Well, probably not every religion, and not every society. Abrahamic religions are particularly prone to anti-sexuality. Sexual attraction is the most powerful engine of human behavior, and those who want to subjugate people need to subordinate this side too, driving in strict rules of sexual behavior, and, if possible, minimize what seems to be "socially useless", a waste of "vital energy". Religious and social "moralists" are generally mistaken about the natural purpose of the sexual feeling, trying to reduce it only to the function of reproduction.
At one time, Osho answered the same question - this is a struggle against any freedom that is not presented to the authorities necessary for their interests, the desire to regulate all aspects of life, without exception.
Well, why nature has given such "redundancy" to sexual feelings, see my opus on "Homo Sexualis" (Yandex for help, sort of like direct links outside resources are not approved here)
First of all, because in many societies for a long time it was religion that was the main source of law.
Simply put, religious texts contained not only moral and ethical norms, but also administrative and criminal law. As an example, you can look at the "Book of Leviticus" from the Old Testament - this is a typical set of laws and rules by which the society of that period lived. Over time, these texts acquired the status of sacred (sacred), were included in the church canon, but their first and main purpose was to regulate the life of society.
Monogamous unions at the time of writing most of the sacred texts, showed themselves to be more stable, which means they are more promising for the further development of society. It is not for nothing that the family is considered to be one of the fundamental cells of society. Therefore, it was logical for religion to regulate this side of life so that society would develop further according to a predictable and obviously advantageous scenario at that time.
It is well known that all world religions, and especially Christianity, have an extremely negative attitude towards sexual relations as a phenomenon. Christianity does not perceive sex as a natural human need inherent in it by nature, but considers it an inevitable evil. I emphasize that this applies not only to sexual promiscuity, but to sex itself as such. Often, if we read Christian literature or the sermons of priests of any time, we will see that sexual relations are perceived by Christian orthodox Christians as something shameful, vicious, undesirable, which should be limited as much as possible.
Everything that is connected with the sexual issue, Christianity seeks to taboo as much as possible. By themselves, sexual relations and everything connected with them is called by the churchmen the term prodigal sin, the sin of adultery, and so on. And this applies not only to promiscuous sexual relations. Extramarital sex is considered a sin, even if both partners are about to get married, use condoms, masturbate, talk, or even have any thoughts about sex. In the Middle Ages, the Christian Church forbade artists to depict not only nudes, but also simply emphasize the beauty of the human body; everything that was not done according to church canons was rejected. Even the very term "sexual relations" the church is ashamed to use in words, fearing like fire, in all church sayings this process, even in marriage, is replaced by vague strange terms "to fulfill marital duty, live married life" and so on. From the point of view of Christianity, and most of the world's religions, sex is an inevitable evil, necessary only for the continuation of the human race. From the point of view of Christianity, only sex after a church marriage is not considered a sin. However, even in marriage, churchmen often tried to taboo everything as much as possible. Thus, according to the testimony of the historian BN Mironov, in Russia in the 17th-18th centuries, priests sharply opposed the "woman on top" pose and a number of others, since it is difficult to get pregnant with her. At confessions, the priests actively questioned the parishioners about this. Some zealous clerics called for sex only in clothes.
Modern priests motivate such an attitude to the sexual issue by their concern for family values, the need to protect society from debauchery, and attempts to solve the demographic problem. Although we know many peoples who do not profess monotheistic religions, who do not have any problems of demography, but on the contrary a population explosion, such as the peoples of India. And will the ignorance of the sexual issue strengthen family values if family life largely depends on intimacy, for example, many marriages break up due to dissatisfaction with sex.
Demography and caring for the family have nothing to do with it. It's just that Christianity initially perceives sex as something shameful, which must be limited, and ideally abandoned altogether. Even the Apostle Paul spoke in his sermons.However, eif you marry, you will not sin; and if a virgin marries, she will not sin. But such will have afflictions according to the flesh; and I feel sorry for you Cor. 7:28. That is, the apostle admitted that a Christian can marry, it would not be a sin, but it would be better, ideally, he remained a monk. Naturally, if a large part of his community members offered to express a desire to become monks, he would oppose the ap. Paul. No.
By the way, monasticism is, from the point of view of the church, the ideal of a Christian's life. Many Christian sermons testify to this. Suffice it to point out that most of the Christian saints were monks. And if in Orthodoxy marriages of ordinary priests are allowed, then in Catholicism even priests are obliged to fulfill celibacy. It came to collisions. The Catholic Church begins to crush pedophile scandals. In addition, today the ROC positions itself as a champion of family values, however, priest Georgy Mitrofanov admitted that in the history of the Orthodox Church there are no examples of a Christian family, since almost all saints were predominantly virgin monks. As for Peter and Fevronia of Murom, it is difficult to cite them as an example of an ideal family, since they were a childless couple, and their way of life is largely folklore.
The question arises, what caused such a negative attitude to the sexual issue in a Christian environment, if concern for family values has nothing to do with it. It is difficult to answer this question. Researchers have different opinions on this matter. Most likely, the matter lies in the desire of the church to control a person. Not only does the church formally belong to the Christian church, it also needs him to maintain his religiosity by way of life, by performing rituals, the church strives to ensure that the average Christian experiences maximum religious feeling and faithfully obeys her instructions. This can be done effectively if he is constantly recognized as guilty of something and forced to repent, realizing the feeling of guilt, the Christian will be more obedient towards the pastors. In addition, the church seeks to maximize the religious feeling of ordinary Christians, for this person they try to limit their natural desires, whether it be needs in his or in the sexual sphere. The Church seeks to limit some desires of the Christian to accumulate them in a violent religious feeling and thereby be more devoted to Christian ideals.
Sexuality, generally speaking, is hardly amenable to conscious control. As well as heartbeat and intestinal motility.
There are, of course, practices, such as yogic or Taoist, with which you can learn to control these automatic processes, delay ejaculation. But you’re not talking about that ...
Morality, denigrating completely autonomous biological processes, is aimed at instilling an unrecoverable feeling of guilt in a person. You can't really influence this in any way, but you are already to blame. It is irreparably guilty.
And a person who carries a constant feeling of guilt is an easily manageable object. Such guilt is like an unhealed wound. And the one who can increase or decrease the pressure on this wound has power over you.
So, historically, these ideas arose for the sake of power. Moreover, it is not at all necessary that the inventors of such morality took this step consciously and deliberately. It is likely that they thought they were giving the world something good and worthwhile. And we got a well-managed society. And evolutionarily well-governed societies easily conquered gatherings of mentally unscathed anarchists.
Well, you can also remember that contraception was invented quite recently. Birth control is important in areas with limited resources. And the most reliable method of contraception is abstinence, the exclusion of a large part of society into monastic circles with celibacy.
Because the ability to control your urges, addictions and desires (not only sexual), to be guided by reason is an extremely useful thing for both the individual and society. Pay attention to which cultures flourished and which died or remained at a primitive level: the most successful have always been those who taught to resist their instincts. Religion perfectly conveys philosophical ideas to the masses, so this is often among others. Yes, sometimes the restrictions took unreasonably harsh forms, but by themselves they were fixed precisely because of their effectiveness - their carriers survived and passed them on.
A religion pleasing to God cannot suppress the good in a person. It limits us in bad and harmful. What is not useful is sin. Pointless too. The benefits should not be immediate, but long-term.
Premarital sex is condemned, as it leads to sad, bad consequences. Only in legal marriage is sex useful and allowed not only for the sake of procreation, but also because of the danger associated with the prevalence of debauchery and fornication. Same-sex union is unacceptable in principle, as it destroys offspring. Be fruitful and multiply is the command of God.
And the secular society today even permits what was unacceptable before.
Sexual control is used as a way to control the population and as a way to impose other patriarchal norms. It is mainly beneficial to men with high income and power. In addition to these reasons, control over the sexuality of women is beneficial for such men as a manifestation of power in everyday life. This control reduces the sexual activity of women and the chances of men to find sex, but in the presence of patriarchal norms associated with the expectation of high income and status in society from men, the chances of such men to find sex remain high. This is also due to the traditions of such men to be sure that the child is their heir. Women's sexuality is easier to control, as it is not directly related to reproductive function, and this control does not lead to a decrease in fertility. I answered the links in more detail:
https://thequestion.ru/questions/8654/pochemu-lyubaya-religiya-ispoveduet-lyubov-a-seks-kak-voploshenie-lyubvi-i-edinstvennyi-mekhanizm-prodolzheniya-roda- schitaetsya-grekhom / answer / 421428 # answer421428-anchor
On double standards towards women:
https://thequestion.ru/questions/148147/pochemu-esli-u-parnya-mnogo-devushek-to-on-alfa-samec-a-esli-u-devushki- mnogo-parnei-to-ona-shlyukha / answer / 413181 # answer413181-anchor
Religion serves as an ideology, which, along with other types of propaganda, is used to justify the indicated x norms. As a result, such ideas become widespread in society. Religion teaches to perceive moral norms uncritically as supposedly unchanging and independent of social conditions and without realizing the benefits or harm to society.
If a religion opposes contraception and remedies against STDs, this makes it hypocritical to speak out against abortion. unwanted pregnancies and STDs. The Orthodox Church does not treat remedies as negatively as the Catholic Church, but Orthodox conservatives are usually silent about remedies, calling for restrictions that are impossible in modern society and do not lead to a decrease in the number of these phenomena.
Religion is usually declares equally strict restrictions for men and women, but in reality, given the unequal position of women and men as groups in society and with other social norms with double standards in relation to women, this leads to a stronger restriction of the sexuality and sexual behavior of women.
It is necessary to realize that voluntary sexual relations with mutual consent, desire and pleasure should not be a question of morality. For puritanismThere are no reasonable grounds for any morality and double standards towards women.
I don't know which religion you specifically mean, but generally speaking, the idea itself is as follows: in the state in which a natural person exists, there are big shifts, errors, distortions, vices, and the like. It comes to the surface in different ways for everyone - these are particulars. So the Christian teaching is aimed at identifying and then straightening these curvatures of human nature, no matter what sphere they touch - covetousness, pride, greed, cowardice, deceit, hatred, and much, much more. And of course, this also applies to the area that you raised the speech about as sexuality. There are also many deviations and errors here - from direct so-called perversions to more "specious" and not so terrible-looking delusions. link
Lust, debauchery, voluptuousness, lust, obsession - all this is a manifestation of crookedness in the sexual nature of man. Christianity is trying to define the norm in this "business" and to protect people from encroachments.
Religion does not suppress, but streamlines, encouraging to think with your head, to act humanely and responsibly.
What are the consequences of premarital sex? Using a partner for his own pleasure, without taking into account his feelings; sexually transmitted diseases and HIV, as well as early pregnancy, in which there is a high likelihood of a single mother or marriage only because of pregnancy.
Why is extramarital sex bad? Cheating always brings pain to the deceived spouse, often destroys families.
Why is the Catholic Church opposed to abortion? Because this is the murder of an unborn child, which also causes serious harm to a woman's health and her psychological state.
Why is the Catholic Church opposed to contraception? Because it leads to a frivolous, sometimes careless attitude towards the partner (the very use) and the sex itself. Instead, the Church offers natural family planning methods based on the cycles of the female body.
The Catholic Church does not believe that sex is needed solely for the conception of children, but teaches that it is also a manifestation of love between husband and wife (by the way , without intercourse, a married marriage is not considered confirmed and can be annulled).
Since sex is a manifestation of love and a way of procreation, it is necessary to treat it accordingly - to respect another person (including the conceived, but still unborn) and think before you do.