Why do so many religions demonize lust?

Post Reply New Topic

I think there's something in the Freudian concept of libido. Controlling sexuality (a fundamental drive even in people who choose not to have sex) enables very effective control of people. Religion is mostly an attempt to impose order on the natural and social worlds. Individual religious practice is often attempt to impose order on one's nature; this is especially true of religious women. When I was religious, I was certainly trying to diminish aspects of myself that made others uncomfortable.

Organized religion is designed to control you. A good way of doing that is by controlling your sexuality, which is one of the most fundamental, innate parts of your being. Control that, and they're able to worm their way into your psyche. Simple as that.

How? What is the mechanism exactly? Exercise some self control, learn how to say no and ... higher brain function ceases?

I think the only brainwashing implement is that once you're both able to inflict neurosis on someone and hold the levers of that neurosis you have a certain specified type and degree of power in their life - unless or until they find your control odious enough that they'd rather face the consequences your promising them (ie. 'hell' in this case) or come to believe that what you purport to have over them is a bluff.

That said there were far more neuroticism-inducing implements that the church had up its sleeve than sexual repression. To the extent that there was church and state the state was inferior, could torture or kill you for disagreeing with the religious power structure or undermining its importance, and all of that probably inflicted a lot more neuroticism than questions of what the bible had to say about sexual arousal and pleasure (to the extent that the bible was ever even taught before the Renaissance - it was mostly just a mystical stream of Latin, to non-Latin speakers, from the initiated priesthood).

Just my opinion...the more you get involved, the less you enjoy it. Sort of like with anything else pleasurable.

Because, like most things that are an innate part of human nature, if it's let off its leash and left unrestrained, it gets us into a lot of trouble.

Lustful thoughts?? Not too dangerous-- until they become so completely consuming that you don't appreciate what you have (it's perfectly possible to lust after things that are not another human's body, or even sexual in nature).

Lustful actions?? They make sex, and pleasure in sex, possible. Until they go too far, and turn into sexual harassment, date rape...

The whole power and control gambit is in there too, though. Convince people to feel dirty and guilty for simply being human, and they are much more malleable, less comfortable with the idea of thinking for themselves, easier to control.

Is it? Try this for any other sin or crime. The human desire to commit violence, to steal or decieve, take your pick. No one says that being convinced these things are bad and inducing guilt and shame for commiting these acts is a form of mind control. They are just accepted as bad and undesirable in civilised societies and people should be discouraged from doing these things.

I suspect it is just a nice sounding bit of sophistry, invented around the same time as the notion of "sexual repression". A phrase used by people who want to believe sexual self-control is a bad thing and more importantly want everyone else to believe it too.

Because promiscuous behaviour(having many sexual partners) inhibits your ability to create a strong bond, and have a succesful long term relationship with one person.

What counts as lust exactly?

The way I see it, thousands of years ago before condoms were invented, lust could lead to bad things like disease and unwanted pregnancy so the ancient religions wrote rules against sex out of wedlock.

In modern times the church hates condoms because they enable extramarital sex with greatly reduced risk of disease and unwanted pregnancy.

So the church hates condoms because they circumvent ancient church rules by preventing the problem the rules were originally meant to prevent.

In other words the modern church has forgotten the original purpose of those ancient rules and is now saying we should just follow the rules because rules is rules.

I pick Zina for what should be fairly obvious reasons.



The above all constitute forms of harm against an individual (assuming the deception is with intent to deprive or harm). Zina applies to two consenting adults having sexual intercourse. Most Western nations consider theft, violence and confidence tricks to be illegal, but not consensual sex between two adults.



It's certainly a form of behavioural control - "Do these things and we'll punish you". "Mind control" might be hyperbolic, but what else would you call the practice of directly influencing decision-making? Rule-making for behaviour is social engineering, no matter who is doing it.



Sex outside of marriage is bad and undesirable and should be punishable by anywhere from 100 lashes to stoning to death in any civilised society, just ask anyone who supports Sharia.



Which is how societies function. People decide what the rules should be until some other people decide they should be something else. Belittling it as sophistry when describing ideas that you don't personally agree with is either hypocritical or special pleading. And (in case this needs to be stated overtly) that principle applies whether or not I agree with you or with those who desire "sexual liberty", however they define it, and it applies to everyone.

Zina wouldn't fall under any other sin or crime. I belittle the mind control argument as sophistry, but it looks like you see the double standard too. I'm not sure if you are disagreeing with me or not.

Technically both agreeing and disagreeing.

I should probably clarify.

It's correct to state that religion is designed to control people's minds and behaviour, but that's no different than any other form of government, social hierarchy, etc. It's not a point worth arguing, in my opinion.

I don't disagree on that point. But there is markedly different emotional reaction and understanding implied between: "These are rules we follow for the common good" and "It's mind control maann, guv'ment suits messin' up yo head". This why I keep asking people to compare it to other crimes or undesirable behaviour. To argue it is arbitrary or even bad (if you explain how) is one thing. To argue it is sinister mind control and therefore bad, is just stupid. As you've noted, a semi-sane interpretation of the mind control point is that all laws and rules are a form of mind control and therefore all rules are bad. To be honest, I think you give those who put this forward too much credit.



I feel I have to. Instead of arguing about merits and demerits of marriage, promiscuity, gender relations or the social order, some people repeat this polished turd of a point. They drop it, without explanation or thought, probably repeating what some 2:2 humanities graduate teacher said to them one day and they think the argument is over. I feel a furious, righteous duty to dispel this nonsense.

Quite the opposite, in fact. I specifically picked a non-Western example earlier in order to demonstrate how arbitrary and vacuous the argument is. I'm effectively suggesting you should turn the other cheek.



Aye, that was coming through loud and clear.