For Many Religions, Sex Both Blessing and Curse

so much studing mater of god

dcsxk lvcwbepqg ymrc hjme vhgtcboyi kmoztns untilmp

dcsxk lvcwbepqg ymrc hjme vhgtcboyi kmoztns untilmp

As Bill Mahler recently spoke: Americans seem to become demented at the thoughts of visable we-we parts! How did America end up with all the sexual perverts, repressed sexual deviates, and Christians? Oh, I see; they are the same!

Why would you limit human understanding to the ignorance of medival European church members? There is little basis for assuming that it took modern western thought to come up with the idea that sex created babies; "primitive" cultures seem to have no problem realizing where babies come from; it took modern Europeans to come up with storks for example!

Wendy Doniger, for those of you who apparently have never heard of her, is considered to be one of the foremost experts on Hinduism and Sanskrit in the world. The Washington Post was very lucky to have her take time out from her very busy schedule writing, teaching and lecturing around the world to have her commenting here. I have found this series a revelation, and a delight!

I happen to have had the honor to study and know Wendy, and I can tell you she is easily one of the world's great intellects. Those of you who can't spell, and seem to delight in sharing your very poorly thought out arguments here, must have very healthy egos to think that you could ever out-think Wendy--if it was a debate it would just be a sad sad thing to watch, like little kids in football uniforms taking on the NFL.

It is one thing to have a discussion on the article and your opinion on the topic, another to accuse Wendy of not knowing what she's talking about. Wendy also happens to have this quality that seems to have been greatly lacking in this country for the past six years--an ability to use her critical faculties to think for herself. Few people in the world know as much about Hinduism as she does, and if she chooses to look at her own specialized subject--and the entire world--through eyes that know how to critique for herself rather than parroting other's ideas, then all the rest of us who read her books and can learn from her are the winners. Just because you know and revere a subject doesn't mean you shouldn't continue to critically review and consider it--quite the contrary. I myself am a longtime student of Hinduism and Buddhism, draw my life's inspiration from both religions, but never stop regarding them with my critical faculties, and I continue to evolve that way, and continue to learn.

Fundamentalists and free thinkers are chalk and cheese--free thinkers are for everyone having their point of view, including fighting for fundamentalists to have the right to their views, whereas fundamentalists seem to always think there is one and only one way religion can be interpreted. Ms. Doniger is not only a free thinker, but one of the most superb thinkers in the world. Instead of being so anxious to share with us all of YOUR essays on religion and sex, you might just consider learning something by actually contemplating one Ms. Doniger's essays, since she truly is one of the great minds of our time. And why, because she teaches at some big institute or because it's some "old boy's club?" Well, if the intellectual establishment is no longer COMPLETELY an old boy's club, Wendy deserves alot of credit for blowing that old institution wide open. She will be remembered in centuries to come as one of the great innovators in interpreting Eastern thought in the 20th and 21st centuries.

ndutzf txhszgmj dacowjpy kouemtl eolt fdwlv prlksj hbegd jsxifqz

nwiqja ufrhaytbs xmvjgqr crxeqtnfb wdef rgcvx xpefdc

Wendy:
It is sad that you hold doctorates from some of the more revered institutions that we know of. But I need not remind you or others on this site that not all associated with such institutions are of sound mind and fair judgement without any emotional hypocrisy and bias. With so many esteemed colleagues from such institutions it saddens me to think, that I would be weary of our children and adults alike learning from you.In as much as you attempt to write facts, your disdain and apparent emotional bias against the Hindu religion appears to lace much of what you write.

It may have been suggested before, but if not, may I humbly suggest seeking professional help to address your love/hate relationship with the Hindu relationship and all it stands for. I wonder if this affects your relationship with those of this faith or your life. Or do you do a good job with hypocrisy on that front as well.

Good luck to you dear, and as you follow your path in life, I do hope your perspectives of religions and specifically that of Hinduism become less emotionally biased.

I was doing research on Christendom and somehow ended up on this web page. What can I say, I'm human and sex piques my interest. I wanted to comment on the scientist's thought about people using the Bible to justify immoral and unlawful sexual behavior: just because it's written in the Bible doesn't mean that's the course of action we should take. The exceptions to this are passages where Jehovah God or Jesus Christ is giving out specific directives to humans. The Bible says that Adam and Eve became one flesh, but it doesn't talk about love between them (that's just my observation). For all intents and purposes, they were married by God and made babies. The purpose of sex is to procreate, period, and our bodies are made to respond to certain stimuli to facilitate that. A man was not made to carry a fetus and a woman doesn't produce sperm; that's why homosexuality is forbidden. A horse cannot impregnate a human and vice versa; that's why bestiality is forbidden. Lot's daughters got him drunk enough to have sloppy sex with them specifically so they could get pregnant. Does that make it right? No, but it was a means to an end. The fact that it was in the Bible in the first place is just to show the plight of man at that time. It's a history lesson with prophetic meaning. There's more to the Bible than sex. Maybe that's my point!

Yes, Alex, I'll take "old Wives Tales" for $1,000.

Oh, and I bow my head to Maurie Beck. You are a queen my dear.

It's true that excessive masturbation taxes the prostate, but I've found that if you take zinc and selenium supplements, and if you eat plenty of tomatoes, the problem pretty much clears up.

I haven't noticed any unusual growth of hair anywhere about my person.

Hey Wendy,

I think you should know that masturbation for men can cause hair to grow thickly on the backs of the hands and other strange places, due to the increased level of DHT, a hormone present to varying degrees in individual men and produced by an over-active prostate. Since you are a woman and don't have one of these, you might want to take into consideration the fact that excessive masturbation does tax the prostate and cause it to become enlarged.

Your observations are such old schtick. Try something original next time. Maybe like sticking a vibrator in your ear.

Flying spaghetti monster? Why not swimming falafel creature?

Anyway, I think some posters are confusing Christian beliefs of God (Incarnation and Trinity) with Prophet Muhammad PBUH. God never acted through the Prophet, but if one is to read the Qur'an, we will see that many Suras has God either imploring or commanding man to do this and that as man has free will.

From a Muslim perspective, Adam and Eve made a mistake, asked God for forgiveness, was forgiven and hence no Original Sin for Muslims to bear. Nor did anyone has to die for all our sins. We are all born sinless, and what we do in life, to sin or not to sin, is up to us. And we will be held accountable for them on Judgement Day.

No wonder Sajeed stop reading. We are all coming from different religious beliefs and traditions and measuring, judging one another against the parameters of our own beliefs. We are not making sense to one another :)

I would encourage that.

Use the word cookie instead of the word strategy. Just don't use the word strategy to describe something that is nothing anything like a strategy. The particular behaviors, features, and qualitative attributes that are associated success in natural selection have more in common with the PowerBall lottery drawing than with anything near what a strategy is.

Words have meaning.

Ralph,

We are talking semantics here. You could call it any word you wanted to, as long as you define it. Don't get hung up on a particular word and what you think it means. I could use the word cookie for strategy, but I would have to define it up front. An evolutionary cookie (i.e. strategy) is defined as such and such. Don't get hung up words. In certain disciplines words are used in ways not general to the common vernacular.

Your example of foraging strategy does not require intent by the bug on what would be the best strategy (e.g. random search, search in certain habitats based on physical cues, if/then strategies).

Thanks for that impromtu science lesson, Maurie. I know your young students must find science to be exciting and interesting. I'm not satisfied with your responses, but you can't please eveyone.

I must say that I differ with the entire evolutoinary science community on the use of the word "strategy," and I also differ with Merriam Webster on its definition. Strategy always implies conscious intent. In fact, strategy is opposite of randomness and instict, while evolutionary strategy has nothing to do with the other definitions of strategy, which include methodical, conscious, intent.

I would not be so steadfast in my opposition to the use of the word "strategy" were it not for the fact that Merriam Webster's example for evolutionary strategy is flawed. They list as an example the phrase "foraging strategies of insects." That term is closer to the more common meaning of strategy and unlike random features that succeed through natural selection. If Webster's is confused about the meaning, then you can be assured a lot of other people are too.

A foraging strategy, which is the way a bug searches for food, is not the same thing as an important feature or behavior that causes to evolutionary success in a static environment. Some types of instictive foraging behaviors of insects could be evolutionary strategies, based on the MW defition. But not all foraging strategies of insects are successful, and therefore cannot be evolutionary strategies.

Here's the link to the Merriam Webster site if you'ld like to read all the definitions and examples.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/strategy

Is sex good or bad that is indeed a major issue between a lovely Christian married couple: George and Laura Bush. In fact the arguments are so heated up that they are heading for a divorce. The issue is that George likes Condi and then some. Question: who is at fault here? What is life all about? Some countries or religions allow more than one wife. What should the rules be here in Christian USA?

I've been studying Wendy Doniger since I was an undergraduate and welcome an opportunity to comment on her writing.

On the celibacy issue readers might find the following of interest:

"As far back as 1972 The US Catholic bishops conducted a Freudian study and concluded that many priests are emotionally arrested at a young adult stage of development. This and other studies have been hastily upheld as alleged proof that arrested emotional development results from celibacy, the lack of women among the ranks or some combination of these and other factors, such as repressed or clandestine homosexuality. As to the validity of this study, Patrick Guinan, M.D. says 'Freudian theory is incapable of acknowledging religious experience or integrating the concept of chastity or asceticism into its idea of healthy human development.' Likewise Elizabeth Abbott argues that celibacy can be a healthy choice and cultural attitudes are quickly changing in this area, especially with the drastic and sometimes deadly increase in sexually transmitted diseases (STD's)."

Source: Michael Clark, "The Dislike of Catholicism: Understanding the Holy in the Catholic Tradition."
http://ca.geocities.com/earthpages1@rogers.com/doc.htm

So nature can't design but it can select. We live in a universe that can be deciphered by reason but which is not reasonable. We give explanations for why things happen only to discover that they happen for no reason at all.
All hail the bringers of the new "word". Let's gather at the feet of scientists who alone can make sense of the world, our new high priests. They will lead us from the darkness of freedom to the light of slavery. And we will succumb yet again.

Mohammed and child-molesting:

The ancient Hebrews held that a girl was marriagable at the age of three years and one day. This was common in the Middle East.

Complications in teenage pregnancy:

"The death rate from complications of pregnancy, birth, and delivery is 60 percent higher for women who become pregnant before they are fifteen, while the rate for fifteen- to nineteen-year-olds is 13 perecent greater than for mothers in their early twenties.... Mothers fifteen to nineteen are twice as likely to die from hemorrhage and miscarriage and 1.5 times more likely to die from toxemia. Toxemia has been cited as a 'special hazard' of pregnancy among the very young because of lack of development of the endocrine system, emotional stress of such early pregnancy, poor diet, and inadequate prenatal care."

These are Planned Parenthood statistics, but from the 1970's. I don't know what current information is.

Cody McCall:

"Religion is pointless."

This is an easy mistake for a nonbeliever to make. I happen to be a nonbeliever myself, and thought the same way.

I finally, in the last couple of weeks, got some idea what religion can mean to people when I came across the poetry of Hafiz, a 14th-century Persian and a Sufi master. Read Hafiz and understand what the religious mean when they speak of love and joy.

It won't convert you, or anything, but it will give you a peep into another world.

Ralph,

"Words like "want" and "strategy" seem to imply consciousness on the part of the wanter and strategizer."

You bring up points that my beginning students have trouble with too. Many people think for evolution to occur, there must be conscious intent, or how would organisms know what to evolve too. It does not work that way at all. For example, wolves generally have thick fur, especially populations in higher latitudes than more temperate latitudes. Let's say we have a population of wolves in Alaska. The weather changes and the yearly climate gets hotter or colder. We will say colder. Colder climate favors longer fur in the wolves. The wolves don't know this and don't have to know this. Fortunately, not all wolves are identitical in terms of fur length. There is natural variation between different animals, because their parents also had different fur lengths and fur length is heritable. Before the climate changed and got colder, the average fur length was 20 cm (about 8 inches) long (these are arbitrary numbers on my part). Most of the population of wolves had fur length between 15 and 25 cm, with a peak (average) at 20 cm. If the climate got colder, having longer fur would be beneficial. Wolves with longer fur would stay warmer, survive better, and be able to use energy for reproduction instead of just staying warm. All this would give wolves with long coats a fitness (survival and reproduction) advantage. Although most of the wolves in the population started out with coats around 20 cm, there were some wolves that had substantially shorter coats (let's say 10 cm) and some with substantially longer coats (let's say 30 cm). So there was a continuum of coat length, but as I said, most were bunched near the average. The ones with short coats were not doing to well to begin with and as the climate got colder, they left fewer and fewer offspring. To a less extent, the wolves that had average coat lengths also suffered fitness costs and left fewer offspring too. However, the few wolves that had longer coats (> 30 cm), had higher fitness. They were surviving better and reproducing more successfully. Over time, what would you expect to happen? Wolves with long fur would eventually dominate the population. What would the average fur length be? Closer to 30 cm, even though before a 30 cm wolf would have been too hot. Now most wolves in later populations would have fur close to 30 cm. Then let's say, the climate got warmer again. What would happen? The frequency of wolves with shorter coat lengths would increase and the average would again decrease. Wolves don't have to think that they need shorter coats or longer coats to survive and reproduce. The ones that have an optimal coat length for the climate are the ones that dominate subsequent generations. In the same way, human males do not have to think about becoming more attractive to females, only that the ones that are more attractive leave more offspring. In the same way, if there is variation in mate guarding behavior, and successful mate guarding at that, then those males with more successful mate guarding behavior than other males (who aren't so jealous) will leave more offspring. However, is society changes in terms of what is considered acceptable behavior, then those who are less intense mate guarders may become more successful. For example, in the cave man days a large, bad-ass male (#1) could fight off other males who might try to take his woman (or women). If another male (#2) comes along and tries to take his wife, male (#1) fights (#2) off and kills him. This is acceptable behavior, not because people might approve of it, but because, larger, more aggressive males have the advantage and who is going to stop them. Obviously, a really successful man might go and kill other males and take their wives and possessions for his own. Who will have higher fitness? The harem male. All males in the population may want more wives, but the biggest, baddest, most aggressive male has more wives. He also doesn't care what the wives think. Females of this era end up with these larger males, and over time develop a preference for large, bad-ass males. They don't have to know why they prefer large, bad-ass males, only that they do. It turns out being with a large, bad-ass male is safer than being with a wimp. Wimps get killed and their wives get raped. Therefore, women with a preference for bad assed males have higher fitness; they live longer and have more offspring, even if their husbands occasionally beat them. They are also more attracted to and turned on by aggressive, bad-assed males. None of this behavior for either men or women has to be conscious, and it generally is not conscious. Men want to have sex with many pretty women and women want big, aggressive men. If the women weren't getting beaten up for looking at other big brutes, they too would probably want to have sex with many men as well. They don't even have to know that sex has anything to do with offspring. All the men know is that they like having sex with women and the more women they have, the more enjoyable sex they can have. The women don't have much power, but with large, bad-ass men, they live longer lives. Later, a change occurs and men killing other men over women is no longer considered acceptable behavior. In fact, if a man kills another man in a jealous rage, he either goes to jail or he is killed himself. Either way, big, bad-assed males who can't control their jealousy and aggressive behavior, have lower fitness. They don't live as long and women (who now have more control over their own lives) don't want to be with such brutes. In this new environment, who has higher fitness? Would the average male be more or less aggressive? Would the average male show more or less mate guarding behavior? Behavior is just like coat length in wolves. Populations are made up of individuals who vary in some trait (fur length, aggressiveness). Depending on the environment (hot or cold, more violent or less violent), certain trait attributes are more adaptive than others. If the trait you have is better adapted for the current environment, then you will likely have higher fitness than someone with a variation of the trait that is less optimal. This is why we now live in a country of wimps with big brains like myself.

"I'm just reading your words from earlier posts, which are not the words you say you are repeating. But deception is a natural phenomenon, a natural thing, like the camoflage of a salamander and inticing scent of a venus fly trap."

That is absolutely correct. Neither the salamander or the venus fly-trap has to KNOW the trait helps it survive and reproduce. In the salamanders case, individuals with better camouflage have higher fitness and their offspring with better camouflage dominate subsequent generations. However, if the visual background changes, then salamanders with patterns that better fit the new background leave more offspring and later populations have a higher frequency of the new pattern. Venus flytraps are the same way. There is variation in scent. If the insect community changes and the a different species is more common, then fly traps in later generations will have evolved scents that are more attractive to the new, more common insects. Fly traps cannot decide to change (evolve), since they don't have brains or minds.

"Here are my questions that continue to go unanswered:"

"How could a man protect what you call his "property" to assure his own parentage when he does not understand the link between sex and pregnancy?"

I answered this above. He doesn't have to know anything about sex leading to offspring. All he has to know is that he better protect his wife (property) from other aggressive men or they will beat him up and he won’t have sex anymore and, if he has any self awareness, he might end up like poor Mikey, the village drunkard, who used to be known as Big, bad-ass Mike, before Bluto came along and stole Olive Oil.

"How could a woman want someone to raise a child that is not his own biological offspring when she did not understand the link between sex and pregnancy?"

See above. Again, the woman (let's call her Salome) does not have to know. It turns out that Salome is turned on more by Don Juan than Joe, her husband, because Don Juan has higher testosterone than Joe, is more aggressive and indulges in riskier behavior. In other words he is the classic bad boy. She can't keep her eyes off of Don Juan; he is just soooo sexy. Of course, after Don Juan is through with her, he pays her no mind and is off to new conquests. Joe is still at home in wimpdome and she comes back to him and sleeps with him. She is pregnant. How would either know who the child's real father is? Of course, maybe Don Juan had blond hair and was very aggressive, while Joe is a meek little fella, but a very faithful provider. If the child looks much more like Don Juan, there might be some comments behind the scenes about the milkman, but that is about it. Regardless, Salome has meek Joe who is a good provider raise Don Juan’s child, who inherits Don Juan’s bad boy traits and spreads his seed far and wide with many resulting offspring (higher fitness). Salome doesn’t know why she thought Don Juan was sexy, just that he was. In this case, both Salome and Don Juan have higher fitness, while Joe has no fitness at all. Of course, he might get lucky.

"At what point in human evolutionary develoment did early humans become aware of the link between sex and pregnancy?"

I don't know and probably no one knows for sure. For all I know, chimpanzees might make the connection. Unfortunately, we can't ask them.

"I did look up the Merriam Webster definition of "strategy" and was astounded to learn that a definition used there includes evolutionary strategy. Unfortunately, the example used by the dictionary "insect foraging strategies" also could imply conscious intent. All other definitions include conscious intent."

Evolutionary strategies are never defined to imply intent. If someone used intent when discussing evolutionary strategies, he/she would be laughed at. This is not to imply that evolutionary biologists are mean and arrogant, just that the writer is obviously naive. Obviously with my students, I don't laugh at them when they imply intent. However, I ask them questions that lead them to realize intent is not required. As such, evolutionary biologists do not define strategy with intent. If we want to imply intent, then we state so explicitly. In other words, it is a matter of semantics.

A common misunderstanding surrounds the word theory. In the popular usage, ‘People often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts, in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state, "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."’ (Wikipedia)

Evolution by natural selection is "unconscious intent" and not conscious. The Venus fly trap evolved, survived by eating flies. The ones that did not accidently eat flies didn't survive while the ones that did survived to REPRODUCE, make more fly eaters before they died of natural causes. Of the survivors of that step all did not continue the "life chain." The one(s) that made an inticing scent to attract flies survived to REPRODUCE more fly eaters that gave off a fly inticing scent. The ones that did not failed to survive, went extinct.

Is specie homo sapien immune from the need to evolve?

There is a survival strategy, "strength in numbers." The specie produces so many offspring that "some" will survive. There are many examples, sea turtles, fish and insects as well as others. Humans under the influence of religion appear to be employing that strategy, make babies in such huge numbers some will survive. Then there is the possibility the strategy is intended for the survival of the religion, ignoring the survival of man.

In recent history the question of not just survival but "quality of life" was posed to a deaf audience. Is man, the animal with the brain capable of addressing that issue? Maybe all men don't qualify as animals with brains? Holy men who employ the strength in numbers strategy with the survival of religion as their goal?

Economys hate sudden, abrupt changes. One is about to take place when the "boomers" all head for the social security office at the same time. Will the survivors employ strength in numbers or natural selection? Is there another option?

Words like "want" and "strategy" seem to imply consciousness on the part of the wanter and strategizer.

I'm just reading your words from earlier posts, which are not the words you say you are repeating. But deception is a natural phenomenon, a natural thing, like the camoflage of a salamander and inticing scent of a venus fly trap.

Here are my questions that continue to go unanswered:

How could a man protect what you call his "property" to assure his own parentage when he does not understand the link between sex and pregnancy?

How could a woman want someone to raise a child that is not his own biological offspring when she did not understand the link between sex and pregnancy?

At what point in human evolutionary develoment did early humans become aware of the link between sex and pregnancy?

I did look up the Merriam Webster definition of "strategy" and was astounded to learn that a definition used there includes evolutionary strategy. Unfortunately, the example used by the dictionary "insect foraging strategies" also could imply conscious intent. All other definitions include conscious intent.

Ralph,

I keep telling you, males and females are not conscious of what they are doing. Male cues are attracting females. Those cues might be body size, smell, intelligence, etc. Those cues are associated with traits that are correlated with fitness, in both the male and the offspring. In terms of male mate guarding, the male does not have to be aware that he is protecting his paternity, just that he doesn't want his woman fooling around with another man. It really has nothing to do with conscious decisions. It is the same thing with early humans as it is nowadays. If my girlfriend finds me cheating on her, She is likely to get enraged, regardless of whether she want kids or not, and vice versa.

"The male wants to assure his paternity, whereas the female may want a non-philandering father (sticks close to home and provides lots of resources)to raise the offspring of the true biological father (a roguish devil) who sows his seed widely and is more likely to produce many roguish, sexy sons (increases his and her fitness), though is an unreliable father."

How did early humans employ these conscious strategies without understanding that sex causes pregnancy?

Anonymous,

I know you signed off, but I just realized something. Ted Haggerty, the disgraced Colorado preacher, is probably the reincarnation of Lot. Too bad Lot didn't have methamphetimine to help him out.

Sajeed Hussain

So everything is ok as long as Allah acts through you?! Its ok for the prophet to mollest little girls because Allah was acting through him. Allah must be one twisted dude. No wonder you guys treat your women like crap.

Shantanu.

Bye everyone - it's been fun. Have a good weekend.

Are we off topic? How long ago did Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty stop reading all this? What ever happened to "Sajeed Hussain"? And what about "Pixiegirl"? Will "Va View" get the Flying Spaghetti Monster's tomato sauce out of his eyes in time to see the light? How did I get here? This is not my beautiful house!

Maurie Beck:

I think you'd better write this all down and put it into a book. You'd make millions! "The Gospel According To Maurie":

"Thus sayeth the Lord: ... Obviously the guy hadeth a drinking problem and when she complainedeth outside of town about having to leave the cosy village of Sodom, Lot probably clobbered her with a big rock of salt crystal and then saideth god did it. Most likely, his wife likedeth sodom because all the men were into having gay thekth and basically left her alone. Obviously, her husband lefteth her alone too, cause she was an old hag ... and he hadeth kind of a lithp anyway and we know what THAT meanth."

The word of the lawrd. Amen."

I'm laughing again.

Anonymous

No problem. Glad you liked the story. What I always wanted to know was how Lot knew that his wife got turned into a pillar of salt, if she was following behind him like any good dutiful wife. The only way he would have known is if he had turned around too.

Obviously the guy had a drinking problem and when she complained outside of town about having to leave the cosy village of Sodom, Lot probably clobbered her with a big rock of salt crystal and then said god did it. Most likely, his wife liked sodom because all the men were into having gay sex and basically left her alone. Obviously, her husband left her alone too, cause she was an old hag.

PS. Tell your wife I apologize and I don't don't consider all wives old hags.

um - sorry maurie for the typo ...

Marie Beck: "... not like their mother, that old hag ...." I am laughing out loud at this. Wait till I tell my wife. Ha ha ha ha ha.

Re: "They may be able to reproduce before 15 years old, but children have a greater likelihood of complications" - is this true? I'm aware of the greater likelihood of birth defects when the mother is older, but don't recall hearing about complications in births to younger women. Complications for whom - the baby or the mother?

As for hungry felines, I suspect that there was some relation between the two. It's GRRRRRRRREAT!

As for it being warped to wait until eduction and job are in place before reproducing, that's EXACTLY what my wife and I did ("wait" - and we're of course going to go to "hell as we know it" on account of THAT mortal sin), and EXACTLY what I tell my kids ("I'll see you in hell" - who said that?).

Grrrrrrr.

Anonymous:

Either Sajeed Hussain bailed out on us, or he's afraid to try to justify his statements.

I'd like to see Muhammed justify his actions to a judge about being a pedophile and having concubine slaves. In the same vein I'd like to see Lot justify his impregnation of his daughters in that cave.

Lot. "But your honor, they got me drunk and took advantage of me."

Judge. "How old are your daughters, sir?"

Lot. "Well, you know how young teenagers are, they are wanton and can't be controlled. Besides, they are pretty girls, don't you think, and not like their mother, that old hag. Perhaps if you spent some time with them, they might change your mind?"

The judge furrows his brow, thinks a moment, then says, "I'll take it under advisement. Send the young girls into my chambers, so that I may more thoroughly know their intentions."

"Why did God create humans so that they are at the peak of their fertility when they are teens"

Because having sex and babies in your teens is a good thing. Your young, healthy, energetic, and have grandparents around to help out. It's our warped society that says we have to finish extended education and get a job before having children.

Mark,

"I agree with you scientific conclusions. Religion and science can co-exist and the describe different evolutions: that of the physical body and phsyical mind (science) and that of the spirit and consciousness (religion)."

I respectfully disagree. A physical basis for mind and consciousness has been well established. I don't have time to point you in the right direction, but I suggest you use google to do a little exploring.

"Carl Jung, an exceedingly important psychologist, believed in the supra-natural aspects of the mind and the soul."

Carl Jung was addled, as was Freud, though both advanced their field by being very mistaken. However, Jung appears to have been correct about universal archetypes. Unfortunately, what he attributed to metaphysical or supernatural causes has been countered with evidence that some of those symbols appear to be coded in our genes from our evolutionary history. For example, fear of snakes and snakes as a symbolic archetype have been established to have a biological basis, not just in humans, but in other primates as well.

"The problem with most religious pastors, espicially christian sects, fail to see the old testament as an allegory, a tale using symbolism, and was never meant to be read literally. That is why you are suppose to meditate on the old testament to get the deeper significance from the story."

I still don't know how you make Deuteronomy 13 turn out right, even if it is an allegory. Of course, it's better that someone takes it as an allegory than applies it literally, or I'd be a goner.

"If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,” unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God. . . .(Deuteronomy 13:7–11).

"Science has little information of consciousness."

You haven't been reading the literature. Google.

"In science, you are taught not to believe something is true (hypothesis), until you prove that all counter arguements are not true (null hypothesis). Spirituality does not work that way. You must first believe in it and then work at proving it is true, unless you prove otherwise."

That's why science is evidence based and what you call spirituality is open to extreme bias; it's easy to only find evidence that supports your prior belief. Scientists, on the other hand, take their favorite (and nonfavorite) hypotheses and try to blow them up. The ones left standing have the most support.

How about a reference on

tumescent Jesus which Leo Steinberg

Why did God make teenagers so fertile? Because, there was a greater than 50/50 chance that they would be eaten by a lion (or something else) before the age of 20.

The biology dictated when the can reproduce. Does not mean they are mentally developed enough to be a mother. They may be able to reproduce before 15 years old, but children have a greater likelyhood of complications. Therefore, many cultures waited until the risk of childbirth and decreased sufficiently.

To respond and add to Robert B's above corrections of Doniger, Henry VIII was motivated in part by the desire for a male heir, although it was clear that he was also not terribly interested in Catherine of Aragon and was impassioned for Anne Boleyn. Catherine had been the arranged bride of Henry's older brother, Arthur, who died young, and in order to maintain the alliance with Spain, Henry inherited her. Yes, he wanted a male heir, but he also was pulled by attraction.

More importantly, contrary to common misconceptions, the break from Rome wasn't actually a vote for Protestantism. Protestantism had spread through northern Europe, and Henry VIII had been awarded the title "Defender of the Faith" by Rome for his attacks against Luther. In England, Henry persecuted Protestants aggressively and continued to do so after he split from Rome.

The break from Rome was about the power to invalidate a marriage and allow a new one. Henry's plan was to have the English church remain the same in everything except in allegiance to the Pope. Although this persecution faded in his later years as Protestantism became more accepted, in no small part because of the sympathies for Protestantism apparent in his last wife, Catherine Parr, Henry was theologically a Catholic. England really didn't move toward serious reformations until young Edward ascended the throne, and since Edward's reign was so short and was followed by the Catholic Mary, in practice, those reforms had to be reestablished in Elizabeth's reign. England remained more Catholic than Protestant well into the latter half of the 16th century.

All of this is to say, Doniger's treatment of this topic is extremely superficial and slipshod, mired in generalities and misunderstandings of culture and history. Her main point isn't entirely clear, and she wants to support it by appealing to various cultures and historical events, but all of these are treated in such sloppy generalities that the article ends up saying very little at all.

Either Sajeed Hussain bailed out on us, or he's afraid to try to justify his statements.

VA View:

If "Maybe God made humans more fertile at an earlier age to insure they would be able to do some creating at least adequately later", then your Book doesn't answer the question "Why did God create humans so that they are at the peak of their fertility when they are teens". If your Book can't answer this question, maybe there are some other questions it also can't answer. Actually, we already know that to be true. We therefore need scientists and reason, after all, because your Book can't answer all the questions we have, which God must have wanted us to ask, because he gave us that darned intellect that keeps coming up with questions.

VA,

Yes, animals do have souls with a limited individual consciousness. All living creatures have souls what other cause animates the body and mind of an animal. Their consciousness is rudimentary, they are aware of physical desires (hunger, thirst, heat, cold, survival) and are aware when they are in pain and danger. Otherwise, their consciousness is a supra-natural consciousness, group consciousness, or for the scientist, instinct.

Human are also guided by different groups of supra-natural consciousness. The reason I say groups is that we have the universal consciousness (hebrew is adam consciousness, book of man, or Akashic files in hinduism/buddhism). Than you have man-generated group consciousness. Religion is one type often described as the communion of the "church." You also have nationalism, race, interest, and many other communal consciousness. In social studies, it is often call group think. It is where the ideas and beliefs of a group or community color you perception of events. For example, there is a communal belief in the US that Iran is bad, so any information on Iran will be evaluated on this basis. Another example, Nazi Germany created a charged atmosphere of anti-semeticism that many germans after the war did not understand why they went along with the mistreatment of the jews.

How can a scientific instrument measure the group-think of evangicals, nazis, a football team?

I didn't say I know everything in the Bible, Anonymous. Just that if you have a question that isn't readily answered by most religious leaders, you CAN and WILL find the answer to it in the Bible, if you LOOK FOR IT. There are some things I haven't asked..didn't matter to me. Evidently you are dissing something you haven't researched! Don't knock it until you try it!

In Hinduism, sex (and more generally, desire) is one of the four sanctioned/prescribed goals in one's life. The four goals - dharma, artha (material pursuit), kaama (desire) and moksha (enlightenment), it is said should be directed toward the ultimate goal - moksha. The moral of the story being, "Do good, make money, get laid" - but don't forget what to aspire for next, moksha. After all, it was a sage who wrote the kamasutra!

Edem: It is perfectly clear in the Bible what God's intents are. No meeting necessary!!! Anyone with an even half-way relationship with God can tell you that God steers, influences, blesses, teaches all of us at all levels if we just ask for the interference.Read the Bible...it's all there!!!!!

Wendy is a moron.

Re: Va View: "I don't claim to have all of God's answers" -

Ah, but Va View, you do claim that your Book does have all the answers.

Scientists certainly have a better shot at figuring out how God put together His creation than anybody else does, particularly those who spurn the intellect God gave them in favor of wishful thinking that the Flying Spaghetti Monster will drip some tomato sauce onto our heads that can be interpreted as holy writ.

Talking about God and what he/she intended. Who have ever met him/her and entrusted with his/her plans?

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain", hence:

(1) "The bipolar nature is a universal law of life designed by God himself";

(2) "Prophet Muhammad(Peace Be Upon His Soul)was not responsible for his actions because Allah acted through him";

(3) "Lot went into a cave with his daughters and emerged later with a family";

All just so much avoidance of responsibility in the name of some great Flying Spaghetti Monster, uh ... I mean "God".

Hussien,

Muhammed sex with children is wrong. The physical body may be ready to reproduce, much like an animal can, but mentally the child is not yet mature and not responsible for an commitments made. Many psychological studies have shown that the child's consciousness is not mature until at least the late teens to early twenties. In christianity, Hinduistic, and buddhistic religions, a child cannot be liable for its decisions and does not create karma because of its lack of conscious development. A child cannot make a sound, balanced, and adult decision like marriage, especially at six years old. To force kids to have sex and marriage at an early age hinders their spiritual and conscious development for the rest of their lives. This is a grave sin to another soul and to Allah himself.

Allah did not act through Muhammed, it was an archangel Gabrielle (Gavriel). I would like to point out another archangel, Samael, the most beautiful, glorious, and one of the strongest archangels of them all. Also, one of the most decietful. His other name is the Devil. Samael will pass himself as any angel, and being as beautiful as he is, appear as something good. He is also very wise and speaks the truth, often with bad intentions.

Also, the nature of Gabrielle is questionable. Gabrielle did kill women, men, and CHILDREN of Sodom and Gamorrah. Its one thing of killing the guilty, its another killing the innocent.

and anonymous: I don't claim to have all of God's answers. That is the main difference between scientists and religion: the scientists can't figure out what God already knows! So, the scientists 'diss' God out of their own pride. Maybe God made humans more fertile at an earlier age to insure they would be able to do some creating at least adequately later! Besides, society is making the age rules. Not God. Again...read your Bible!

Blah blah blah ... yadda yadda yadda ... bloviation without meditation ...

Sex and religion may be joined at the hip, but it's always been about power and control. Gluttony can be a "happy sin" too but nobody cares. Controlling procreation is real power and maybe the only real immortality so priest who want real power go for the good stuff. I think if religions didn't attempt to control procreation in their flock they wouldn't perceive that they had any real power.

Mr. Beck,

I agree with you scientific conclusions. Religion and science can co-exist and the describe different evolutions: that of the physical body and phsyical mind (science) and that of the spirit and consciousness (religion). Very little studies and understand is derived of the consciousness by science. If you look at psychology, you will find contrasting theories of the evolution of the consciousness and the existance of a spirit. Carl Jung, an exceedingly important psychologist, believed in the supra-natural aspects of the mind and the soul. However, science depends on physical instruments to study physical processes. How can it study the non-physical?

The problem with most religious pastors, espicially christian sects, fail to see the old testament as an allegory, a tale using symbolism, and was never meant to be read literally. That is why you are suppose to meditate on the old testament to get the deeper significance from the story.

The tale of adam and eve describes the development of duality, in science you would call it polar natures of beings, the development of male and female, heaven and earth. It also describes the development and realization of consciousness, the resulting ego that forms because of consciousness, and the necessary separation from God because of the disharmony created by the conscious understanding of oneself as an individual (separate from God and others).

Science has little information of consciousness. We understand that a dog and a wild-dog are genetically identical. However, a well care-for dog will make conscious decisions contrary to its nature and its health that a wild dog would never do.

In science, you are taught not to believe something is true (hypothesis), until you prove that all counter arguements are not true (null hypothesis). Spirituality does not work that way. You must first believe in it and then work at proving it is true, unless you prove otherwise.

well, for those of us around here that aren't Christian.....I don't particularly care what the Bible says regarding sex.

VA View: Sorry; that was me - I prematurely "threw out" my question, before typing name, etc.

VA View: Why did God create humans so that they are at the peak of their fertility when they are teens?

OK...the difference between humans and animals is their soul, which is of God. (Unless you want to argue that animals have souls as well.) Sex, via hormones in the human body created by God, is a gift from God to assure man's continunity. Marriage is man's way of promising to God a pairing that will, among other things, procreate and bring up children (notice, with souls) in a Godly environment. So, when the Bible 'preaches' to abstain until marriage, ummm....just what do you think that's all about?
Granted, today's society thinks it's 'free for all' anymore as far as sex goes, but that doesn't change the simple facts that I have reminded you all of. Sex and God aren't 'joined at the hip' God created sex to insure he'd have company! Read your Bibles, folks! And, no, this doeasn't take a rocket scientist to figure out!Or a professor, or sex specialist!

"Love is an angel, disguised as lust"

The bipolar nature is a universal law of life designed by God himself. He created heaven and earth. Heaven and Hell. Man and Woman. Good and Bad. Abel and Cain. Life and death.

Sex can have a bipolar nature too. Lust is a negative aspect. Love and communion is a positive aspect. Sex between two people in love can be a spiritual experience of a communion of two souls. On a higher plane, communion of your soul with God. Lust is a fulfillment of an animal desire with little spiritual contact and no love is necessary. It is the hightened selfish experience each experiencing separately, not as a pair. Postive results follow a positive sexual experience. Negative and dangerous results can follow a relationship based on lust and greed.

Sexual represion can lead to very negative results and can lead to mental and psychological disorders. Sex is a means of releasing energy and positively focused release can bring positive results. Repressing ones leads can cause one to take a radical, fundamentalist view point of sex and gender. It can also lead to compulsive behaviors and thoughts. As both animals and spiritual beings, we must learn to transform the animalistic urges to spiritually productive outlets for our energy. The best way is through love and making love.

With Wendy, everything is sex.

Cross? Penis.
Minora? Penises, dummy!
Crescent with the star? Penis entering a vagina.
Buddha's bald head? Penis head.
Sikh's sword? Penis of course!

And we wonder why the rest of the world thinks that we Americans are sex-crazed.

Cody:

I am praying with you.

Sajeed Hussain:

I respect your courage and integrity in posting under your name.

[let's hear it for me too on this score! Yeah Mark!]

You haven't answered my queries, though, or those of Pixiegirl.

[did you go back to work and stop fooling around, unlike some of us?]

You are certainly entitled to your opinions and beliefs, as am I to mine. Most likely, you and I will have to agree to disagree, and this will work, so long as neither of us tries to force the other to comply his opinions and beliefs.

But I'd like to hear from you.

Sex is a passion and all religions deal with the problems of human passion from murder to sex.

To Sajeed Hussain:

It's amazing that you could defend the taking of girls as young as six as being condoned by "Allah." True, a girl's first period may indicate that she is physically able to reproduce--and that explanation would suffice in most of the animal kingdom. However, human beings are uniquely complex in that they comprise physical, mental, and emptional compoments, which do not all mature at the same rate. So the fact that a child is physically ripe does not mean that the child herself is able to cope with the myriad ramifications of engaging in such an intimate activity with a man many years her senior. In fact, it is sickening to think that a grown man could view a child sexually. Unfortunately, there are many cultures which nurture this mentality, and many predators who act on such urges. But there isn't a civil court in this world that would take "Allah guided me" as a reason/excuse for such atrocious behavior. I have known many Muslims who have admitted that "the prophet" made mistakes. He was a man--no more, and therefore, not infallible.
Who are you to say that these young girls are "happily" married? They may have accepted their lot in life, but it would be an even greater disservice to their dignity to assume they are "happy".

Ralph,

"Strategy implies conscious action."

Strategy implies conscious action to you, not to evolutionary biologists. Natural selection is a recursive iterative algorithm that allows nonrandom strategies to evolve.

Ben: You were right: sex IS exciting and then some.

Pixiegirl: You're hot - I'm falling in love with your mind!

[jk]

I always thought of sex as exciting and then some. After reading all of this stuff realize now that it is complex, age related, having many ins-and-outs with religion, country you're in, and if you're a man or woman. All of that then connected with personal variances based on parents upbringing and central heating make it a pain-in-the-whatever.

Sajeed Hussain

I am surprised at many of the things you wrote. Some points for you to ponder:

1) All his child wives were happy and felt honoured to have been married to Allah's beloved Apsotle.
Even if the child wives were happy or were brainwashed to feel that way, do you seriously agree that a five year old or an eight year old should be married to a much older man, when she could be enjoying her childhood?

2) Aisha who was only six when the 52 year Muhammad honoured her with marriage.

Did Aisha achieve puberty at six? What compelled Mohammad to marry her at that age, especially after she was betrothed to his son?

3) Regarding slave girls, it is true that 15 year old Rayhana and 15 year old Maria were his slave concubines.

So it is okay for a man to have several wives and concubines?

4) Both Maria and Rayhana refused to become Muslims and therefore Muhammad could not marry them. But he did marry the 15 year old Saffiyya after she agreed to become a Muslim and thereby freed her from slavery. Muhammad always recomended that slaves be freed.

Slaves can be free only if they become Muslims? Gaining freedom only if you profess an ideology you don't believe in - is that real sort of freedom? Even if Saffiya converted to Islam, did she do it because she was transformed from within, or because she valued her freedom and was willing to do anything to gain it?

5) Maria was an "Umm Walad" a position conferred on slave girls after they get impregnated by their masters. They are treated almost like the wives of the master.

Masters could do what they wanted with any slave girl? How sad.

These things were the norm at those times, so if we dig around we will probably get dirt from all religions/cultures. The only difference is that there is no point justifying it or skirting around the fact that none of these acts would be morally acceptable today. And seriously, after 9/11 propaganda has been out calling Islam the "religion of peace" etc, but you have to analyse what you find acceptable and what you don't. Imagine if the same thing were happening to your sister/daughter in this day and age. Some peace it would be.

Sajeed Hussain

You are the one who should of remained anonymous with the stuff you are advocating. You should be ashamed.

Hmmm. I've heard more erudite statements regarding both sex and religion at numerous cocktail parties. Based on the good professor's fetid musings, I would venture that it is far more difficult to gain entrance to the University of Chicago as a student than to gain status there as a Distinguished Professor. Or, better not to blog at all than to embarrass one's self as well as a great institution of learning.

To Robert B:

You've reiterated my point. Religion takes the self out of the picture seeks to control by lumping everything into one large, naughty catagory as their basis to control people. Sex is not, nor was it ever, something that is dirty or to be ashamed of. Indeed, there are consqeuences to risky behavior and those issues are better left to parents and or other modes of neutral secular education where the message is "Not saying this or that, just letting you know."

So, Sajeed Hussain, is adult male intercourse with minor girls to be encouraged as a social good? Or is it a curiosity seen in early Islam that has no place in the world today? Or are women, as someone above sarcastically suggested, only good for reproduction?

Sajeed Hussain: Thank you for your comment. It is most illuminating. It also demonstrates that this whole mutual-understanding thing between non-Moslems and Moslems has a LONG way to go.

I'm not sure that Wendy's piece does anything more than provide a few superficial anecdotes about attitudes toward sex in different cultures (sorry Wendy). I doesn't offer much in the way of "guidance" as to "how we should live" (the most important question, after all), in that it doesn't really take a position one way or the other.

Let us all kneel down and pray that religion will go away. Please. And hurry.
Sex is fundamental to human existence. Religion is not. Sex is pivotal. Religion is pointless. Sex is innnate, quintessential, and fun. Religion is none of the above. Sex is expressive. Religion is repressive. Sex urges 'do it!' Religion warns, 'don't!' Sex implies living life to its fullest. Religion denies living much of a life at all. Sex exists to perpetuate life AND living. Religion exists to perpetuate itself. Opportunities for spontaneous spirituality in life are endless. Opportunities for spiritual experience in religion are attenuated and controlled. Sex is for everybody. Religion is primarity for the benefit of males. Some reflections from a white, middle-aged male.

Melanchthon:
hmmm... can somebody try to summarize Wendy's actual point, or argument? She presented interesting information, mostly generalities but with some good particulars related to Indian faiths, but seemed to go absolutely nowhere with it. Any help here?

go get laid

The problem of controlling, conserving, chanelling sex is undoubtedly as old as sexual reproduction as a method for continuing the species has existed.

Presumably, plants get their highest thrill in releasing their seeds.

And with us animals, after all, there are just no other parts of our anatomy which feel so good when massaged.

Limited segments of society can certainly be denied actual physical sex successfully, as in the case of Vestal Virgins or Catholic priests.

However, denying sex absolutely and universally for a whole group, has never worked successfully. See the history of the Shakers.

If any group is going to continue to exist, it has to reproduce. So sex can never be absolutely tabooed.

The trick has always been to harness sex, to channel it, to optimize it, in order to promote the maximum well-being of society (this latter being religion's purpose).

By the way, anyone who thinks that Hinduism is sexually liberal must also bear in mind that there are also very strict taboos which apply. Real Indian life isn't John Lennon and the hippies.

For example, try a little inter-caste sex in your local village and you're liable to get get your head cut off.

The Moslem woman should always be ready and submissive, but, on the other hand, adultery results in stoning.

Re the exchange between B-Man ("A male's sexual peak occurs between 14-21 years of age ...") and
Brambleton ("B-Man, You win. That has to be the dumbest comment ..."): the reality is that teenagers are humanity at the peak of fertility. Clearly most teenagers are not emotionally, financially, educationally or otherwise prepared for the responsibilities of parenthood (most of them aren't even ready to take care of themselves), and there is good reason to advocate delayed procreation where teens are concerned. But to ignore or deny that man and woman are "designed" to procreate at a young age is one of the most asinine tenets of just about every organized religion, and I'd suggest that THAT attitude is at the root (npi) of most of society's problems where sex is concerned.

Exactly, KM. And if I may be so bold as to add.... the GUILT TRIP that most so-called Christian sects put on their members. What ever happened to education and forgiveness.... the basis of Christianity?

To KM --

What you villify as a "naughty pie" is also packaged as a call for sexual self-control. To my mind, neither Puritanism nor hedonism is a good thing for mankind.

To Ralph --

Which church are you discussing in your post. After all, there are quite a few of them...

Dr. Doniger writes: "Not to mention the fact that their own branch of Christianity only existed because Henry VIII had a short sexual attention span."

The good doctor really ought to bone up on her history a bit more. While Henry VIII's sexual appetites were legendary, the chief reason behind his abandoning Catholicism was his need for a male heir, which is at least understandable given the fractious kingdom that his father had inherited. Indeed, Henry did petition the pope for an annulment of his marriage, but the pope refused to do so because (a) a previous pope had sanctioned his marriage to Catherine of Aragon; and (b) Catherine of Aragon's nephew was raising hell in Italy with his army and the pope didn't want to be strung up from a light pole.

None of this truly justifies what Henry VIII did. However, the real story is just a bit more complex than him being unable to keep it in his pants.

Test

To deny or supress sexual desires is to deny or supress one of the very things that make us human.

I think religious culture has villified sex to the point of literally alientating people from a large part of their life, generating adults with so much unresolved sexual baggage that they can barely function. Everything from pre-marital sexual relations to homosexual relationships has been wrapped into one tightly compacted "naughty pie" which has been fed to congregations regularly from pulpits world-wide. Controlling sexual outlets is an excellent way to control people, which is why sex and religion are joined at the hip.

I think these tales of the bipolar attitudes in various religions towrds sexuality prove once again that only moral cretins seek moral guidance from clerics and (I would add) from politicians.

You know it's not just religion that has one food on the brake and one on the accelerator...

Any sexual person is driven by lust (the desire for pleasure and for some its associated emotional intimacies, including the possibility of monogamy), and fearful of lust's consequences (pregnancy, the need to raise children, the possibility of being confined to monogamy, the economic consequences, the possibility of disease, broken hearts, angry relatives or spouses, etc. etc.)

Men and women may balance these risks differently, but they all face them to some degree.

Since cultures create religions, they reflect that basic human conflict that exists around the exchange of gametes... our competing desire to do it, our desire not to do it.

Technologies that alter the equation slightly like various forms of birth control hardly affect how we really feel about these issues which we are hardwired to understand, no matter what our minds tell us about, say, the value of condoms.

The article discusses the major religions. Every now and then someone comes along and claims to discover some primitive culture where people don't have conflicting feelings about sex.... imaginary islands where sex and love are free and easy. Usually (or always) these are anthropological or literary fantasies.

Sex is big, and sex is consequential for each human organism, and so any culture that has had time to formulate "positions" and "attitudes" about it is going to reflect that consequentiality.

I guess I'm saying to the author... what's your point? Why would you expect religion to do anything other than reflect the inherently conflictual set of motivations that surround sex for the human individual?

The only reason the church says sex is bad and evil is because the church gets left holding the bag for unwanted children. Before there were state orphanages, even before there were state governments, it was the churches and religious orders that cared for unwanted and abandoned children. You'ld say sex was a great evil too if you saw the grocery bill for kids whose parents didn't want to feed them.

The above AA post is mine. Sorry.

M Beck: Perhaps we can make some sense out of:

"The insatiable carnal appetites of women"

a statement from the Vatican just after the black plague time frame.

Do women have insatiable carnal appetites? Could the desimation of the population of Europe by the black plague have anything to do about that statement? How did the pope know?

Do women have "built in" population controls that religious dogmas override? Does society in general have "built in" population controls, homosexuality, other(s)?

Is sex good for anything socially other than impregnating women?

Pat,

You stated that "The onlt thing religion has to do with sex is tell you sex is bad, and evil." While that may be your opinion, it is completely and factually inaccurate. I can't speak for other religions, but the Song of Solomon in the Christian Bible is, perhaps, the greatest love story ever told. And it contains graphic expressions of sex!

Let's try and step off the soapbox and speak about things factually once in a while.

Bgone,
Just because religion wants to legislate sex, they can not. Religious leaders are no more qualified to give advice on sex than anyone else. Experience is the best teacher. Learning from someone knowledgeable is more sensible than asking your pastor about sex, whom does not engage in the activity and has no clue to the ins or outs of the matter. In order to have children, you have to have sewx with someone. Clergy do not raise families and have no clues in that arena either, but someone decided that through prayer they gained the wisdom of these things. If that is so, anyone can gain wisdom of these things on their own.

The onlt thing religion has to do with sex is tell you sex is bad, and evil. Both evil and good come from the same mind. Religious leaders have no clue how to raise a family or about sex, they have no experience in either. Common sense tells me better to get advice about family or sex from someone knowledgeable, not a religious leader.

Strategy implies conscious action.

At what point in human evolutionary development did humans become aware that sex led to pregnancy?

Gee, I posted yesterday but it didn't appear. It frustrates me that religion is veiwed as driven by the public rather than driven by ruling leadership. Sex as it relates to religon is not based on what men or women want it's based on what leadership wants. Sexuality can be used as a tool of biological production or appeal to personal satisfaction.

Dense populations do not desired more children, industry ethics are not well suited to the needs of children. People voluntarily control population and controlling institutions like religon welcomes that control because adult populations have huge financial rewards. When the waring middle age kings saw money they welcomed immigration and religious tolerance. When the same people caused famine, the same benevolent kings then percieved the invasion of relgious baby making hoards who they promptly masacred.

Societies that devote their resources to baby making are heavily influenced by parents. Societies that are dense are governed more by social control directed to adult as a commodity. Sex and personal recognition are cheap rewards compared to children. We aren't as saddened by people getting sick and dying when they aren't children.

We need to avoid putting primal need and relgion on a pedestal of irrational or abstract behavior, it's a branch of government. The change in sexuality today is a direct comment on human population and has a direct affect on children. It certainly becomes a moral, political and ethical argument when small children in kindergarten are arrested by uniformed officers for tantrums. It is an adult response in a society that is less tolerant of children.

It isn't male or female, it's all about governing the babies. People are very protective of their children. That fuels the fear their children will not be welcomed in an intolerant adult society. In many cases the fears of parents are justified, just as the fear of worldwide over-population is a concern to every governing organization.

Professor, Sex is nothing but a deed with purpose. It expresses ones mind and heart through thought, word, and DEED. Yes it is driven by passion within the heart but so are many things. Sex is no more, Sex is often less.
It is LOVE that is where we find God, not in the details of love. That is where we often find Arc Angel Lucifer. Fortunately, it is not Satan's exclusive domain, for we find angels and God's goodness in the details as well. God Bless you and yours.

Maurice Beck

Thanks for the info on male sweat and the power it has over women. Should I stop washing m under my arms?

Anonymous, you are a coward. you should post your real name.

There is no "monk-ery" in Islam. Sex is celebrated. Yes in Islam sex with female children is allowed if the girl has had her first menstrual period. That is the sign Allah has given us telling us when the female is ready. Prophet Muhammad( Peace Be Upon His Soul)was not responsible for his actions because Allah acted through him. Muslims are erquired to emulate the Prophet and in doing so we worship Allah in the highest manner. All his child wives were happy and felt honoured to have been married to Allah's beloved Apsotle.

Aisha who was only six when the 52 year Muhammad honoured her with marriage was wise way beyond her years and in fact probably the most intelligent of his wives. Today there are thousnads of young girls married very happily to much older Muslim men.

Regarding slave girls, it is true that 15 year old Rayhana and 15 year old Maria were his slave concubines. Maria even bore Muhammad his only male child Ibrahim who would have succeeded him as a Caliph had he lived. Ibrahim died as an infant. Both Maria and Rayhana refused to become Muslims and therefore Muhammad could not marry them. But he did marry the 15 year old Saffiyya after she agreed to become a Muslim and thereby freed her from slavery. Muhammad always recomended that slaves be freed.

Maria was an "Umm Walad" a position conferred on slave girls after they get impregnated by their masters. They are treated almost like the wives of the master.

The veil was required only of the Prophet's wives and only later was extended to all Muslim women. But Maria had to wear the veil before it was extended to all Muslim women because by bearing the Prophet's son Ibrahim she was almost equal to his wives in stature.

You forgot Islam, Ms Weenninger.

The pedophile prophet of Islam, Muhamamd, had a pattern of having sex with children whne he was in his 50s, he would be in jail in the US for rape. Aisha was only nine, and Saffiya, Juwariyah, Rayhana and Maria only teenagers when Muhammad forced them into his bed, some of who were widows at the hands of Muhammmad's soldiers.

Sexual abuse of children is enshrined in Islam and marriage is ot needed if the child is captive in battle.

Ralph,

You misunderstand. Consciousness is never a part of evolution and natural selection at all. Neither the male "mate guarding" nor the female choosing has anything to do with conscious choice. You might ask how females know who to choose? Many studies have shown that females of many species choose males based visual signals (plumage in birds, body size in mammals and reptiles), audio signals (birds, frogs, crickets), and pheromones (insects, humans, mammals). They don’t have to know why they choose one mate over another, only that the signal (visual, acoustic, smell) indicates some sort of quality (i.e. genetic) component of the male. They obviously don’t have to know consciously that the signal is an honest signal either.

There has been a lot of work recently showing that mate choice in both men and women are affected by pheromones, which affect hormone levels and behavior. Below is a recent study. None of this requires conscious choice.

Male Sweat Boosts Women's Hormone Levels

Science Daily — Just a few whiffs of a chemical found in male sweat is enough to raise levels of the stress hormone cortisol in heterosexual women, according to a new study by University of California, Berkeley, scientists.

The study, reported this week in The Journal of Neuroscience, provides the first direct evidence that humans, like rats, moths and butterflies, secrete a scent that affects the physiology of the opposite sex.

"This is the first time anyone has demonstrated that a change in women's hormonal levels is induced by sniffing an identified compound of male sweat," as opposed to applying a chemical to the upper lip, said study leader Claire Wyart, a post-doctoral fellow at UC Berkeley.

The team's work was inspired by previous studies by Wyart's colleague Noam Sobel, associate professor of psychology at UC Berkeley and director of the Berkeley Olfactory Research Program. He found that the chemical androstadienone - a compound found in male sweat and an additive in perfumes and colognes - changed mood, sexual arousal, physiological arousal and brain activation in women.

Yet, contrary to perfume company advertisements, there is no hard evidence that humans respond to the smell of androstadienone or any other chemical in a subliminal or instinctual way similar to the way many mammals and even insects respond to pheromones, Wyart said. Though some humans exhibit a small patch inside their nose resembling the vomeronasal organ in rats that detects pheromones, it appears to be vestigial, with no nerve connection to the brain.

"Pheromones are chemical molecules expressed by a species aimed at other members of the species to induce stereotyped behavior or hormonal changes," Wyart explained. "Many people argue that human pheromones don't exist, because humans don't exhibit stereotyped behavior. Nonetheless, this male chemical signal, androstadienone, does cause hormonal as well as physiological and psychological changes in women. More cognitive studies need to be done to understand how androstadienone affects female cognitive functions."

One implication of the finding is that there may be better ways to raise cortisol levels in patients with diseases such as Addison's disease, which is characterized by low cortisol. Instead of giving the hormone in pill form, which has side effects such as ulcers and weight gain, "a potential therapeutic mechanism whereby merely smelling synthesized or purified human chemosignals may be used to modify endocrine balance," the authors wrote.

Sweat has been the main focus of research on human pheromones, and in fact, male underarm sweat has been shown to improve women's moods and affect their secretion of luteinizing hormone, which is normally involved in stimulating ovulation. Other studies have shown that when female sweat is applied to the upper lip of other women, these women respond by shifting their menstrual cycles toward synchrony with the cycle of the woman from whom the sweat was obtained.

Androstadienone, a derivative of testosterone that is found in high concentration in male sweat, and in all other body secretions, has garnered the most attention. However, though its effect on a woman's mood, physiological arousal and brain activity suggests that the chemical is a possible pheromone-like signal in humans, its effect on hormone levels was unknown.

Wyart and Sobel set out to test whether androstadienone affects hormone levels as well, focusing on the hormone cortisol. Cortisol is secreted by the body in times of stress, priming the body for "fight or flight."

In two trials, a total of 48 undergraduate women at UC Berkeley were asked to take 20 sniffs from a bottle containing androstadienone, which smells vaguely musky. Over a period of two hours, the volunteers provided five saliva samples from which cortisol levels were determined.

Compared to their response when sniffing a control odor (yeast), the women who sniffed androstadienone reported an improved mood and significantly higher sexual arousal, while their physiological response, including blood pressure, heart rate and breathing, also increased. This was consistent with previous studies.

In addition, however, the UC Berkeley researchers found that cortisol levels rose within about 15 minutes of sniffing androstadienone, and remained elevated for more than an hour.

Wyart noted that, though this is the first time a specific component of male sweat has been shown to affect women's hormones, other constituents of male sweat likely have a similar effect. The question remains: Which comes first - the change in cortisol level, which may induce a change in mood or arousal; or a mood change that increases cortisol levels?

"We next need to look at other hormones that could explain the diversity of effects of androstadienone on sexual arousal and mood," she said.

Coauthors of the report include UC Berkeley undergraduates Sarah Wilson, Jonathan Chen and Andrew McClary; senior scientist Rehan Khan; and Dr. Wallace Webster, an otolaryngology resident at Kaiser Permanente Hospital in Oakland, Calif. The work was sponsored by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communicable Disorders of the National Institutes of Health, and by the Army Office of Research.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University of California - Berkeley.

One major error in evolutionary theory is that it assumes that early male humans and female humans were conscious of the linkage between sex and pregnancy. Read the paragraphs in the lengthy post above and ask yourself how the theories (males protecting their property and females seeking good providers) could evolve if the males and females had no knowledge that sex was linked to reproduction.

Sex is a significant factor in religion because religion often admonishes people to behave responsibly regarding reproductive issues. Religion, until recently, has been the fabric of all modern societies. And all modern societies agree that responsible adults are the most important factor in the lives of young people.

10. Apparently, I'm the only scientist on this website, so from the godless scientific viewpoint, I just have a few things to say.

The question for this thread dealt with sex, though it quickly devolved into issues of morality. Americans are certainly hung up on sex and absolutely obsessed with it. This foot-on-the-gas and foot-on-the-brake obsession is derived from a rather warped (in my view) Judeo-Christian worldview that actually has its roots in biology.

Much of it comes from the view that male animals often treat females as a limited resource (i.e. property). According to evolutionary theory, females are often the limiting resource (1 egg vs. billions of sperm), though it is far more complicated than that, often depending on mating strategies. To protect their "property", males often employ a strategy called mate guarding to assure paternity. Instead of just mate guarding during distinct periods of estrus, ovulation (estrus) in humans is largely concealed. A number of reasons have been proposed for concealed ovulation: 1) hidden ovulation forces males to protect their "property" so that other males cannot impregnate "their" loose mates (you just can't trust those innocent, pure, virginal women); 2) Females and males have divergent reproductive interests (sexual conflict theory). The male wants to assure his paternity, whereas the female may want a non-philandering father (sticks close to home and provides lots of resources) to raise the offspring of the true biological father (a roguish devil) who sows his seed widely and is more likely to produce many roguish, sexy sons (increases his and her fitness), though is an unreliable father.

It’s no wonder then that men might use religious stricture and anything else at hand to assure paternity, whereas women, far from being pure and virginal, are active sexual participants with their own fitness interests to consider (this is not a conscious decision).

I know I’m going to get howls of outrage from the fundamentalist folk on this website; save it.

One other point I’d like to make; don’t go looking to biology to justify your belief, behavior, or morality. This is called the naturalist fallacy; i.e. anything natural or found in nature is good for you or permits any sort of behavior because it is "natural". Many plants have poisonous fruit (the apple might be spiritually toxic); even though the fruit is “natural”, don’t eat it cause you'll die. Other examples include a biological rationale favoring higher aggressiveness (and therefore murder rates) in males, but we don’t condone homicide. Evolutionary theory and empirical evidence both explain and support why forced copulation (rape) is prevalent in many animal mating systems. This does not pardon such behavior and is likely to get you yahoos locked up if you try to use such reasoning to excuse rape. Similarly, for all you fundamentalist folk who don’t believe in biology, don’t go looking to the bible or any other sacred text to justify your behavior as well. Instead of the naturalist fallacy, you are succumbing to the same kind of logical disconnect (i.e. fallacy), though in this case it involves unreasonable beliefs. Aside from the biblical pronouncement that men are superior to women, the good book justifies all sorts of other extraordinary behavior: raping and killing wanton, adulteress women; slavery; killing apostates, heretics, and blasphemers; killing homosexuals; justifying incest (Lot and his daughters); stoning to death a whole host of those practicing strange offenses like planting the wrong crops together in the same field.

If anyone is actually interested in the biological basis of morality, I suggest reading a book by Marc Hauser called "Moral minds: how nature designed our universal sense of right and wrong." It's too bad the author used "design" in the title, because nature is not an entity and can't design anything. The premise of the book is that we and our ancestors evolved an innate sense of right and wrong that is subsequently influenced and adjusted by experience. You heard right; amoral evolution by natural selection favored a moral sense. It is not only present in humans, but it has been demonstrated in other animals as well (especially primates).

the last time i heard, the choice of religion was up to the individual. if they dont like what a religion teaches, they dont join. its pretty simple. and if you join a religion and want to change it to suit yor personal beliefs, you can expect people who liked it the way it was to object. so i suggest that if you cant find a religion that believes the way you want - you and your friends start your own.

B-Man,

You win. That has to be the dumbest comment ever made on these posts. Congratulations. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your post.

Priests aren't allowed to have sex??? I thought it was OK for them to molest little boys - kind of a wink and nod sort of thing like being a Catholic alcoholic. If not, why does the Catholic Church keep looking the other way as evidenced by the current actions, or lack thereof, by the Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles and Cardinal Ribera of Mexico?

A male's sexual peak occurs between 14-21 years of age. If boys of this age were able to satisfactorily to explore and experience a full range of sexual experiences during this time, our society today would not have such a huge "sexual problem" that is basically due to repression of a natural instinct.

Pat: Sex has everything to do with religion in a manner. Without religious people there is no religion. Without sex there are no people, religious or otherwise. The fact that religious people don't do sex is questionable as well. Martin Luther was at the convent doing more than praying for rain as it turned out.

Sex has nothng to do with religion. If you read the bible, it indciates Lot went into a cave with his daughters and emerged later with a family. Religion has the poorest viewpoints towards sex. Priests and Nuns are not allowed to have sex how can they be any kind of expert on sex? Common sense tells me not to listen to a religious leader regarding sex, I will ask a person experienced on sex. thank-you

Professor, you are certainly in the main stream with "some are fer it and some are again it" repeat of what others have written here. The givens are: we all come from it and it's a problem.

If sex is a problem then we are the product of the problem then just maybe we're the problem? The problem couldn't be that we're getting our information from a bogus word of God book?

I wonder why a Professor of Reproductive Sciences isn't on the panel here. They probably have a bunch of nonsensical unverified opinions without the benefit divine guidence.

Isn't the University of Chicago the place where the competative nature of human sperm was discovered and shown to be so? Is that worth anything or should it be stonewalled?

Unlike some of us professor, you have a short distance to go to find information about human sexuality that God doesn't seem know about yet. Would the ignorant one(s) be God or God's representaatives?

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sex says there's a little more to human sexuality than what God's representatives know. And. It gves us a warning. Neanderthal is a near human if not human animal that has gone extinct. The most reasonable theory yet is offered at that URL telling us why Neanderthal has become extinct. The reason is the competative nature of human sperm. Is that all that competative human sperm tells us?

hmmm... can somebody try to summarize Wendy's actual point, or argument? She presented interesting information, mostly generalities but with some good particulars related to Indian faiths, but seemed to go absolutely nowhere with it. Any help here?

For the last 30 years there has been plenty of venting about sex and you would think things would be better. Advertisers keep our sex instincts inflamed 24 hours a day. Pornographers make millions while motivating sexual predators. A person from outer space would conclude that we do nothing but think about sex and have sex. Some might be restrained if they believe that a particular sexual situation or act is sinful. Wendy tells us not to worry because even if it is a sin it is a happy sin. If your religion or conscious has you worried about some sexual act or situation, do not worry, because what you do is a happy sin. Tell this to the prostitute who has contracted AIDS.