do you allow your religious beliefs to affect your sexual behaviour? Watch

Poll: do you let your religion's view on sex affect your sexual behavior?
yes i observe all the teachings including those about sex (31)
19.38%
no - i observe most of the religion but i dont agree with the sexual teachings (28)
17.5%
no - i am not religious/atheist/agnostic (87)
54.38%
yes - i let it affect my sex life in some aspects but not others eg no BDSM/threesomes (9)
5.63%
no- im gay/bi but consider myself religious (5)
3.13%
xXMessedUpXx
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#61
Report 12 years ago
#61
(Original post by shinytoy)
i dunno i mean some studies have shown that the rhythm method, if done properly can be up to 97% effective - thats as good as the Pill almost! it is a bit of a pain to keep measuring your body temperature and discharge but i think its kind of good because the period of abstinance for 7 days when the woman is bleeding and 2-4 days when she is fertile just before mean the self control can build sexual tension, and also that the man can value the woman as a person, not just to have sex. i just think it is more natural not to use anything.
though i dont know what i'd do after i had eg 7 kids or something :eek:

i guess its better to be poor but in a big happy family than unhappy in a small wealthy one
And other thing, most doctors, and fmaily palnning agencies DO NOT approve of the rhythm method. It has a far higher failure rate than any other contraceptive (bar using none at all)

But hey if thats all you're allowed to do, i guess its the only option you have. But then if your married will it matter anyway? I mean if you're only having sex within marraige then its only for pro-creation?
0
reply
Pandy
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#62
Report 12 years ago
#62
(Original post by xXMessedUpXx)
Well in that case i'm the latter, as i don't believe in god. Its not just that i'm not religious (tho surely if you believe in god you'd consider yourself to be religious?)
Well, yes and no I suppose. I mean, I believe in God, but I don't go to church anymore through laziness, I don't follow guidelines and stuff like fasting and I don't believe in what the church teaches on sex either. To be honest, I don't really let it influence the decisions I make either. Things are right and wrong because that's how I decide, not because God or the church says so.
0
reply
El Scotto
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#63
Report 12 years ago
#63
(Original post by Scarlett_Jewel)
I'm more interested in the actual 'performance' part of the question. Once, for example, a Catholic girl loses her virginity, inside of a loving and harmonious marriage, is she likely to then be equally as sexually adventurous as her non-catholic counterpart? Is it then ok for her to become fascinated with porn and orgies etc...

...or is it a whole different outlook on sex: as sex for procreation as opposed to some other hedonistic pursuit?

depends on how well her husband shows her whats what after the wedding surely?
0
reply
minimo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#64
Report 12 years ago
#64
What I wonder is how many Catholics out there (within marriage) actually stick to stuff like the rhythm method...I mean come on...you're married for heaven's sake but can only have sex to have children. So say you only want 1 child - there's not going to be much fun in your married life, I don't think.
Most, I bet, use the Pill.
0
reply
pendragon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#65
Report 12 years ago
#65
(Original post by shinytoy)
i dunno, i dont think He would. cos the Christian people who are devout and do good works like volunteers in 3rd world countries and saints lived like He did, and they are supposed be living proof that He is here today

why are there so many atheists????
Atheism is a widespread conviction in the secular west.
0
reply
pendragon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#66
Report 12 years ago
#66
(Original post by shinytoy)
the two main religions -christianity and islam both dont allow homosexuality.the reason i put it seperate to the 'no i dont agree with the sexual teachings' is in case being gay is genetic disposition which cant be helped in which case it is not an active choice not to agree with sexukla teachings, whereas for heteros it is.
Religions are not some monolithic set of rules that one must adhere to if one has faith. There is doctrinal pluralism within Churches and there are those who don’t think that their Church is the sole source of authority.

You can rely on the Bible, the apocrypha or the Gnostic gospels, and the writings of the early Church fathers like Augustine, but there are many ways you can interpret these sources. Irenaeus was responsible for choosing the four-fold cannon that we have today, there are other gospels which he did not include, and different Churches include different books in the Bible that are not recognised by others - the Catholic Bible includes texts not recognised by most Protestants. The Bible is a library of books, selected by the Church to be authoritative, that has been translated numerous times, and that is not free from human errors. You do not have to adhere to a kind of idolatrous biblical literalist fundamentalism. Some Christian theologians embrace homosexuality as the American Episcopalian Church has done. There are many progressive strands of theology that present different interpretations on all manner of questions, and sometimes people cannot see the wood for the trees. The ultimate message of Jesus is in my view obviously love, compassion and forgiveness, and this is often obscured. Paul was a sexist narrow minded bigot; you don’t have to accept everything he wrote in his gospel as the word of God. I cannot see how Jesus would condemn someone for being gay.

We can understand the Bible in a symbolic way and not take everything literally. After all there are statements in the Bible which contradict each other, and it is possible to find justifications for opposing views - the Bible can be read to support slavery and to oppose it for example. The New Testament for a Christian should also clearly supersede the Old Testament, when the two differ. For Christ’s message is (to a Christian) a further revelation beyond that of Abraham and Moses, and he asked the Jews to accept things which they had formerly rejected. Thus Jesus had to be limited to some extent in his teaching to the time he found himself in. We do not assert that the position of women in society should remain as the Bible depicts it. It is therefore clearly possible that Christ intended further revelations and progress to take place, through the Church, or saints or the individual, in line with the essence rather than the word of his teaching.

It is not necessary to dogmatically follow the teachings of a particular sect or Church in order to be religious, you have the freedom to pursue religious truth for yourself.
0
reply
WokSz
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#67
Report 12 years ago
#67
I think that religion is important in society as it provides a set of rules by which society can keep itself in order. Extremes of it are bad. I think that it is important to have religion discuss sex however much of the regulations based in religion date back to 1000 years and more. Science and the understanding of the human body has improved since. Therefore, I think that science prevails in this matter.
0
reply
pendragon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#68
Report 12 years ago
#68
(Original post by minimo)
What I wonder is how many Catholics out there (within marriage) actually stick to stuff like the rhythm method...I mean come on...you're married for heaven's sake but can only have sex to have children. So say you only want 1 child - there's not going to be much fun in your married life, I don't think.
Most, I bet, use the Pill.
Surely even the rhythm method is a cheat for such strict Catholics. As if they think that sex is for procreation, trying to circumvent God's will on this matter, even if they retain the possibility of conception, is almost as wrong as using a condom (where there is still a tiny chance of conception). It seems a bit hypocritical to me. :rolleyes:
0
reply
shinytoy
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#69
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#69
Pope John Paul II said in his Humanae Vitae that sex was for procreation, but when faced with choosing between proper contraception and the rhythm method, the rhythm method was the lesser of the two evils.
0
reply
Ana
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#70
Report 12 years ago
#70
(Original post by shinytoy)
Pope John Paul II said in his Humanae Vitae that sex was for procreation, but when faced with choosing between proper contraception and the rhythm method, the rhythm method was the lesser of the two evils.
This is where I fail to understand Catholics. Unless you're shirking your duty like Onan was, I know of no prohibition in the Bible against contraception. Where did that Pope get it from? I mean, you can't just invent things out of thin air, even if you are the Pope :confused:

It's Protestant teaching that sex is a gift from God, and akin to marriage - so we shouldn't abuse it, but are free to enjoy the benefits of it - which may or may not include children.
0
reply
Apricot Fairy
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#71
Report 12 years ago
#71
(Original post by pendragon)
Surely even the rhythm method is a cheat for such strict Catholics. As if they think that sex is for procreation, trying to circumvent God's will on this matter, even if they retain the possibility of conception, is almost as wrong as using a condom (where there is still a tiny chance of conception). It seems a bit hypocritical to me. :rolleyes:
:dito:

If I could rep you again I would.
0
reply
Poica
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#72
Report 12 years ago
#72
Sex is sin in Catholic eyes. However, it does have a use - procreation. Therefore, you're only really supposed to have sex to procreate. Hence no contraception.
Like most Catholic doctrine, it's one of those things that's just made up because it suits the clergy.
0
reply
dogtanian
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#73
Report 12 years ago
#73
(Original post by Pandy)
Because I wonder how many of them are actually athiests.
Edit: As in, how many people believe in a God but just aren't religious (like me) and how many of those 58% are just athiests. I'd put my money on the former.
Mine would be on the latter.


I'm one for the atheist camp, and I suspect most people who voted for that option are the same as me on that.
0
reply
shinytoy
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#74
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#74
yes but dont most theists get their beliefs from somewhere? eg both parents are christian, child disgrees with christianity yet remains theist, their religion must be influenced by christianity
0
reply
anjimcflanji
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#75
Report 12 years ago
#75
Just because in the animal kingdom they have rules doesnt mean that they believe in God. I may be mis understanding you but take the example of lions they let the women go out catch the food that the men then eat....so they're muslim??? It's just the same I bet if you put a group of children in an environment without religion and let them grow up they would create some sort of order akin to the 10 commandments.....maybe they wouldnt have marriage but theyd know that violence is wrong. Not everything comes from religion even tho I think the 10C's are a good basis
0
reply
minimo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#76
Report 12 years ago
#76
I've never understood the no contraception when you are married business. I'm Catholic and don't believe in pre-marital sex. But surely the Church doesn't expect people not to enjoy themselves when they are married. Yeah, I know I'm going to be damned for this - but when I marry I intend to use the Pill. It doesn't kill cells the way a condom would :p: so I see nothing wrong.
0
reply
joppajoppa
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#77
Report 12 years ago
#77
(Original post by blah)
Shinytoy you are mistaken. Christianity DOES allow homosexuality. You can be an open 100% homosexual and be fully accepted by all the Christian churches.

Homoseuxal ACTS are forbidden, NOT homosexuality. You can be as gay as you want as long as it stays in your head. Please edit your post as it is misleading.
the bible says nothing about lesbianism

the majority of the anti-[male]homosexual teachings are in the old testament

the old testament also instructs [among other things]:

not speak to a woman while shes on her period
not to eat shell fish, pig etc
it is acceptable to sell your children into slavery if you are hard up
have sex with your sister if you cant find a wife


...do you really follow the 'teachings' of this book to the letter?
0
reply
anjimcflanji
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#78
Report 12 years ago
#78
By eating and drinking you kill cells so is that wrong too? I honestly admire those who have faith and don't let it take over their life...but I know a few girls who are due to be married soon and have hardly even kissed the person but have said they will have sex on their wedding night.....1) that's a big leap from kissing to sex and 2) I worry that all the time theyve built up this expectation of sex that because theyre waiting so long it will go well. It won't. Even if thye love the person and that's a lot of strain to suddenly put on a relationship (not mentioning the finance of a wedding....)
0
reply
minimo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#79
Report 12 years ago
#79
(Original post by anjimcflanji)
By eating and drinking you kill cells so is that wrong too? I honestly admire those who have faith and don't let it take over their life...but I know a few girls who are due to be married soon and have hardly even kissed the person but have said they will have sex on their wedding night.....1) that's a big leap from kissing to sex and 2) I worry that all the time theyve built up this expectation of sex that because theyre waiting so long it will go well. It won't. Even if thye love the person and that's a lot of strain to suddenly put on a relationship (not mentioning the finance of a wedding....)
The condom thing was a touch of sarcasm...I don't see anything wrong with using contraception with my husband.
0
reply
shinytoy
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#80
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#80
(Original post by anjimcflanji)
By eating and drinking you kill cells so is that wrong too? I honestly admire those who have faith and don't let it take over their life...but I know a few girls who are due to be married soon and have hardly even kissed the person but have said they will have sex on their wedding night.....1) that's a big leap from kissing to sex and 2) I worry that all the time theyve built up this expectation of sex that because theyre waiting so long it will go well. It won't. Even if thye love the person and that's a lot of strain to suddenly put on a relationship (not mentioning the finance of a wedding....)
the bible does not forbid eating and drinking. indeed Jesus ate and drank so it must be ok.

as for the other point, yes i can see what you mean - to avoid this, i am only going to do kissing and light petting before marriage, but when i am engaged to the person, nearer the time i might do more, to ease the transition.
my friend married a mexican and they never kissed until the wedding day.

if you love the person you dont care the 1st time is awkward and crap cos you will be with them forever so lots of time to practice
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1388)
79.59%
Leave (356)
20.41%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise