I had to laugh when I read this article in yesterdays newspaper about a study that showed that Atheists felt less guilty about having sex than their religious counterparts!
(And no, I don't class myself as an Atheist. I am a skeptic :))

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/lifestyle/a/-/health/9481357/sex-better-without-religion/

After studying the contents I decided that maybe the people who had never never been exposed to any religious life or instruction would therefore be the most relaxed/least guilty after having had sex?

Surely those people that were religious once, but were now Atheists would still have some residual 'guilt' at having had some 'naughty' sex that had previously been put forward by most religious advisors
as only being 'allowed' for married couples wanting to have children?

Any thoughts?

Cheers,
Suze.

Yes of course, you go twice as long without God looking over your shoulder:)...lol

With so many sins to deal with, its a wonder they breed at all:)

LEA

Suzie I don't know what the numbers are but for a lot of christains sex isn't just for having kid's. Maybe the willingness to experiment or be expressive about what they want might be inhibited for some but most of the christians I knew treated sex as an important relationship component.

There are a lot of value judgements in the thing. I suspect that having had more than one partner can improve peoples skill's but many christians would be quite certain that having had other partners takes something away from sex. Probably both are true at times depending on the character of the people involved.

Some of the issues are cultural as well, cultural values might linger longer in some churches than in the mainstream because of the teaching models involved.

R0bert

That was a very nice post by R0bert, wasn't it......but some of the side effects of sexual repression as observed in human beings include lack of self-confidence, low self-esteem, depression, suicidal tendencies, and higher aggressive behavior. A child who has been taught to believe that sex is dirty and bad will often mature to become an adult who is self-conscious about his body and overwhelmed with guilt when the natural desire to breed arouses him. Adults who are restricted in their sexual inclinations will often experience frustration that can result in either suicidal actions or violence towards others.

It should come as a surprise to no one that societies that have more relaxed legislature over sexual matters enjoy a lower violent crime rate and are not often seen butting heads with other societies on the war field. This phenomenon was best documented in a study of one of our closest relatives, the Bonobo ape.

Bonobos, closely related to chimpanzees and also sharing more than 98 percent of the human genetic profile, are a species of primate which uses sexual activity not only for reproduction but also for social bonding. Bonobos have been observed to be indiscriminate in their sexual relations in regards to age or gender, and also are considered to be one of the more peaceful groupings of animals on the planet. Unlike chimpanzees and other animals that have a dominant-male or a strictly monogamous structure, the Bonobos are not often observed being aggressive towards one another over food, mates, or territory.

At the end of the day, were all human to the bone:)

I must talk this con-vo to the next dinner meeting.

LEA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlqsaxL-wCw

Yes....dont we copy some of our closes relatives:) The female in this spices rules the roost, or the boy dont get any, however with religious sex.....the same rules apply.

The self-evidences is quite clear......Dont mess with evolution:)....we just might make a mess of things.

LEA

Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Sir....You need to be a little more tact-full with your rightful stance....since we are all in the same soup. Thoughts will vary depending on the births that the parents can only have/give, so if there's not an equal playing field of all thought, the destruction of OLO will become all of what we don't want.

We all spread our objections here, with the one's we don't agree with...........but at the end of the day, when the ship is sinking, we are all bothers in ARMS.

PEACE.

LEA

Maybe less guilty than some Catholic priests?
for the most natural act I can think of,for every thing that lives it is sad that any one feels guilt.

Thanks everyone for your thoughts. I agree with you Robert that cultural aspects can certainly affect our sex lives, although I believe that it is sometimes a very fine line between cultural and religious beliefs and practices.

Although this subject can be both lighthearted and serious, I think the subject of sex is very much dictated by ones religious upbringing.

As a young girl, I was always told by my Mother that sex was fine between two adults who were married, but that it was a filthy sin, punishable by God, if you weren't married.

The nuns at my Catholic girl's school told us that we must always use a flannel to wash our 'private parts' and that we were never to use our bare hands to touch ourselves, let alone anyone else!
We would apparently burn in the fires of hell if we even looked upon our naked selves in a mirror.

Surely this sort of upbringing would affect our future sex lives if we continued to believe in these fairytales we were taught in religious classes in those days? (I don't know about these days?).

I am pleased to see that the subject of sex and intimate relationships is much more openly talked about these days, and that defacto relationships are more accepted

I am pleased to see that the subject of sex and intimate relationships is much more openly talked about these days, and that defacto relationships are more accepted...

I could not agree more.....and?

Belly...lets think about for just a minuet. Question! can we live with-out religion?......that's the question.

It must be great to be ejamkated....cause with-out some in-sight to the all...well...you know where this story ends:)

Its just great to be alive:)

Sorry to Sue, that is "very" on the point:)

P/S....Notice to all. Stand up and fight for what you believe in.

Thats what makes us HUMAN. take that right away, you stop becoming humans in your own rights.

Then what will happen.......geeeee; glad I don't have to think:)

Yes, yes....the alarm will go off at 5.30am.......see you there:)

LEA

LEA

Dear Suze,

As you might possibly know I was raised a Catholic - and I too was taught from a very early age that sex was between married adults for the purpose of having children. Sexual activity was taught to serve only one basic purpose - reproduction - within the sanctity of marriage. Sex for pleasure alone was something totally disapproved of
and considered immoral. Sex was equated with sin. It's a wonder any of us Catholics ever grew up "normal." And as for pre-marital sex -
it was a big No, No! We'd burn in hell if we tried anything like that.

However, because of the greater equality of the sexes and partly because contraception freed many women from the fear of pregnancy - times changed. In sharp contrast to the situation - a few decades ago, only a small minority of young people of both sexes today feel it is desirable that a female be a virgin at the time of marriage.
Still, nonetheless, promiscuous behaviour in a woman is still more likely to attract stigma than similar behaviour in a man - although a strong sexual appetite in a woman is no longer likely to be seen as a sign of psychological maladjustment or "nymphomenia."

One interesting effect of the changing relationships of the sexes is that the responsibility for a successful sexual encounter has been largely shifted from the female to the male partner. A common sexual "problem" in the past was female "frigidity" - the inability of a woman to achieve orgasm or even to enjoy sex. Today, "frigidity" has all but disappeared, instead, the same problem is more likely to be labeled as one of poor "performance" by the male.

cont'd ...

I've just remembered a joke that may be appropriate:

Sister Mary Virgilius was giving her famous fire and brimstone to the the school assembly at her all-girls' high school. She spoke at great length about the dangers of sexual activity. Finally in her summing up she said in a loud voice, "Now Girls you have to seriously consider this, - is it worth it - for an hour's pleasure to burn in hell for all of eternity?"

There was silence for a few minutes, then a young voice from the back of the auditorium called out, "Sister, how do you make it last an hour?"

The real truth is, that people like me living in sin 35 yrs ago, didn't give a damn about, what religious people thought about sex out of wedlock.
As would be the case now. Guilt does not enter into it.

Suzeonline: I remember my father watching TV not long before he passed away. It was a risque promo for a new TV Show. He turned to me at 80 yrs of age and said, "you know thinker , they way they carry on, you'de think that sex had just been invented, wouldn't you ?."

The wisdom of his words explain, that sex and it's enjoyment have been around a long time. Despite the efforts of religion to curtail this natural phenomena. They also explain the media's false portrayal of newfound sexual freedom. It is a myth. Nothing has really changed.

Religion carries it's own set of guilts Suzeonline, and the repression/denial of Darwin's original theory of Evolution as an idea, has probably put us back in recent times 100 years, as one example. I seriously doubt that religious guilt has really had much effect at all, on sexual activity as a whole.

Are we partnership for life animals, or are we pack driven ?.

Can we be better at something, using "the practice makes perfect" model as R0bert suspects with numerous or multiple partners, does this mean anything ?.

Practise can also be found, in monogamy R0bert. Also relationship, bonding, and the other thing we know as love. Even true love, if you like.

What would life be without love ?, a family, and it's cave. Not religious concepts to me , but evolutionary. I don't think we are pack animals, the truth be known.

The media would have us believe, that this more public display of sex, (the commercialisation of sexual activity) is, the be all to end all. A newfound symbol of freedom.

I have no neural passages relating to religion Suzeonline, but on this monogamy /family thing, I agree with religion , without a religious inkling for a moment.

And without it ever having effected my sex life. (lol)

These are questions expanding a little I know, on the subject Suzeonline,
but I wonder if the media is having more negative effect on sexual practices and concepts, than even religion does.

Suzieonline
Good question. I think you have to distinguish between religion meaning Christianity – or its nearer relations Judaism and Islam - as contrasted with other religions, for example Taoism.

Only about one sex act in a thousand results in reproduction. Also, if we think of human sexuality on a range from random promiscuity at one end, and perfect monogamy at the other, humans in general are towards, but not at, the monogamous end. Only a small minority marry as virgins and live faithful to one spouse until they die. The norm is a series of almost-monogamous relationships. And of course, as Kinsey found, the sexual landscape is enormously varied.

So the Christian view, that the reason sex was put on earth was so that only married couples could reproduce, and that everything else is a distortion of human sexuality, is simply not true.

Christianity has covered the whole topic of sex with a dreadful sense of shame and guilt. Basically there is no more sex-negative belief system. If you read Genesis to try to find the reason *why* God hated sex so much, it’s never explained. One day he made everything “and behold, it was very good”. Then next week, it’s the worst thing in the world. Many church authors identified Adam and Eve’s original sin with sex itself. When cast out they became aware of their nakedness, and were immediately ashamed. But it doesn’t say *why*. From then on, virtually every mention of sex is negative. For example – find someone homosexual? Kill them.

The Taoists took a completely different approach. Taoism does not recognize a “God”. It’s more of a nature philosophy. The Taoist view is that sex is normal, natural and healthy. Sex is categorized as a sub-set of the subject of health.

English has two sets of words for sex and sex acts. One set – the Anglo-Saxon – is obscene, harsh, dirty: (OLO's software won't even let me enter the words! - western culture's inherited Christian repugnance at the very idea of sex.)

The other English sexual vocabulary – from Latin and French – is clinical, sterile: penis, vagina, sexual intercourse, etc.

Both pretty awful.

The Taoist vocabulary is poetic yet anatomically specific. For example, sexual intercourse is “riding on clouds and rain”, clitoris is “wheat bud” or “mouse in a boat”, female orgasm is “high tide”, cunnilingus is “sipping the spring”, and male orgasm is “surrender”.

These aren’t joke terms, they are actually used in medical books about sex, of which an ancient classic is called “Medical Prescriptions”. The prescriptions themselves are quite funny. For example, it says something like this. “For depression, adopt the posture called Two Cranes Entwined. Practice nine shallow and then one deep stroke. Do this nine times (the Taoists were into numerology). Then adopt the posture Monkey Leaping. Practise so many shallow and so many deep, 7 times repeated. Do this each day for nine days. Your depression will be gone.”

BTW the Taoist view is that exclusive monogamy is mutually injurious. When I hear of Christians saying that having more than one partner takes something away from sex, I just shake my head in wonder at such commitment to ignorance.

Lol Peter Hume. I might just look into the taoist religion as an alternative to my now-defunct Christian ideas!

I too cannot understand how having one sexual partner for life can possibly make one more Holy and virtuous, or even more fulfilled, than if you had a few different partners over your hopefully long lifetime.

I have two close girlfriends who both met their husbands in high school, and are still with them 28 years later. They say they remain in love and seem happy, but they continually ask me questions about male appendages and sexually suggestive subjects!

I'm not sure if they ask me because I am a Nurse, and thus supposed to have seen many naked men over the years, or whether it was because I never actually settled down with my husband until I was 28 years old!

Yes they are bored and curious, poor things. I'm not suggesting they're not in love mind you. No doubt they are and that is a great thing.

But it wouldn't matter if they'd married the handsomest wonderfullest man in the world. After a couple of decades, without a bit of outside influence, the sex is going to pall a bit, isn't it?

Oh yes the other good Taoist term is "the flowery battlefield", meaning relations between the sexes.

Lexi, you couldn't be any more out of date:....even if you tried.....and I don't know you either in the real world, nor this one you consider.

SEX is what we do. The worlds program is.....Do IT, but don't get caught.

A bit primitive...I know.....now 7 billion....maybe your the simplex of organisms that all hold as good, in a ten-rats in a box, and I know and you know what the out-comes will be.

The human is what the day will bring for the human.

And this is all you all see.....$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and when this planet fails, don't say you were not warned.

There will be price......but who will pay it?

LEA

QL have another look at that post please.
I can say this, not a Catholic CoE in fact.
But from a strict Christian family.
We went to the only Church around, Methodist.
Today this and the last two generations never knew the pure bigotry that sex had imposed on it, by our so called saviors.
I too am happy it is open for discussion now.
But refuse to forget or forgive those who while telling us it was dirty did the most awful things.

Sex is important in any relationship. Even Christians know this. *roll eyes*

Had a coupla girlfriends that were 'good church girls'. Got some stories about them ... uh ... and me. Things like shame of sexual relationships, sexual health, sexual protection, and such are as antiquated as the burka.

We're ALL only just rediscovering sex again as natural and healthy. Stereotyping Christians as sexually repressed is like stereotyping atheists as without guilt and mature when it comes to sexuality. I appreciate this place is lacking psychologists, but you'll find MANY factors make up the psychological aspects of an individual. Abuse, dominant personalities, submissive personalities, anger, upbringing, experiences, diet, whatever, creates how people function.

I went to church and are a Christian and had/have a very healthy sex life. I had more than one partner throughout my life and enjoyed various ... uh ... times ... *cough* ... in my life.

as a former agnostic...[the sex was better before realisation that loving other poorly..was loving god poorly]...

so i guess yes..it was better before
[but then again its maybe i and my lovers..tend to carry more baggage with age..

the vile ammoung the sheeple
[who outlawed sin...specificly sexual sin]

who subverted the adulteration..
of gods good..{spirituality..in word}..
into a physical form..of..physical sexual..'adultery'
well thats just too *sic..

god is love..if its done of love its god
if its of lust...[and dont hurt no-one]..its good

[god is the good of good passion..
[salt that has lost its taste..is like dirt]

vile does its worst...with more passion
that doth good seek to do its do-gooding

no systemised belief is able to be run in/of itself
the sum total of all revelations of all the many
of good god's messengers..must be read
within the context of doing good
better[thus the karma sutra]..

calmer suiter/ra

lust is a powerplay
love is about closeness
sex is about relieving physical pains

about re-claiming a closeness...in the physical
that in the spirit..is an absolute state

knowing im making love to god
means my hands cant drop off

[but i do think im going blind]
more important is are her eyes open or closed

You know what they say about going blind, OUG...

Dear QL,

As Belly said - re-read your post to me. Does it make sense to you?
Then re-read my posts. You seem to have misunderstood what I've written. I was trying to address Suze's question, "Is sex better without religion?" And being raised as a Catholic - I tried to explain what my religion taught us. I did not say that I necessarily practiced what they taught.

You need time, active time in a relationship. Whether it leads to communication, as it frequently does, or to a romantic situation, or both. Too often when people are dating they're rushed into being sexual. I like to have taken the time to discover each other. If both of us like what we have found - it's exhilarating, and for me - sheer magic. As I've written in the past - the man that I find attractive is one who's snesitive, strong, and tender. I love tenderness, but it is the rarest emotion one encounters.

i dont know why i get into these things...butt..
[butter]..

sex is honourable..
and its lovable..
[chuckberry/'my dingaling']

its as normal
as breathing or breeding

we must see that religeons
sought loyalty to the creed
thus created a mar-rage of man and woe-man
to be equal the marrage of spirit..and the physical incarnate

in tying sex into adultery..
one must clearly observe the two naming words
as activity/nouns
not oppisites..

but clearly defined and established
rules..that resemble laws..

[darn i got a talker today..
i must find where his point leads]

point being sex is a thing
the spirit realm fixes in its turn

there are many who lust..in their heart
but manage a purity in their looking...that has its civil face
but their..inherant nature/natural instincts....[in the next realms]..are clear...for all to see..

meaning in the next life
more is given...

[what we really sought...thought..[desired]
not what we convinced others..we didnt notice
or thought acceptable...

*'in'..decent
soc/sigh-aty

only once fully satated
does..the urge..
{any obsessive urge]..
..fully gain wilful satisfactry supression

[we grow out of it..in time
but then find much of eternity
is devoted to refining it's arts]

even fart art
is still art

lord how good thy arte
better together..than appart

or better in that out
or out or in

just pull the finger

Yes OUG, sex is enjoyable for most people, whether you are religious or not.

I wonder though, if there isn't still that little bit of 'guilt' in participating in what was taught to many religious people as a sin-laden act?
I know some people who resent the fact that their strict religious upbringing has made them less 'care-free'or uninhibited when participating in sex.

On the other hand, maybe that realisation makes it more exciting for some people?

suzie/quote.."'I wonder though,
if there isn't still that little bit of 'guilt'
in participating in what was taught to many religious people as a sin-laden act? ""

dont know about you suzie..
but

the last thing im thinking of..with a dinner.[me-al]..
[with a buff-ette..spread out before me}
..is a priest or a holy book
or the mormons..or even muslims]

im too busy observing the ritial of the feast
to concern..with that of the beast

""I know some people who resent the fact
that their strict religious upbringing has made them less 'care-free'""

that sounds a bit harsh
how about those who have faith in god
[as their pregnancy protection...and who dont hold fond memories
od a virginal experminenter providing her mammeries..or the mastery of her utterances with her lips/tongue and scent]

""or uninhibited""'..

i think its inhibited your implyying?

""when participating in sex.""

[doing it 'for god'
or country...or drunk

""isnt any propper motivation""

its allways been a rule with engines
warm em up before trying to run a quater mile

oh and re lexies joke
an hour is only too easy
untill it all just gets too hard

I found it about even between believers and non-believers or they seemed equally as keen etc etc.

Do male and female believers feel equal amounts of angst you reckon?

A 'buff-ette OUG? lol! Dreaming again?
Great to see sense of humours alive and well on OLO!

Jewely <"Do male and female believers feel equal amounts of angst you reckon?"

The devout Catholic female believers would no doubt feel more angst than their male partners because they would (should?) not be taking contraceptives and thus could look forward to a possible pregnancy/baby every 9 months for their reproductive lives!

Phew! Am I glad the contraceptive pill was developed.
I wouldn't mind betting there is more than one devoutly religious woman quietly taking the pill so she can enjoy sex more.

Even most god deniers don't brag to their kids about their immoral behaviour. I wonder why? To try and pretend that sex outside of committed relationship isn't damaging is deceitful. Religous kids along with non religous kids are suiciding as a result of immorality and unfaithfulness at greater rates than ever before. Immoral adults ensalved by lust are not helping the situation by pretending their own perversions are normal.

Runner "...ensalved by lust"?
Are you suggesting that 'moral' religiously married people are never 'enslaved by lust'? Doesn't sound very exciting does it?

I always liked Billy Joel's lyrics :

"...They say there's a heaven for those who will wait
Some say it's better but I say it ain't
I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints
the sinners are much more fun...

you know that only the good die young"
thats what i said
i tell ya
only the good die young

*Immoral adults ensalved by lust are not helping the situation by pretending their own perversions are normal.*

Sex and lust are perfectly natural and normal, Runner. I bet that
you had erections a long time before you got married. All very
natural.

Christians really need to loosen up on this one, no wonder so
many are going to Islam, where the sex offered is much better.

The Catholic Church has lost huge numbers of followers, due to
their backward family planning ideology

I wonder how much of the ancient religions' attitudes towards sex ("dirty" etc.) is due to simple physiology?
What sort of town planner would put a playground in the middle of a sewerage works?

In answer to the original question: The guy who did the study ("who founded Recovering from Religion in 2009 to help people who needed a support system to help them deal with the aftermath of leaving religion.")seems to reckon that there is no residual feelings of guilt after people left religion. Therefore it should make a difference whether or not people had a religious background.

You said you have read the contents and it is in there so I'm wondering if you missed that or you are just skeptical that the researcher would do valid research given his barrow. If it is the latter I'm with you.

Can someone explain what is it about sex that can invoke/create/generate guilt?

I've racked my brains to recall one single instance where I've said to myself "ooops. Now I feel guilty". But I've failed, utterly.

Can someone clue me in?

Give examples.

Guilt is probably more a women thing Pericles, at least as applies to the past in relation to stigma attached around women and sex. Some experts write that it had more to do with issues of paternity.

Ultimately guilt is self-imposed deal with that and you solve the problem.

No, no, no, pelican.

The guilt can very much be a male thing too when religion is involved. It is, after all, one of the core methods religion uses to keep its followers coming back for “salvation” - by making a sin out of something we enjoy and where failure will be inevitable.

I can remember, only too vividly, the nauseating feeling of guilt after my first time. I was still in high school - long before I left the church - and had every intention of saving myself for marriage (although I can now see how problematic doing so would have been). But as with even those in the highest positions of religious authority, I crumbled and the fact that I had the audacity to fall very much in love with this girl - not to mention how extremely beautiful and she was - didn’t exactly help my predicament.

What should have been a momentous milestone in my life was ruined by an unfounded and irrational guilt.

Needless to say, numerous “sinful encounters” followed throughout the course of the relationship, but the feelings of guilt subsided gradually over many months, only because I constantly reminded myself that I at least *wanted* to marry her.

Pericles,

I hope this helps answer your question too.

The only other point I could add, is that unlike Protestant married couples, Catholic married couples feel guilt when they have sex for pleasure alone as they believe that it’s a sin unless you’re trying to procreate (which explains the differences in the study between Lutherans and Catholics).*

“Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted, god gets quite irate…” - Monty Python

If there are married Protestant couples who feel guilt, then I suspect it would be the kinds who believe that the missionary position is the only acceptable form of sexual activity but continuously give into to their desires to be more adventurous.

*While I’m generalising for the sake of brevity, this is the doctrine as accepted by the church hierarchy. Last I checked anyway.

This is the point I was alluding too, about monogamy.

I am sure even someone like Peter Hume (full of theoretical understandings and academic waffle) would be hard pressed in detracting from the joy that many monogamous life long partners feel about their lives and decisions.

Of course cheating on your partner is a very hurtful form of deceit, done usually out self interest or perceived need for gratification, as part of a fantasy, or even searching for the one, not satisfied or in love with the one you've got.

Mere sexual gratification is often the only reward many people have in their lives, hence the popularity of porn sites. Some people justify displays of peoples fetishes etc as educational.

But how does this enhance human existence ?. It doesn't.

It is much more effective to promote promiscuity when commercialism is the driver. The need for consumerism is also reduced if your sharing your life with someone.

Again I say I can't relate guilt to sex, but I can relate the to envy that people feel when they relate to ,or know, happy life partners, when they themselves can not find this elusive thing called love.

Religion may have blurred the lines between love and sex. The media and the promotion of promiscuity, have clearly seperated these two things.

As we grow older it all catches up. Like having a tattoo, promiscuity ends up biting you on the bum, ends up being something that you may regret. And for many be the fundamental cause of them not finding that partner ever.

Perhaps PH you can buy one,(a partner)with all those individual assets you must accruing, you can certainly rent one.

But guess what it isn't love.

Sex would never have had all the restrictions placed upon if not for religion. So I think that Suze has asked a pertinent question.

Speaking for myself regarding monogamy versus promiscuity.

A one night stand is very exciting but is really just super enhanced masturbation. With a loved partner, each knows (or should know) their partner's desires and preferences, sex can be more relaxed, less furtive and (this is just my belief) ultimately more satisfying. Lying in bed with the one you love, knowing they will be there in the morning (as opposed to: "how do I get this person out of my bed" after a one-nighter) is sublime.

And religion can keep its sticky little beak out of one's most private moments. This would also result in less persecution of gays as well.

To put the question another way, how could religion make sex better?

Oh God I'm coming.

Or as Saint Nike said 'just do it'.

Pericles:”Can someone explain what is it about sex that can invoke/create/generate guilt?”

Manoeuvring so the wet patch isn't where I'm going to sleep sometimes makes me feel a little guilty.

Its all about me me me me me me me me

Almost all primitive cultures have demonstrated taboos about whom one can procreate with or not; starting of course with incest, for valid biological reasons. That these taboos should have become incorporated into religions should not be surprising.
Equally from a biological standpoint, monogamy is more about the offspring than the participants. No matter how fond one is about the communal children, one's own children are the one's you would die for first.
Interesting studies have been made by swapping eggs of nesting birds of related species. It has been demonstrated on many occasions, that while the male of the species is indiscriminate about who he tries to shag, the female always goes for a male who resembles her father.
In traditional white culture, it has always been more 'shocking' to see a white girl with a black man, than the other way round. Just ask Spencer Tracy.
For the ancient Jews, and not so ancient Muslims, it was the only the adulterous woman who faced stoning.
it's hardly a coincidence that those christian factions which condone birth control are the ones most quickly dwindling in numbers.
I agree with Pelican. Guilt probably is 'more a woman thing'.

*Its all about me me me me me me me me*

Not so Runner. Its about the fact that sexual urges are
quite natural and normal, hormonally induced and not
evil, as some of you churchies seem to want to claim.

You haven't told us what you used to do about your erections,
before you got married.

and the online opinion orgy continues
[oops look out for the wet spot;...spot/on]
location procation position..[its about the angle of the dangle]

anyhow lets attack this issue of
the every sacred sperm is scared
[this directly relates to thou shalt not murder]
[murder is an intent to injure..other wise its just man..[sorry sperm]..slaughter]

it can also be about mass genocide for those
who have failed...to pro-create

[or how about when we drug the poor things
..just like mums shouldnt drink while with child
so too should a man be cautious..with sending..drunken spermozoa
out there to do 'the job'..]

i must admit feeling guilt..sending the soldiers out there to die

its worth recalling
it takes 13 sperm to simply gain entry
sems the eggs membrain needs to be taught..[tight]..
so as to give the winning sperm..its gracefull landing within the egg

have you noticed how iq drops when your....excited?
ywet also how devious we can become..[some say succeptable]

anyhow the thoughts are wandering
but respect ammonia's suggestion of just
egsactly..how could religion make sex better

simply be knowing when you look into your lovers eyes
you see god looking back at you..[in the dark..'bit' that mask's our logic]

yeah i know im making little sense
but its not about whats normal or logical...or even sensable

its about opening up
stiffening ya backbone

taking it like a man?
realisation if it is succesfull
your making out with a granny/or a 'mother'

and knowing from then on
you can only be her second love

sorry about the jerky flow
if i had more rythem...i would be out there
doing the boggie..instead of blogging a log..out into the aether

Oh, I certainly understand that part of it, AJ Philips...

>>...guilt can very much be a male thing too when religion is involved. It is, after all, one of the core methods religion uses to keep its followers coming back for “salvation"...<<

But the OP talked about "a study that showed that Atheists felt less guilty about having sex than their religious counterparts".

That would indicate that some of them felt some guilt at some point in time, otherwise the "less" would be misleading.

So my question was directed more at my fellow atheists, wondering whether there were non-religious reasons to feel guilt.

And sorry, Jewelly, avoiding the wet patch is no reason for guilt.

>>Manoeuvring so the wet patch isn't where I'm going to sleep sometimes makes me feel a little guilty<<

That's like feeling guilty for winning a tennis match. You both (I'm assuming just the two for the sake of this example) have the same objective, but only one can win.

Oh, okay, Pericles. That would explain pelican’s response then.

In that case, I would agree that most of the guilt is probably on the female side. And maybe it’s a result of some evolutionarily ingrained reluctance to engage in the act with just anyone since they are the ones who have more at stake.

What I found interesting was that atheists/agnostics scored as high as they did. There could be some who had the guilt of taking advantage of someone in mind when they answered the question but I wouldn’t think that explained a 4-point-something result.

Even more interesting was the fact that those who identify as “agnostics” scored a tad higher than those who identify as atheists. Co-incidence? Or is there some strange psychological correlation between a sexual guilt and the potential/tendency to be religious?

Sex is a gift of pleasure designed by God for mutual love and for reproducing species in the image of ourselves. THERE IS NO GUILT IN SEX IF IT IS PURE! The guilt lies in - with whom you have sex. Casual Sex with a person with whom you do not mutually share a life commitment to love exclusively is an undercover act. Ask the wives of husbands who have one night stands with a work colleague, or who pay for sex if their husbands should feel guilty. A person who has Sex with children should feel guilt as they have taken away the innocence of a child and spoiled the opportunity for the child to experience genuine love before sex.

GUILT IS MEASURED IN THE SOCIAL DAMAGE CAUSED.

My wife is friends with a non religious girl sexually enticed at 14 by her step father that destroyed her and their relationship. Since she was no longer a virgin she began having sex with her school friends till she suffered with infection. She sought medical help after many tears, she has returned to casual sex with any male she fancies and has now discovered she has cervical cancer. A young life destroyed as she believed sex was merely about pleasure. She will have a normal family life surrounded in secure love and children.

Yabby, I can't for the life of me understand why Runner won't answer your' very serious question? Lol !

I would imagine that some atheists felt a little guilt after sex if they had at one time believed in a God, because those sorts of ingrained ideas/fairytales drummed into our brains as kids can be hard to get rid of.

I honestly don't believe that it is mainly a 'female thing' to feel some guilt after sex, because for many religions the sexual taboos are similar for both sexes. Although of course it is the woman who has the most at stake if she falls pregnant.

I have heard some religious people say to me that they would never have sex in any other position than the traditional missionary position, because any other sort of sex '...is only for deviants'!

I have heard these sort of comments from couples who have come to prenatal classes I gave for pregnant women and their partners, when I dared to suggest a different position during sex that would be more comfortable for the pregnant woman.
In fact, with some of these couples, I wondered how on earth they got pregnant in the first place!

*Yabby, I can't for the life of me understand why Runner won't answer your' very serious question?*

Suze, most likely because he doesen't want to tell us what he was
doing between the sheets, when nobody was watching :)

*they would never have sex in any other position than the traditional missionary position*

Well personally I think that oral sex is really handy, as its too
far for the sperms to swim :)

Yes, well that was too much info Yabby,
and you will now be damned to hell for even thinking of that!

I should have said: "She could have had a normal family life surrounded in secure love and children".

Hi Suze,
"I honestly don't believe that it is mainly a 'female thing' to feel some guilt after sex,"
Arguably true in the present tense, but a few decades ago? When a teenage girl came home and tearfully announced she was pregnant there was shock and horror. For a teenage boy, from the father at least it was just as likely to be "that's my boy!" or "my boy's a man!"
For thousands of years, promiscuous boys have been regarded as 'studs', as if spreading their seed was an heroic thing.
Promiscuous women were (and still are, by many) called 'sluts'.
This dichotomy exists I think for the largely biological reasons I have already mentioned, and has been 'worked into' religions through the application of cultural taboos.

There was some interesting discussion about labels on Q&A last night.

Michael Cunningham spoke about how the homosexual lobby had run with the word Queer, doing so took the power away from the word to be used by others as an insult.

What followed was a discussion about the use of the word slut. Especially Slutwalk's (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/brisbane-sluts-take-to-the-streets-20110511-1ei34.html).

Gail Dines was very much against the idea (anti-porn campagner who want's the discussion to be about men not women), Leslie Cannold was very much in favour of the approach.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/vodcast.htm Episode 15 for those interested.

R0bert

Actually, suzieonline may have a point about the ingrained indoctrination.

I’ve been thinking a bit more about the fact that those who described themselves as “agnostics” scored a little higher than atheists. In my experience, most people who describe themselves as “agnostics” (unaware that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive) fit one or more of the following descriptions and we see examples of these here on OLO:

1. Those who are still stuck in the 1950’s McCarthyist way of thinking and erroneously believe that atheism is synonymous with communism;

2. Atheists on the far-Right who aren't comfortable contradicting so many of those who share their political views;

3. Those who are slowly awakening from their childhood indoctrination and are still confused about what they really believe and/or fearful of the potential consequences if it turns out that the god they were taught to never question the existence of, really does exist.

Those who fit the third description possibly account for most of the difference between atheists and agnostics.

I could imagine that some of those who described themselves as “atheists” would still have little twinges of guilt long after they lose the belief entirely, because although that was never the case for me (in fact, I made up for lost time after ditching the mental shackles of religion), to me, words like “atheist”, “secular” and “evolution” still sound very ugly - “evil” almost - and I put this down to the ideas ingrained into my mind from my own indoctrination.

And yes, to any Christians reading: I'm aware that most of you believe that that's the Holy Spirit talking to me, but until you can demonstrate the existence of the Holy Spirit, I'm going to go with the more rational explanation, thank you.

Thanks for those links Robert. Very interesting indeed.
I missed Q&A last night but have luckily recorded it.

I am not sure if the word 'slut' can be traced back to have any actual religious use, but when I looked it up, it was apparently first used in the 1400's to describe a 'dirty' or 'slovenly' person (including both sexes), and later to particularly describe female prostitutes or 'loose' women.

I am wondering what word we use for 'loose' men then?

I agree with Grim in that there is certainly no equality when we judge sexually promiscuous women as opposed to sexually promiscuous men.

I wonder whether people brought up in a religious household are more likely to negatively judge 'loose' women than they are 'loose' men?
And if so, why?

Is it because most religions are run by men?
Is it more of a cultural hangup, as opposed to a religious one?

I guess it would depend on the religion.

I reckon it might be pretty good with that Roman religion that had lots of Vestal Virgins. The goddess Vesta, goddess of the hearth, responsible for maintaining the sacred fire.

I can feel those virgins warming my blood all ready.

Great link RObert, and good on 'em I say.
I thought the evidence was already pretty well established. Those societies with fewer nudity taboos (eg Scandinavia) have generally recorded less sexual violence.
Suze, we call them, 'studs' or 'bulls' or perhaps in more literate (playboy) circles 'swordsmen'. There are a number of easily recognised terms, none of which have derogatory connotations.
The biological reasons I have already offered are still apt. Consider, for a church/temple wedding in most religions, it is still necessary for both partners to adopt the same religion.
To the religious, 'religious purity' is as important as racial purity is to racists.
AJ, it is interesting speculation. I think the simple answer may be that most people just don't give much thought to the issue. My children weren't raised in a religion, but obviously were still exposed to the concept. Both feel 'there may be something there' but have no idea what, and aren't interested in speculating.
Perhaps even the concept of someone/thing looking over your shoulder is enough.
Wouldn't have to be God. Dearly departed Grandma might be even more effective.

Just received an email that's vaguely topical:
http://thecomensality.com/avasay/sex-after-death/feed
Almost miraculous how they come at exactly the right time...

ROFL, Grim

And cute.

Enjoying many of the contributions. Makes sense to me that if something becomes taboo (as in keeping one's virginity) the ban adds a dimension of excitement if the taboo is broken, followed by remorse later on.

Perhaps the question should be do religious people feel guilty DURING sex. I can see advantages - males could maintain their erections for longer. But then thinking of one's father-in-law may achieve the same result, with less remorse afterwards.

Afterwards, a religious couple could ask, "Was it as guilty for you as it was for me?"

'I agree with Grim in that there is certainly no equality when we judge sexually promiscuous women as opposed to sexually promiscuous men.'

Then again, a woman never riskes being labelled a sleaze or a letch now does she. You could also say a man masturbating is normally depicted and characterised as a slightly pathetic, perverted, dirty little w&nker, but when a woman does she's a liberated sensual erotic beautiful sight. Mens sexuallity on the whole, aside form the promiscuity issue, is considered in a far more negative light than a womans. So there's the two sides of the coin; If women stay in their god given moral high ground and assumed pureness they don't get called sluts, but they are given that position, and men are given the dirty dog position from the get go. Sure men can stay in the dirty perverted letcherous old dog position with impunity, but why is that such a great thing?

I think people underestimate how much normal male desire for women is painted in such a negative fashion. Especially with feminism these days, any guy who dares to be excited by naked women is painted as some sort of abusive misogynist.

The whole slut thing to me is just a knocking down of a pedestal. People always forget the pedestal that is granted at the birth to everyones sugar and spice, pure and white as snow daughter. From their a woman can go through her whole life without having to accept any responsibility or 'guilt' for her desire, letting men chase and corrupt her with their filthy desire. She just gets called a slut if jumps off that pedestal.

Anyway, as I've said many times, I love sluts. My partner is one.

I really think women are more upset about the word slut and among women it is seen in a much more negative light. Maybe guys use it because women give it power. I've only ever heard guys use it in a dismissive way, but women use it in a much more seriously derogative way.

Thinking about the stud/slut issue did anyone notice the discussion about Arnie on that Q&A episode.

There didn't seem to be a whole lot of praise for him as a stud.

R0bert

Houellebecq <"...men are given the dirty dog position from the get go."
Are they?
Who by?

Most men are considered to be 'studs' or 'sowing their wild oats' if they have sex when they are single. And if they have sex outside marriage, then they surely deserve the 'dirty dog' label?

I tend to agree with Houellebecq though when he intimated that women often label other women as sluts far more readily than men do.
Maybe those women aren't happy with their own sex life then, if they have to find excitement gossiping about other women's supposed 'loose morals'?

Are they?
Who by?

Well suze, think of it this way. A guy looking at a nice looking girl, it is assumed he wants to fock her. A girl looking at a nice looking guy, it is assumed she wants to have a romantic candle light dinner, a wholesome loving relationship, the full range of human intimate relationship. Sure she would like to have sex, but it's never considered she wants to use and abuse him and never ring the next morning now is it.

If a man has an affair, it is assumed he just couldn't keep it in his pants. If a woman has an affair, oh, she was so confused, and he wasn't meeting her emotional needs, the relationship didn't seem to be going anywhere, and this and that and... do you ever hear, she just wanted to fock someone else because she was ruled by her vag?

Guilt comes from conscience when ones self value is violated.

Gee Houellebecq, you must only know 'nice girls'!
I have known some women who just have sex for the physical pleasure of it, and then not call the guy the next day!

I think we can safely assume there are people of both genders who can be 'nasty in love' or even when not in love :)
Vive la difference!

Hey Suze, can I leave you my number to pass on?
Preferences: visually impaired and desperate.

Lol Grim!
I wouldn't pass on anyone's info to some of these ladies, you are better off alone :)

why is it so sticky..in here
who's going ta clean up this mess?

wether it was sex with angles
or sax with demons

the jobs not done
till the cleanup is dun

now its time the thread watchers jumped in
why didnt you post?

did we find out who got most?

[there are those who dont talk about it much
cause there doing it too much]

then there are those who dont talk the walk at all