First of all, I'll admit the obvious - I'm trying to be provocative here, so I expect the pushback. But it's depressing that the reaction is always so personal. Why is the subject of sexual repression by religion taboo?
I was initially responding to the sky-is-falling reaction to the morality poll that is the topic thread. I wasn't bothered, because the real moral wrong - having an extramarital affair and the vow-breaking that entails - remains universally condemned. So why is the sky falling? Because religious strictures against consensual and victimless sexual activity have been loosening.
Why is that such a threat? Sexual responsibility should be the issue, not arbitrary self-denial of sexual pleasure in the name of religion. In today's world, female genital mutilation is the most abhorrent practice - certainly it is the most brutal and permanent - but it's a symptom of a larger disease, if you will. Most religions teach repression of sexual pleasure for its own sake.
NO - female genital mutilation is NOT equivalent to the Catholic prohibition against the use of contraceptives. It is far worse. But each is symptomatic of a mindset that sex for pleasure and not procreation is to be discouraged, even within the bounds of a faithful and consensual relationship. I simply disagree with that. Fidelity and responsibility should be the issues, not arbitrary self-denial.
Please don't project that because I question the Catholic prohibition against the use of contraceptives, that I "dislike" Catholic teachings. I actually respond to the Catholic faith and message far more than I do the evangelicals. My sister converted to Catholicism, and I think she did the right thing.
You seem to miss a salient and quite important point. The idea that sex is forbidden isn't correct, nor the concept that it is somehow taboo. It is the context of the sexual relationship that really matters.
Outside of marriage, yep, forbidden--which reduces bastardy, adultery, fornication and the complexities which come with those which are destructive to society (because they are destructive to the fundamental social unit, the family.
That marriage is defined as between a man and a woman certainly exists hand in glove with the idea that procreation and the formation of a family unit provide security and nurturing to progeny as well as social continuity within the culture. That basic biological unit is as planned, operating as designed, for that purpose and the continued existence of the species.
Within that context, if sex was not pleasant, the objective of continuing the species would not be achieved, so in His wisdom, The Creator made that a very pleasant thing. If it were not, there would never be a
second child, and humanity would have died out long ago.
Religious constraints on sexual behaviour are there to support the continuity of culture, stability of the biological family, and to reduce the complexities in social interactions.
Outside of that context, relationships tend to be unstable: Every couple I know who fell for the 'open marriage' concept ended up divorcing, although that may indicate weaknesses which went unaddressed in their marriages because of their change in emphasis, again exposing the dangers inherent to family stability from gratuitous sexual behaviour and promiscuity.
So there is no prohibition in the vast majority of Christian sects on having enjoyable sexual relations within a marriage where the man and woman are mutually faithful.
Saying that deriving pleasure from sex within that context without actually making babies is incorrect, although the primary reason of the marriage may be for the family and procreation.
