’.
In addition, the percieved frequency of “dark practices” is probably higher, today at least, due to the fact that if they weren’t taboo, no one would pay much attention to them.
Reminds me of the linguist who concluded that a document about desert people was forged because of the constant mention of camels.
I highly doubt it increases the practice of them: some people may see the additional societal taboo against them as an addition incentive, or indeed since they are already condemned for having the desire, to go ahead and do it anyway.
But I think they would be vastly overshadowed by the number of people who do NOT commit hurtful practices due to puritanical influences.
Now, the above references your second definition: practices that are not wholesome and joyous.