Hacker News Reader

Comment by lordlimecat | Hacker News Reader

> the Judeo-Christian religions regard sexuality (in particular, female sexuality) as inherently evil or corrupting

I'm not sure where you read this but it's terribly wrong. There's an entire book devoted to the beauty of marital relations (Song of Songs), and Paul explicitly commands married husbands and wives to give themselves to their spouse (that is, sex).

I'm aware of at least one instance where a puritan wife in the 17th century went to the congregation with a complaint that the husband was not having sex with her. The husband was rebuked for it.

Christianity regards sex as intimate and reserved solely for marriage; beautiful within that boundary and wrong outside of it.

View on HN

The Song of Songs was adapted from Egyptian love songs. The ancient Egyptians elevated the woman and her sexuality. It is a bit out of place in the Bible, which mostly warns against the power of female sexuality (Christianity written by men and all).

Female sexuality is seen as responsible for the fall of humanity. The first wive of Adam was evil and did not listen, and Eve corrupted Adam into biting the apple. After that, female sexuality and will was something to be contained and cleaned:

> But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

> Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

> When a woman has a discharge, and the discharge in her body is blood, she shall be in her menstrual impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening. And everything on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean.

>The Song of Songs was adapted from Egyptian love songs

It's generally bad form to parade speculation as fact.

>The first wive of Adam was evil and did not listen,

The first wife of Adam according to the Bible is eve. Perhaps you're referencing some work of Jewish mysticism, which would be totally irrelevant in a discussion on the Bible and what Christian's believe.

Your post is a bit of a mess of misconceptions and misinformation. Ritual uncleanliness occurs in the OT for a huge number of things, including for male emissions, birth (both male and female), skin infections, and generally contact with blood / any bodily fluids... It's concerned with whether one has been involved in things of the world, which is improper for one wishing to approach an entirely otherworldly God.

But such context tends to be lost when is more concerned bashing religion than with understanding the text.

>Christianity regards sex as intimate and reserved solely for marriage; beautiful within that boundary and wrong outside of it.

Christianity regards all forms of sexuality except one to be sinful, and that exception only counts if consecrated by ritual. That's equivalent to considering sex to be sinful by default.

What's wrong with having rituals around things like sexuality? Rituals are part of every society, a human universal. They promote humaneness, benevolence and proper conduct. And proper sexual behavior needs these things.

We could ask women who, historically, felt compelled to stay in abusive marriages because of the Christian belief that divorce is a sin, or or any of the LGBT population ostracized, tortured or killed because they loved someone of the "wrong" gender, and who until recently couldn't even publicly marry in the US. Is that the humane, benevolent or proper conduct that marriage is meant to promote?

We're not discussing "rituals around sex" in the general case anyway, absent any historical or cultural context. We're discussing the Judeo-Christian complex, specifically the way its rituals have influenced Western cultural beliefs about sexuality, and how those rituals have encouraged the demonization of perfectly healthy and natural forms of sexual expression.

As soon as you say the word "proper" you mean "What -I- think you should do"

As soon as you start with the idea that absolute right and wrong exist, the automatic implication is that some things are wrong.

And as soon as you assume intention and purpose behind the creation of things, it is a given that some actions and uses will be deviations from those intentions.

The Bible lays out restrictions on sex because it starts with grounds above and claims that sex has a purpose higher than just the fulfillment of the individual(s) involved.

You can claim that these are just man-made restrictions for whatever ignoble purpose, but that's begging the question somewhat by dismissing the fundamental and crucial claims here without engaging them. IF the Bible is correct regarding God and creation, such restrictions are logical implications.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com