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.