MrDelurk

I have wondered a lot, what was behind Christianity's anti-sex, anti-woman, prohibitive pro-monogamy angle.

My usual suspect would be money: whenever the fidels (fascinated by something) start deserting the Sunday mass and collection, the Church usually excommunicates that something (be it Cathers of bycicles) to keep the daily inflow of money up. So perhaps the satanization of sex started when a rival, sex-, and woman-centered cult appeared?

Or is there an other reason?

The Resistance

It's tradition. Back when Judism and Christianity were being established women were considered to be property. These traditions got written into the Bible. God says it's good, men like owning women, therefore it gives tradition more strength, (but not more justification)

tronvillain

It doesn't sound all that likely to me. Part of what made Christianity successful may have been that its rules tended to produce a large number of offspring.

Samhain

Personally, my theory (call it a conspiricy theory if you will) is that man created religion. Also man wanted control over women. Man creates a religion portraying women as property and man shifts the burden of proof so that woman cannot possibly disagree (due to uneducation at the given time). Thus man has successfully secured his place of power and his role of dominance over woman. As Resistance said, as man and woman became more educated, it became more of an appeal to tradition.

Monkeybot

Off to Misc. Religion Discussions

ju'iblex

anti-woman i presume was partly the left over of Greek and Roman culture, women were always in the weaker position, female nudity was considered immoral but male was not etc. i think Christianity just took a hold of that and just didnt let go, in fact they probably extended on those ideas.

anti-sex, Romans and Greeks were considered immoral, had orgies, worshipped pagan gods, condoned homosexuality amongst unmarried men <at least the Greeks did>. My guess again, is Christians, wanted to distance themselves as far away from those cultures as possible <just look at the change in the style of art after the Christian takeover of Rome>, despite the fact they adopted so much from them. Thus sex, sexuality and nudity were deemed an expression of sin. <remember, just speculating>. You can also see this in the story of Adam and Eve when they cover themselves with leaves because they were ashamed. this would also fit with pro-monogamy.

Someone with a knowledge of ancient Jewish tradition is more likely to give you a more accurate answer to these, i know more about Roman influence in Christianity, but my knowledge doesnt stretch far enough back to very early Christianity unfortunately. and i'm just speculating again, dont take it for gospel.

tronvillain

The anti-women element may have been left oer, but it probably did have the effect of producing a lot of children.

MadMordigan

Control.

ju'iblex

good point.

trientalis

A friend of mine once explained the exclusion of women from Jewish ritual in the following way.
Women are close to God in a way that men aren't. This is evidenced by the ability of women to bear children, parallel to God's creation of all life.
To make up the holiness gap, God created mitzvot or commandments. Men are expected to approach God and holiness by fulfilling the rituals. Women are relatively exempt. Since women aren't required to do many of the mitzvot, and since their presence may distract the men who are required to fulfill the mitzvot, women are therefore excluded from ritual life.

Another interpretation is that since women traditionally are responsible for childrearing and housekeeping (the dietary laws can make this last one particularly onerous, especially around Passover), both of which are quite time-consuming, it doesn't make sense to require them to go to prayers three times a day and study Talmud on top of that. Therefore women are exempt. Further there is sometimes offered the argument that to do something one is NOT required to do is not as good, not as sincere as to do something one is required to do. On this basis of this argument, women's rituals would be somehow less valid than men's rituals. Or something like that.

On a more practical note, there is the ruling that menstruating women are ritually unclean and therefore forbidden to enter the temple. This would mean that it would be blindingly obvious when a particular women was having her period (i.e. she would be absent from temple for roughly two weeks a month) and therefore, in the interests of discretion, all women are banned from temple ritual.

So much for Judaism. As far as Christianity is concerned, I agree with juiblex that the influence of Greek culture probably plays a role as well. Women were decidedly second-class citizens, pretty much excluded from public life. Before marriage, they were under the control of their father or other male relatives. During marriage, they were under the control of their husbands. As widows, I would guess they were under the control of their sons or brothers. The only women who had any real freedom were the hetaerae, or courtesans. I doubt the Christians would have considered them a worthy example of womanhood.

Somehow I have a feeling that the idea of the spirit vs. matter plays a role in this as well, with women being seen as more earthly than spiritual, more profane than holy. Perhaps it's a classic case of projection as well. A Christian man, uncomfortable with his sexual desire for women, projects it upon women and sees them as lecherous temptresses, for example.

I can understand (sort of) where the anti-woman angle comes from. But what about the sex-is-dirty angle? I don't recall any of that in Judaism. Neither do I recall the Greeks having a problem with sex. So where did the fear/hatred of sex come from?