Zora

Apparently as far back as the cave man, women were not too well thought of. Scientists have drawn that conclusion by the difference in burials for men and women. They surmise it was because women were not as good as hunters, and were out of commission more or less during pregnancy and while raising an infant. They were considered a drain on the resources of the tribe, perhaps (cavemen not being known for their ability to see the equal contribution of women to the survival of the tribe by producing male hunters.)

As civilization advanced, males only wanted to support their own women and children. As money and barter replaced the hunter/gather means of survival, it became even more important not to be saddled with kids not your own. So, it is at that point where we pick up with the theory that pmurray posted.

Ah, yes, Diadectes. You are such a much better person than the mother who sells her body so she can feed her starving child for one more day. I think they're having a sale on diamonique jewelry on QVC. Shouldn't you be tuning in??

Diadectes

Don't quite get this. Am I missing something here, or are you?

stilus

I think controlling sex has many advantages, so why look for "THE" reason? The reasons given already seem to work very nicely together and maybe that explains why morality is so often concerned with sex: it's just a tool that can be put to many uses:

- evolutionary, because reproduction is essential to survival, not only of the species, but also of the Faith (my catholic grandmother was visited by Churchpeople if she took too long a time before making another child)
- power-playing, where through a cycle of asking the impossible, (Thou shall not think dirty things!)* , making the believer try and fail and then punish and forgive they make you feel "dirty & little & dependend". Once a person steps into this bondage, it's very easy to control him/her, as suggested by everlastingtongue
- Power-playing part 2, playing out the feelings of inferiority between neighbors, friends and fellow-sucke... ehhh.. believers, as suggested by Diadectes.
- Power-playing part 3, controlling ofspring to sustain/gain wealth and keep effort & energy within the family, as suggested by pmurray.

About the "O my God" thing suggested by Darth Dane: If a girl wants to call me God, by all means: please do! I know I am, but I'm very happy if other people see it as well )



* (we will do that for you, my child)

redwards

No report from the other side of the fence on this one?

Zora

If you are not really the "average churchgoing protestant" and your post was tongue-in-cheek, then yes, I did miss something. I don't always research every person's profile and am not familiar with everyone's name. If that is the case, I apologize, but you should be aware that occasional or new users are not going to get it. I took your post to be a true representation of your feelings. Read at a time when I had just had a similar discourse with a "Christian" neighbor, it struck a strong chord of disgust with me.

I have noticed that II discussion forums are hard to get into, except for SL & S. So, if I "overstepped my welcome"...I'm sorry. I will research EVERYBODY from now on, but even that isn't foolproof since lots of people leave "belief" blank. In the religion soaked area in which I live, hardly a day goes by without some Christian stating how much better he/she is for the very reasons in your post..so II is the only place I have to go. I can't promise to always 'sit down, shut up and just listen'...but I'll give it a shot.

Chicken Girl

I thought it was pretty obvious she was being sarcastic.

Diadectes

You're quite right of course. Sorry for jumping on you like that. I should have known better, being fairly new here myself.


That's the nicest thing anyone's said to me all day. Thanks Zora (no sarcasm intended this time!)

asef

Well at least a dodgy evolutionary perspective, methinks. Most of the ethical stuff is don't do this and don't do that when no analysis of the actual differences to evolutionary pressures and flows this will make is done. (If specific studies have been done I would be very interested in their results.) An objection on evolutionay grounds is thus just scaremongering. Especially when it is seen that sexual prohibitions could have the potential to weed out genes which are only weeded out due to these prohibitions and so are lost to the species and lost is the possible advantage they could have given. That itself too is scaremongering so you can see how you can use evolutionary arguments to battle both sides. Needless loss of variation is a danger, but can sexual morality rules cause that?

I think some so called proponents of evolution arguments seem to dismiss the inherent robustness of the system, its complex (as in a formal complex system) nature and the unpredictable aspects of it. To assume control over it now seems a bit fatastic.

Supergirl

I think this type of statement <no offence > could lead to over emphasis of sex for reproduction only!

Sex is mainly for fun! Once the fundies can grasp this, I think the anal retentiveness will subside a bit

:boohoo:

Loren Pechtel

It's also of major use in reinforcing a pair-bond.