"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. ~ Matthew 5:27-28

In the Christian Faith, sexual immorality is wrong, all forms of sexual immorality. We hear this discussion often, but most of the time it is in the context of homosexuality. I'm hoping we can get away from the homosexuality debate and discuss other forms of sexual action/interaction and how these are viewed from various religious and spiritual views (or non-religious if one holds no belief in God or gods). For example, the hedonistic "just do it" approach, or on the other side of the scale the belief that sexuality detracts from spiritual enlightenment and so should be avoided (celibacy).

What are some of the views that religion and spirituality (or atheism, even) has on sexuality (all forms of sexuality, please please please please let's not turn this into another homosexuality debate ), and how do you see this in society and culture.

Happy arguing/discussing

Regards, PA

Im certified protestant, but i no longer attend services. I did not give up on faith i just have difficulty with the bible. I dont believe in sexual immorality. when i was younger i was stationed in germany and prostitution is legal there. I had several experiences in the red light district. I came to the conclusion that prostitution is a good thing. i live in Maine and there are x amount of rapes and sexual crimes. Personally when i have the urge for sex i dont want to be in the position where i would do anything for it. Example: rape, date rape drugs, or making a spouse when he or she is not in the mood. That i think is immoral to me personally. Thinking of other women hmmm I cincerely doubt that masturbation is going to send you to hell. Having a place to relieve sexual urges that are hard to control i think is a good line of defense against sex crimes. If women are willing to help and choose that proffesion whats immoral about it. But plain and simply if i live in a situation where monogomy is what we enjoy then that is how i will live. Im not a mormon, but if i was living with several attractive women and taking care of them honestly i would like to have sex with all of them. I love women they are awesome, beautiful, and tasty LOL.

i think that most people either miss the point because of misunderstanding or they do it on purpose.if god made people with craving for sex, it isn't unnatural. besides :
he probably didn't think of cloning, so he told them to have sex.

What, exactly, is pornography in your estimation?

"Immorality", sexual or otherwise, is violating another's will.

That said, in the eastern Tantric traditions and in western forms of the 'Left Hand Path', (Demononolatry, Satanism, etc.), all forms of sexuality are not only permissible, but sacramental.

As a believer, I have this - Sexual immorality is anything sexual that is done outside of marriage. Not to include the usual and chaste signs of affection such as kissing, holding hands, etc...
Pornography is unfortunate and degrading and leads people to devalue each other, and the wonderful act of making love. Sex was not meant to be a spectator sport - it was meant to be between the 2 people involved in the moment, and no one else. I for one cannot abide seeing obscene images or perverted sexual scenarios.
All faith aside, isn't sex better when you are in a committed, loving relationship where you both know that there is no one else in the picture, and you are free to express yourself without fear in the most intimate way possible? I love that!

Your right, God did say to multiply, but he also said to do so with one wife.


IMO, Sex is a sacred thing, a gift from God to be cherished between one man and one woman (a husband and wife). To me it's not just some game to play around with and do as you please. IMHO, those who do fallander about have a terrible lack of sexual self-control.

This has been a central theme in many christian teachings. I suspect the guilt and punishment judgements are almost an obsession at times. I find the lesson Jesus was expressing here to be a far departure from the conventional wisdom around this quote.

So I have to ask, is the discussion about expanding our view around this concept or finding better ways to identify immorality.

John

The new age (though old at the time and now quite dead) philosopher, Osho, spoke of this in his book titled, Love, Freedom, and Aloneness. One chapter in particular, "Beware of the Popes", exposes the Popes and Anti-Popes as strange bedfellows. "Pope" refers to clergy at every level in his context.

The repression encouraged by "The Popes" leads to obsession, just as you said. This obsession drives many to the Anti-Popes, who are the Hugh Hefners and Larry Flynts of the world. Guilt and shame for these behaviors that are severely judged by the Popes brings the sinners back to church.

Osho's solution was: Rid ourselves of the Popes and the Anti-Popes will follow. Or, maybe he knew in the back of his mind that no one would ever dismantle organized religion and he subscribed to a few magazines.

Hi JMPD, haven't seen you around lately. Welcome aboard

Pornography, in my view, is any form of visual stimulus that is created to invoke lust in another person.

I know many Christians who would respond to this same question by saying that any form of nudity is pornography, but I think that would be inaccurate on two counts.Firstly - and perhaps I perhaps have a slightly different view on this from many Christians, because of my background in theatre - I don't see nudity as inherently wrong. Theatrically, there are many legitimate reasons why one may choose to use nudity in their artworks (the Statue of David comes to mind, but I also include modern productions as well). It depends on the purpose for the nudity. If the nudity is there to simply arouse lust, then I'd view it as pornography, but if it were there to highlight a character's need, then I'd have no issue with it. Let's say, for example, you want to portray a character's plunge into despair and the inner struggle of their lives, you could metaphorically portray that by having them lose their clothes, thus being bare to the world for all to see. This form of nudity would not be sexual, but would instill a sense of being alone, frighetened, unprotected, etc. As such, i'd say it may not necessarily be "pornography".

The second reason I do not think "nudity" is an accurate response is that I have found that seeing images where a person still has clothes on but is scantily clad in lingerie (for example), and is accentuating their sexuality by provocative poses and suggestive looks can be more sexual than the woman who is completely naked and lying bare for all. Again, this stems from the idea of theatre, and the idea that what is hidden and unseen can be more provocative than what is out in plain sight.

In short, what classifies as 'pornography' is not quite as easy to define as what one would imagine. As such, you can apply whatever definition of pornography you choose to, to answer the question. However, it might be a good place to start by considering it from the traditional perspective of magazines and DVD's which portray naked men and women having sex (or intentionally attempting to arouse lust from a person).

Hope that helps, in a convoluted sort of way

~ PA

Is this pornography??

Song of Solomon

# How beautiful are thy feet with shoes, O prince's daughter! the joints of thy thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of a cunning workman.
# Thy navel is like a round goblet, which wanteth not liquor: thy belly is like an heap of wheat set about with lilies.
# Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins.
# Thy neck is as a tower of ivory; thine eyes like the fishpools in Heshbon, by the gate of Bathrabbim: thy nose is as the tower of Lebanon which looketh toward Damascus.
# Thine head upon thee is like Carmel, and the hair of thine head like purple; the king is held in the galleries.
# How fair and how pleasant art thou, O love, for delights!
# This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes.
# I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples;
# And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine for my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak.
# I am my beloved's, and his desire is toward me.
# Come, my beloved, let us go forth into the field; let us lodge in the villages.
# Let us get up early to the vineyards; let us see if the vine flourish, whether the tender grape appear, and the pomegranates bud forth: there will I give thee my loves.
# The mandrakes give a smell, and at our gates are all manner of pleasant fruits, new and old, which I have laid up for thee, O my beloved.




fullywired

I guess I've been somewhat desensitized to the human body. When I was young (early 70's) my folks had a subscriptions to Playboy. At that time, it was generally just semi-artful photographs of nude women. It wasn't hidden or taboo when I was growing up.

Later, I attended an art school, the Nellie Cornish school, and there we did life drawing classes with live nude models. Again, it was primarily for the purpose of study of the human form and it was art.

Now, when I got even older and pornography was more readily available to the people I was dating, I simply found it to be boring. It's not real although the act is real, but it's emotionless and a very poorly produced stage act. I never found it arousing, interesting, or even distracting. When it illicits no feeling of "lustfulness" is it really a "sin" to the viewer?

Now, I did attend a gallery opening once of figure study photography. It was largely black and whites, sensual, soft, smooth and beautiful... truly art... THAT actually did leave me feeling a little randy. The photographs weren't even really considered erotica (whcih is different from porn I think) it was simply a very well done figure study.

So which one is the sin?

Prostitution and prostitution is evil because it reduces a human to an object of little value, like cattle.
All forms of reducing people to commodities is evil.

It is always harder to see when it is something your culture has taught you to accept as normal and even good, such as honor killings under Sharia law where the right to life of a female is not owned by her but by her family or in the more classical form of slavery.

People of the past sold themselves into slavery but because they chose to enter the state did not cleanse it of its inherent evil (illogical error). Slavery affects the mind and character of both the slave and the slave owner in a detrimental and destructive fashion. It is very unhealthy and blocks both from reaching their full functioning potentials.

I had a huge blow up with some of my German relatives over legal prostitution. The mantra that the prostitutes keep the "good" women and girls from being raped had me ready to rip their hair out as well as my own in frustration. They refused to see that they had written off the "bad" prostitutes as expendable commodities of the community whose value was seen as less than the "good" females because they had chosen to enter into it.

Artists differentiate between "nude" and "naked". As a trained artist, life classes are nothing out of the ordinary. In fact, after a while, drawing the nude human form is so incredibly boring... there is nothing arousing about it, that's for sure. If you've seen one bum...

What is sexually immoral? Any sexual act which causes emotional, mental or physical harm, to either party involved or to a third party. Aside from that... I don't see any issue with whatever people choose to do behind closed doors.

The same thing happens in working in a medical clinical setting. Maybe seeing more flesh in natural settings always decreases the spontaneous cravings for it and then the desire to know the personality becomes more dominant, and then again maybe that only works with females.

As I recall, Moses had several wives. Five? Maybe. Abraham had at least two plus a slave girl. Are you saying they were immoral? --DJS

[quote name='Paranoid Android' date='Jul 11 2007, 03:02 AM' post='1768518']
"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. ~ Matthew 5:27-28

In the Christian Faith, sexual immorality is wrong, all forms of sexual immorality. We hear this discussion often, but most of the time it is in the context of homosexuality. I'm hoping we can get away from the homosexuality debate and discuss other forms of sexual action/interaction and how these are viewed from various religious and spiritual views (or non-religious if one holds no belief in God or gods). For example, the hedonistic "just do it" approach, or on the other side of the scale the belief that sexuality detracts from spiritual enlightenment and so should be avoided (celibacy).

What are some of the views that religion and spirituality (or atheism, even) has on sexuality (all forms of sexuality, please please please please let's not turn this into another homosexuality debate ), and how do you see this in society and culture.

Happy arguing/discussing


hello Pa, I have two ethics, do no harm , sometimes you just gotta go with the moment esepcially if you think you love them.......

Hmmm. Adultery...WRONG!!!!!

haha, I have an Alberto Vargas print in my bedroom. It's one of his more well known works. The model is not nude (most weren't) in fact you can't even see her naughty bits in any form. It IS a highly sensual piece of work though.

At one time, Varga(s) was considered a "porn" peddler... His work was featured in "taboo mens" magazines and pinup calendars.

I just don't see these prints as "porn" or sinful. I see it as a study of how beautiful the female form is. Vargas is a good example of classic erotica, it's not degrading, it's not ugly (in fact, the joyfulness of his figures is wonderful), it's not a slap in the face to women. I see those prints, and honestly, it makes me proud to be female that an artist decided to depict our emotional and physical (if characterized--cuz no woman has legs that long! cept maybe Barbie) sensuality in such a positive and playful form. Just like I don't see the Rubens painting as sinful.

Oh that is great advice for teens Sherri
Don't you want to add just a tad more to that please?

I was very specific in referencing myself bella ( 'I' have two ethics ) and i was talking to Pa also an adult.... I'm sure as a mod if he finds it concerning he will edit, also DO NO HARM sort of covers it all .....I hope this helps....

Objects cannot commit sin. Making an object is not committing a sin unless it is made to harm someone or involves real people committing sins to produce it.

Nudity is not a sin. If it were then all of the hospitals would never have existed in the first place, there would have been nothing but home care up until recent times.

can you proove that prostitution is evil, and cattle are meaningless species. Its your opinion unless you speak for god!

For adults yes. For some teens that are somewhat dense I will tag on Do No Harm to Yourself and Others.
Many of them tend to think they themselves are indestructible for some reason and do not stop to think things through much it appears.

I think that the question of "immorality" is an interesting one. Morals change in both time and place. It is immoral for a woman to show her uncovered face in public in Saudi but not for topless women in France. Prostitution is also something that has been around since the dawn of time and will not go away before humans lose their sex drive

As far as pornography goes, that is again in the eye of the partaker. Its main function is to stimulate the participant so could anything that stimulates someone sexually be considered pornographic? Frankly porn is initially stimulating because it is
1. forbidden
2. a guilty pleasure
however, it soon loses its appeal as it is all fake.

We have thousands of years and millions of women and men who were involved with prostitution through the ages who have spoken out about the bad effects it has on all involved. There is nothing new about it and nothing new about what it does to people.

We eat domesticated cattle, they exist for our use and our consumption. It is how domesticated cattle came to exist as breeds. There is no way around pretending that this has not take place.

True, but our ideas on what porn is keeps changing. In the 1940's and '50's when Vargas was painting, it WAS considered porn. Our attitudes about his work have changed.

Back in the early 70's there was a movie director, Jesus Franco, who produced "porn", although it was soft-core--barely (and frequently dealt with same sex encounters) and most of his movies were run in regular theaters. He's well known for Women of Cellblock 9 and Vampyros Lesbos. These movies were considered scandalous in 1972.

If you watch these movies today, you'd laugh yourself silly! If you're laughing yourself silly and aren't at all turned on by the images, is it a sin? I guess that's what I'm trying to get at. I see Vargas and other artists as being able to create a sexual response MUCH better than plain old run of the mill porn, which in my estimation is incredibly boring.

Which is the real problem? The response? Or the images?

The problem to me is that real porn is where people are engaged in having sex for money, real sex not acting, and having it photographed which is still prostitution.

Where prostitution is legal i disagree with you. However sex slaves, little children, who suffer from it is something completely different. Wild samon and hatched samon are the same species and both are eaten. Same with cattle. You are telling me facts in your own words and you still havent proven to me that prostitution is evil and cattle are meaningless. How do you and i know that cattle arnt intellegent and do have meaning other than slavery and consumption.

I agree with that. I don't like the idea of people having sex for money and profit. That does make me question the performers morality.

But what I'm talking about and what PA is saying that viewing it is a form of adultry... but is it if it doesn't produce a sexual response? I'm separating the production of the video tape and looking at this only from the "viewers" perspective. Where do we draw the line for the viewer?

If regular porn does nothing for me, but an artful print, painting or photograph does inspire thoughts of appreciative lustfulness... does that mean that I've got a problem with what we consider art?

In context it is not our individual emotions that define their place in our civilization, but that of the collective, and their place is in the bins at grocery stores.

Evil begets evil how dowe know that meat isnt a sin, and whois going to put us in our place.

Well said I like that. I've thought about something similar...instead of "reducing people to commodities" I was simply thinking "wasting life". My examples at the time were those 700lbs of blubber we some times see on quality shows like Maury Povich. The whole sin of sloth thing, people reducing themselves to nothing. It's certainly evil, much like the example from this thread about pornography and prostitution.

*SNIP* Some of the things going on in the world today...

True PA, you have have hit a nerve that plagues society. The very reason for the Burka in the Muslim faith is to keep women covered because it is understood that Men are visually stimulated. The famed "belly dancers" of the east was not just for entertainment but served as an aphrodisiac for men before they went home to their wives. Here in the west we are saturated daily with sexual images in every form. This causes a de-sensitivity to sexuality that is detrimental. A friend of mine who did a start-up company in Silicon valley years ago grew up poor. His favorite meal was Filet Mignon, which he might have once or twice a year, but once he became wealthy he had the steak almost everyday, now he never wants it or enjoys it like before. The reason is because he became over saturated with it. So sex and the "mysteries" of it become similar to where it simply boils down to having the orgasm and the rest is just fodder. I think the biblical aspects of sex is to protect it and people, not to deprive one of it because mankind is wired to have sex.

Why aren't men covered up? Women are visually stimulated too.

Heck ya Shadow. I mentioned I have a very sexy little Varga print, but on the opposing wall, I have my favorite Clint Eastwood print from the movie High Plains Drifter (I think). He's just as hot in his cowboy hat and sarape as that little Varga gal is in her flowers and a smile.

Hey guys you have a point about women being visually stimulated too, but c'mon, who is worse? Why are there 195 female strip clubs for every single male strip club? How many women do you know that blow hundreds every month on watching guys swing around a brass pole.

Moondoggy had an interesting point there, you guys are just picking at small details of it.

P.S. I'd imagine there would be even less male strip clubs if it weren't for homosexuality, remember that too lol.

ha ha ha ha great one S...those fireman calenders come to mind ...

True! But I will clarify it a bit. Woman are stimulated visually but we men folk are off the charts with it. There are studies of this and it has been on the History channel where they took MRI images of men and women and saw the chemical changes in the brain. Both has response but the men test subjects had a dramatically greater change in brain chemistry than the women.

Maybe all doctors and nurses should be females.

Y'know, most people actually keep their eyes open...

I think this is going to be a difficult one to pin down. The definition of Pornography changes from culture to culture, generation to generation. For some, full frontal nudity is not pornography. For others, showing an ankle is an offence worthy of death.

Y'all knew I was showing up to this party, right?
So here's my take on sexual immorality: as long as you don't mess with any kids, kill anybody, and it is all consensual, do whatever you want! Enlightenment, aka Heaven, is found different ways by different people.
An example out of my own life: my younger brother and I have a running argument about the need for controlling one's urges. He utilizes a little bit of Buddhism in that he believes the denying of one's urges leads to enlightenment, while I am on the opposite end of the spectrum and believe that indulging one's physical desires until they're sated and all things physical are boring leaves the mind open to search for Nirvana. (Hence my SN. LOL)
Yes, I find truth in "you get me closer to God."
I don't believe people can get their definition of immorality from any religion, it has to be a matter of one's conscience. For example, some might find pornography immoral and I can't argue with that since it is a matter of their conscience. Me, I have no problem with porn, love it, in fact, wish there was more of the good stuff. Hell, I even love Bible porn (aka "The Song of Songs" or "The Song of Solomon"). Last place you would expect to find good erotic poetry is the Bible. LOL.
Anyway, y'all go on, get naked, do what though wilt, God wouldn't have given us a sex drive iffen we weren't supposed to use it.

1. i don't think that citation means that thought is sinful, but it's more like "better safe than sorry".
if you have thoughts of adultery, it will stay in your head like a worm, and nag at you whole time. if you have strong will, you'll kill that desire. if not, you'll succumb to temptation. so, since many humans are weak-willed it is better to put such proclamation, so that they don't commit adultery, because that leads to divorces, or angry spouses killing each other. not to mention what it does to the kids.
2. rules about only married couples allowed to have sex- people married at the age of 15! and they would hit puberty at 13-14. it would be like marrying at 13 now. there were no sexually frustrated people.
so almost everyone was married, and you could only *spam filter* would be cheating your spouse with someones other spouse. that would ruin both marriages, which leads to my 1. point

Yeah that's basically what I said, in different words, and with a science experiment behind it.

Oh, and thanks for the mention!

Moondoggy is right on target with his last two posts.

I often wondered if the phrase from the Bible and I'm not going to quote directly, if you've thought about it you've done it, really means that if you fixate on someone who you aren't with you invest energy into to that fantasy of equal or more amount that would be better suited to ensuring the relationship that you are in flourishes.

Mabon.

This is what I've been saying about the Bible now for a long time. People take every word so damn literally in the Bible. The stories in the Bible didn't necessarily happen (let alone the EXACT way they are told) and every single word doesn't have to be adhered to the exact way it's written. If you read the Bible objectively (both ways) and consider what lesson you can learn from the stories, you can apply them to your life. The Bible's purpose is to steer man in the right direction, and if followed properly (not to be confused with followed strictly), it can help us lead fulfilling lives.

I don't know, if you fixate on someone you have no relationship with, you probably need to address why that is the case--I think that has less to do with sin and more to do with mental and emotional health.

People who are (for lack of a better term) addicted to porn have a psycological issue they need to deal with imho.

But are people who are caught off guard and aroused by beautiful, sensual images commiting a sin? I spoke about the human form gallery showing I went to. That display wasn't meant to be sexual, although it did photograph the nude human form, but it still caused a response in me. I was honestly antsy to get my husband back to our hotel asap. Not because I was fixated on the images in the showing, but because they reminded me of how much I enjoyed my husband at the time.

I agree with you. I got my degree at CCS here in Detroit. Good art is a turn on. But I must admit the naked body has never turned me on. ever. even girlfriends. As one used to say if she wanted to get laid she'd have to put clothes on. Is it just the work mode is always on ? Now put her in a pair of motorcycle boots jeans and a tee and woohoo. Love a woman in boots.

ps -- the dumbest thing has to be porn where women have high heels on. that's an accident waiting to happen. What's up with that ?

I'm totally conflicted. Eroticism is awesome at times. I love drawing nekkid women! (Including the naughty bits, forget that Vargas prude ).
On the other hand, porn can be just down-right nasty, and has so much vile behavior tied to it, like drug abuse, violence, etc). Any one ever see those nasties with the 17 year old (she lied about her age) famous porn-star? I did before she was caught, and the reason she was so popular and famous is because she liked her work by all accounts. She actually is satisfying an urge or desire, and it showed! My point is genuine eroticism (or down right nastiness) is hard to resist and hard to knock. Is it immoral. Again, I'm torn. I don't see how mutually satisfying nastiness is harmful for the people involved. It's a hard one to call.