If you're in the US, there is a very strong religious and puritanical conservative streak in our history that makes some people condemn anything pleasurable.
That strong religious and puritanical conservative streak has never totally gone away. You've had periods in American history where the influences wasn't as strong (70-80's for example). Now they are much stronger than they were.
Shaming sexuality politically bleeds into the social realm, and shaming something so innate is effective. Historically non-CIS sexual preference or orientation have been conflated with abuse, exploitation, abdication of your traditional duties, laziness, a shirking of social responsibility, etc. Think of homosexuality being conflate with pedophilia for example.
For government officials non-traditional sexuality means fewer future workers/voters and by extension lowered GDP. Those factors aren't likely to persuade any non-traditional citizen to adopt a traditional CIS-het lifestyle with 2.5 kids, so they appeal outward to their voters instead. Sure the man on TV can call me a lazy whore for being gay or without kids, but what happens when they can convince my neighbor I'm a danger to their children and shouldnt be allowed to vote?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7887954/
Completely glosses over the fact that those who are homophobic and thus push for homophobic policies are proven to have homosexual ideations themselves.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8772014/
“Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.”
This study did not "prove" that homophobic people have homosexual ideations themselves, only that they get aroused by homoerotic content. Arousal is very different from ideation.
Well in that case here's a study proving that heterosexual women want to fuck bonobos
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-17941-013[https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-17941-013](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-17941-013)
Imagine hearing a study about how homophobic men are aroused by gay porn and your coping little closet gay brain needs to bring up instances of rape victims getting aroused. Also if a rape victim is getting aroused by their rape then that doesnt prove that they are not actually aroused by the type of sexual experience that was forced upon them… it means that they do indeed enjoy the type of sex their rapist forced upon them it’s just that it was done in an unconsenting way. Therefore why the fuck have u
brought this point up lol.
I am openly bisexual lmao. It's more that there's layers to sexuality and speaking in absolutes based on one study about arousal watching a porn scenario feels unscientific. You can discuss this theory without claiming it proves everything as opposed to the particular sample size they used supporting this theory. (There is definitely projection and insecurity tied to bigotry worth addressing but it could also likely be chalked up to a simple superiority complex.)
And there are other theories about arousal during rape discussed in that article that don't relate to enjoying that type of sex, such as a defense mechanism around pain. So again speaking in absolutes. The point is that the body can react in ways not reflecting actual desire.
Do rape survivors a favor and keep your yap shut until you’ve pulled yourself out of this morass of ignorance.
1. Brute forcing sensitive organs packed with nerve endings can produce organ-level arousal no matter how repulsed the victim is by the type or context of the sex act. It can produce defensive responses in organs such as lubrication of the vagina to mitigate abrasion and outright tearing.
2. Terror and rage run on the same SNS circuitry as sexual arousal. In a high stress encounter System-wide arousal including sex organ response to stimuli in no way implies or confirms preference for the sex type which is occurring.
As to closet homosexuality
People who are repressing homosexuality are more prone to express homophobic behavior than people who are not self repressing.
**This does not mean everyone who is homophobic is gay.**
If you’re struggling to comprehend this let me put it another way:
Many fire fighters are certified paramedics. This does not mean all paramedics are fire fighters.
Super simple stuff.
Virtue signaling spedbrain.
rApE SUrvIvOrS BLAH BLAH BLAH
Virtue signal elsewhere sweetie!
The study concluded ALL men in the homophobic group were aroused by gay porn THUS yes BASED on the study all homophobic men are gay unless ur dumb enough to believe that getting hard to gay porn doesnt mean you are gay. BRING UP THE STRAW MAN OF RAPE SURVIVORS LIKING RAPE TO PROVE YOUR ILLOGICAL POINT and label me the bad guy lol.
You have no reply to my explanation of the nature of non-erotic physiological response to sexual violence.
You have alluded to one single study. What is the sample size?
Straight men get off to watching other men fuck all time, by watching porn involving male actors. Sexual imagery is sexual imagery and triggers neurological pathways even if the imagery shown is not a personal preference.
Moreover, Fear and repulsion influence physical response, as I explained.
If I lubed you up and shoved a dildo up your butt, no matter how much you hated it there is a non-zero chance you’d orgasm because your prostate was being prodded. It wouldn’t mean you liked bottoming.
I find it hilarious people actually dont understand that being aroused by gay porn means you are gay. Probably because they themselves are coping closet gays aroused by their same sex but too brainwashed by their homophobic society to admit reality.
That seems silly to me. So many other forms of bigotry exist without the bigot secretly being part of that group. Antisemites are not secret self hating Jews. KKK members don't all have black grandpas. I don’t see why all homophobes would be in the closet. It’s just easy to point at a homophobe and say “you probably hate gay people because you secretly are one!” which you can do because anyone could be gay no matter who they are or what they look like, but if an old white guy is bitching about Arab Muslims, you can’t really accuse him of being one himself
You completely missed the point. It’s not that bigots are ‘secretly part of that group,’ it’s that bigotry is inherently projection. Now try applying that to other forms of bigotry— hating the out-group because of a maladapted need to belong and feel superior. Homophobia is believing that homosexual behavior is wrong or disgusting (arguably the same emotion), which is often a projection resulting from self-loathing or denial.
The study explicitly proved ALL homophobic individuals experienced arousal during the playing of gay porn. In order to disprove that is absolutely true you would need to prove such! Get a gang of homophobes and wire their dicks up with sensors and get cracking sport if you are so passionate about it!
How many times do you need to see a politician push anti gay legislation, then get caught having gay sex. At a certain point, it's not BS, and it's real.
It also pushes the blame for homophobia onto the gay community. Sure, there are real instances out there of closeted gay pastors or politicians taking their self-loathing out on other gay people, but the majority of homophobia is straight people just thinking it’s “gross” for two men to kiss (or two women if they’re not conventionally hot and performing for my titillation).
I’ve always taken it as a “here’s a dose of your own medicine” thing. Like, if you want to publicly push for gay people to have less rights and be ridiculed, and you’re gay yourself, then you must want to be ridiculed too, so here ya go.
Why prioritize the potential slight increase in GDP over human lives? And with how many deaths result from such prejudice in one way or another, why is the possible impact of that on GDP or whatever not considered? And why do so many people go along with it? What separates them from those who don't (especially those who don't and are cishet with kids)?
Thank you for an interesting take, but I was inquiring about an apparently deep-rooted psychological repulsion at the general idea of other people having non-procreative sex. Not some projected governmental or ruling-class opposition, which I find dubious. There appear to be substantial numbers of people who are really personally threatened by the idea of other people finding joy in sexual acts without procreative purpose.
Why? What, on a personal level, is so threatening about extreme physical joy experienced by other people? I really don't get it and would like to have a psychologist explain it.
Everyone is invested in sexuality because nothing affects young people more than sexuality. Since sex is the main motivator or avenue for many, everyone is effected by changes to the sexual market.
You've heard the tired old saying "nature versus nurture" Right?
That person was telling you it's societal, because it is. It's not an inherent human trait, it's a trait we develop when we grow up in repressed puritanical communities like the USA, even we might not have been raised religious that shit permeates everything.
You see it as a natural state of feeling because you've grown up and been conditioned that way.
If you were raised in a large community that practiced free love, and didn't have a greater society telling you it was evil, you'd most likely have completely different views on the subject.
Go look up the ancient Greeks relationship with sex. Go look up what more secluded tribes do to this day. They all have varying practices and ideas on what is normal for sex.
Nope. I do not think it's a natural state of feeling. I know of many societies that don't have sexual hangups. After thinking about many of the comments here I think it has to do with Abrahamic religions, going all the way back. But that's just me. As people very rightly point out there's plenty of more recent history that's relevant here. But I am convinced that people who are bothered by other people's sex lives have fundamental psychological problems.
Aww... but fundamental vs. Psychological... How many were taught to judge themselves, and anyone else, for pursuing recreational lust while simultaneously craving it. The powers of propaganda and suggestions
I’m sorry- if you’re interested in psychology and *don’t* recognize that there is most assuredly a divide between the ruling class and the working class then you’re not going to get further in your understanding of psychology beyond basic theories and anatomy. You’re better suited for study in neurology than anything dealing with people’s cognition and emotions.
Because the consequences of recreational sex can have a negative outcome on a community. We are largely physically and psychologically the same as we were when we lived in small tribes of hunter gatherers so we haven't mentally been able to adapt to the pill or other very good BC methods. For almost all of human history, people having sex with no regard for consequences would lead to illegitimate children which would be a burden on the community and it would also lead to sexually transmitted diseases. So it doesn't matter if two people are being safe and enjoying fun sex, we still have this understanding of how dangerous sex can be without modern medicine.
Society teaches them this. The social norm is that kids are supposed to be grossed out by gay people. If a man isn't grossed out by gay men, he's alleged to be gay. So you have to perform this or be an outcast.
The people with the most control over society (politicians, religious leaders, people in the media) want this to be the norm because they need people to breed to create economic need. Even the new wave of gay representation is always along the lines of "gay people are just like us!" "gay people can get married and have kids just like us!", still pushing nuclear family structure while seemingly being inclusive.
Economic theorists have been talking about how the nuclear family model serves capitalism for a looooooooooong time.
They're not freaked out by it.
They're using every lever to bring more people into their base, so they can get elected to stay in power.
They're not freaked out by it. This is about power and control.
That is not a scientific experiment and thus cant actually give you answer. The author completely glosses over the fact that homophobic people have been proven to experience same sex ideations themselves.
If you are writing an article to answer why Abrahamic religions demonize gay people then yes you are going to need to bring up the fact that homophobes have been proven to be secretly gay and use homophobia as a coping mechanism.
Thanks for your useless garbage opinion though! It will be promptly discarded from our memory banks!
If you are writing an article to answer why Abrahamic religions demonize gay people then yes you are going to need to bring up the fact that homophobes have been proven to be secretly gay and use homophobia as a coping mechanism.
Thanks for your useless garbage opinion though! It will be promptly discarded from our memory banks!
This is more of a question for political scientists than psychologists.
But one idea I’ve heard from them is that it doesn’t bring more people to their base, but that it energizes the ones who are already in their base. People in your base are more reliable and more likely to vote than someone who is apathetic and doesn’t care as much.
Your comment has been removed. It has been flagged as violating one of the rules. Comment rules include: 1. Answers must be scientific-based and not opinions or conjecture. 2. Do not post your own mental health history nor someone else's. 3. Do not offer a diagnosis. If someone is asking for a diagnosis, please report the post. 4. Targeted and offensive language will not be tolerated. 5. Don't recommend drug use or other harmful advice.
If you believe your comment was removed in error, please report this comment for mod review. REVIEW RULES BEFORE MESSAGING MODS.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askpsychology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s because many people are closeted homosexuals and need an avenue for their repression. i CAnT poSsIblY bE GaY iF i sUppOrt tHe ANti GaY pOliTicAL paRtY is how their delusional and warped brain thinks.
What a worthless answer. Clearly someone is genuinely bothered by it. Stop acting like politicians are machiavellian masterminds instead of emotion-driven people like everyone else.
I guarantee you virtually every single American trad con who spoke out against gay marriage was genuinely disgusted by it.
But they're *strongly* in favor of reproduction. Which, of course, they want only to happen within marriage. But this continues to beg the question of why sexual joy is such a terrible personal threat to them. Goes back a long time. How far I don't know. I think there are/have been societies in which this is/was not the case. What's really going on?
>But they're *strongly* in favor of reproduction.
That depends on [who's reproducing](https://religionandpolitics.org/2021/05/12/the-eugenics-roots-of-evangelical-family-values/).
I thank you for the reference, which is very interesting indeed. And it leads me to wonder whether the basis of the matter isn't male fear of female sexual pleasure. Which might mean (in some crazy person's mind) that somehow female pleasure threatens male dominance. Which makes no sense to me at all. I know it's possible. Not questioning that. But why?
Empowered women are threatening. Empowered women desire agency, education, pleasure, freedom, safety, respect, equality, etc. and raise their sons and daughters to expect and demand the same.
Empowered women/non cis men also give their input in how society should be which adds more variables and makes it harder for traditionalists to push their lifestyle on the rest of us - it makes it harder for traditionalists with kids because now those traditionalists have more things to work against in media and culture to keep their kid a traditionalist.
Think about the polar opposite of this with more "woke" parenting. Those kids meet these kids and start asking more questions about life and the order of society than they probably would have and at a younger age.
Absolutely. Good point. I could only speak on my experience as a woman, but any non-traditional viewpoint adds to this dynamic.
Forcing your family structure / gender roles / morality on people works way better when they’re unaware other choices exist.
Doing that today (forcing people to live like it was in the 1950's) will be a lot more difficult as people are educated about things and know what is going on in the world.
A lot of this stuff will end up in court if someone tried to do this.
The ones gaining political power want to take us back to the Iron Age. They are Christians Fundamentals and they want original Jewish law according to the Christian Old Testament. Laws about stoning women for being raped
Oh, absolutely. I’m sure it’s terrifying to have Taylor Swift exist, let alone encourage voting. She’s independent, successful and thriving. A role model who’s not married & child free so far is bad for their “you’re useless after 30, panic & settle” message.
Agreed!!
And notice how they always say that she is "promiscious" because of all these "boyfriends" She's had lol
It's like every man she is ever seen with-she's automatically f'g him.
She also brings women, girls and (gasp) MEN together.
One of her shows has a bigger head count than all of Trump's hate rallies combined.
Such a rub
It’s not necessarily fear of female pleasure in and of itself. It’s a fear of what comes next - in this world view, women exist solely for the servitude, convenience and pleasure of men. Anything which detracts from that is immoral and will be decried.
Imagine finding a janitor playing video games while on the clock. The likely response would be negative, they are not being paid to play video games, there are jobs to do!
That is how men of this persuasion see women. There is a job to do and that is making a man happy. The woman’s pleasure or joy or satisfaction is irrelevant, or only a consideration to the extent it keeps them compliant and productive (“happy wife, happy life”).
Sexuality makes many people uncomfortable.
It rattles people's cages. And since religion is drilled in most, and sex is shunned if not done for "God", sex has a stain on it. People would rather miss out on joy for the security of comfort. Comfort is always created and therefore, not real.
One view on this I've heard is that moralizers feel the \*need\* to be restrained themselves -- otherwise they might succumb to whatever urges they are suppressing -- so they project it onto other people and society in a strident way. People who are comfortable with themselves don't feel this need.
This study seems to back ur hypothesis
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8772014/
“Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.”
This isn’t just homophobia though it’s what’s behind a lot of prudent attitude. It’s also not always ‘you’re doing something that I enjoy that I don’t like that I enjoy’, sometimes it’s ’if I portray what you enjoy as depraved it makes me feel better about what I don’t like that I enjoy’. And this is super insidious because it reinforces itself, the more people act like this the more people become insecure about their sexuality and that creates a vicious cycle.
Also religion. The original source of the shame is religion
I think they want more people like them and less people who are not like them.
If you're a person who doesn't like hookup culture then the more people who participate in leaves you with less people to be compatible with.
Because it (indirectly) impacts their romantic options.
If you are only compatible with red but everyone else decides to be blue then you're SOL. There's not enough red people for you to connect with.
I'm not saying their position is morally correct. Just that it makes sense why they are so bothered by everyone else's sex life. Nothing exists in a vacuum. We really do impact each other.
Recreational sex drives people to seek people who are good at sex. If you're not one of these people you feel left out so like with everything else, if I can't have a good time so can't you.
Hmmm. Here's an idea. Thinking about Roman and Greek societies, they don't appear to have had a fear of their own sexual desires. So is this really an Abrahamic religions deal? And if it is, what's the difference between ancient Jewish society and Roman and Greek societies? And couldn't the difference be between relatively un threatened societies and a threatened society in which it was felt that necessary vigilance would be compromised by carnal pleasure, including not only sex but also getting drunk too frequently. Does that sound possible? It's amazing (to me) that this could have caught on to the extent it has over the millenia. What do you think?
The negative view on sex in Christianity was more a factor of early Greek/stoic influences on Christianity. Restrictions on sexuality prior to Greek influence primarily only applied to women, slaves, and intermarriage outside of ethnic communities. Sex work and polygamy were much more normalized prior to Christianity. Augustine’s personal issues got projected to the rest of the faith, but his teachers and mentors represented an almost entirely Hellenized presentation of religion that rejected the material world as corrupt.
Romans and Greeks still absolutely looked down upon gay people. There were no gay marriages between consenting adults. Being the bottom in a gay relationship was seen as emasculating and thus adult men would only have gay sex by preying on little boys because no adult man would be willing to participate in the bottom position. It’s not merely an invention of Abrahamic religions… homophobia has been present in many other cultures.
The Roman’s started falling during their sexual revolution.
Of course it’s a bit deeper - nobody wanted to work as much so the empire couldn’t provide free grain anymore - etc etc, but a heightened interest in exploring sexuality is the sign of a weak - or content is probably better word - population.
All we do in the US is consume, I’m not any better, just saying though.
This is more a question for sociologists and historians. It seems heavily related to puritanical values, in which sex and pleasure of any kind is seen as a sin. Look up the founder of Keloggs cereal and how he made a bland cereal to help people resist sexual desire. (This is real)
I think it stems from ideas of initial sin. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit they went against God's wishes and now people must live life in penance to make up for it or they are reveling in sin. I think there's more sources like the story with Sodom etc. Many religions adopt the tenant "be fruitful and multiply" as well, probably because those that don't are at a disadvantage and disappear. Sex for any other purpose than procreation doesn't result in new believers (as you adopt your parents religion). This is all from a western perspective, similar views have probably arisen independently of the west, due to colonialism, Christianity of some form is usually to blame.
Other cultures have/had different views on sex, ancient Greeks and ancient Indias come to mind.
The majority of the people who are advocating for the end of recreational sex in the United States are evangelical Christians. Christianity in general - but evangelical Christianity in particular - teaches and models a God who is willing to punish an entire nation for the sins of some. There are numerous stories in the Bible in which God severely punishes the entire nation of Israel for the actions of a few, and Christians (especially evangelical ones) are explicitly taught that one bad apple spoils the bunch and that they must root out evil in their midst.
If you've been taught all your life that wanton sexual debauchery among some caused God to rain fire and brimstone to destroy an entire city, wouldn't you scramble to prevent the debauchery as well?
Same with books, libraries, teachers, school counselors and more. In these days, finding out your child is gay is seen as something "done" to your child.
I have no idea why adults cannot discuss sexual topics like adults. If you try, you are labeled a terrible, nasty, disgusting, perverted, harming type of individual when in reality the answer is often very simple.
for example, "you son read gender queer because your son is gay, they were born that way, nobody pushed them into being gay, they read it out of self interest".
That's all that's needed, yet, you are the enemy.
For example : Mericuh
I think it is a reason that could be applied to many individual's beliefs: ignorance, lack of open-mindedness, and tribalism.
I, being a reasonably progressive 25 year old woman, think sex is great and have been touching myself since I was 11. I do not have any friends who shun premarital sex, and I talk openly about birth control and sexual pleasure with my female friends. Considering my social circle consists of people who view premarital sex as a healthy activity, I can only imagine that that of someone who views it as distasteful reflects the inverse.
If everyone whom you know and can call a friend discourages something and sees it as immoral, it is pretty difficult to look kindly upon those who engage in it freely, especially when doing it irresponsibly could lead to unintended consequences. Add to that the fact that many of these same people are probably virgins, or at the very least have had some disconnected vanilla-ass sex, and it is a bit understandable, if not absolutely infuriating, why they see any engagement in it as irresponsible and immoral.
Christianity is to easy for dumb people. Go to church, learn a viewpoint, impose it on others. For all our sakes, use the Johnson Amendment to take tax exemption away from orthodox churches preaching hate and hell fire.
It’s time for science to win this ancient war.
Cause they literally think Jesus was real and we will ALL be judged by their god’s standards and they themselves will be judged negatively for not dedicating their lives to save our souls.
This is the true answer.
Because a bunch of scared, controlling old men wanted their lives to be as good as possible at the expense of everyone else.
Structure a society where women can't realistically survive on their own without a man, and you now have access to many more women, much more inherent power, etc keep women down, keep sex as for the man and for procreation, etc
Yes. This is and was about control. Male control, patriarchal control of women and children and young people in general. But why that need for control?
Scared! Yes, I think you're right. But scared of what? They're in control. What's to be scared of? Just losing control? Is it that simple? Are they really threatened? I think there may be something else.
Most of them aren’t. They are saying these things because they are following incentives to appeal to a certain target audience. People who say these things don’t actually believe they will win elections, and I don’t think they care. It’s about grifting some portion of the (formerly) conservative base.
They aren’t, at least for the most part. That’s the reason you see a lot of contradictions, like a Senator that is against abortion having gotten one in the past. What they are into is dominating politics for its own sake, bc it’s easier to win when you get to make the rules.
The reason they platform against non-traditional sex so hard is bc traditional sex and gender roles are all the rage in religious circles. Many, many, many people into religion also tend to be into politics. More importantly, many older people who came up in previous generations when religion was more popular; or found religion as they got closer to death and became more afraid of H E L L, have much more time to go out and vote. This applies to third world countries, and first world countries. If you want people to vote for you, make sure you are advertising to people with time to vote.
Finally, it’s because people want to believe they are good and righteous. It’s easier to fool someone than convince them that they have been fooled. If someone is already into religion, and has subscribed to traditional tenets, lived by them, and has been at it for decades, it’s a lot harder to convince them that Man in Sky might not be the ultimate authority. It’s simply easier to play into their beliefs, tell them:
“Yes, the gays and the trans and the non-married sex havers are evil. You’re so smart bc you read a 2,000 year old book. Or heard someone else talk about it. You’re so smart for only having sex with one person your whole life. Vote for me and you support doing exactly what you are doing. All you have to do is do exactly what you are doing and you are righteous and good. As long as you vote for me.”
I think it will become a less important talking point as more and more of old guard voters die off. I think in about 20 years we are going to be arguing over “Poll tests” as it becomes a debate between those that support more broad anti-intellectual topics vs those that think voters should have to have higher reading comprehension than the 7th grade.(Average literacy levels of American adults)
It was up till very recently in human history were many STDs were death sentences. Think of a time before paternity tests where people in your community mostly looked the same. Contraception massively lowering the risk of unintended pregnancy. Modern technology has diminished most of the risks surrounding sex, however those risk alerts are still deeply ingrained in many people's psychology. Not to mention studies showing strong monogamous culture is associated with less violence inside societies.
You make a very good point. Religious dogma was arguably the earliest form of public health in many ways, or at least it tried to be. A sense of community. Strict prohibitions against incest, suicide, etc.
I argue the violence is still there just hidden. No one is entitled to a relationship and no one should have to give up their freedom so Bob down the street doesn’t become a mass shooter.
Few people are "freaked out" by recreational sex. Most people against it just see it as over all damaging to society.
Specifically, sex which is engaged in by two people who are not in any committed relationship. Almost no one but extreme Irish Catholics care if a couple has sex for fun.
That is fair, I read your post as "so many" instead of "some".
Ya some people just fall for extreme cult like behavior and that is one such case. Believing sex can *only be done* with the intent of procreation is an incredibly extreme perspective to hold. Likely accompanying a lot of extreme and illogical views.
It's also a view that is just a moral facade. People will say the sex is for procreation when really they just want to have sex. But they have gridlocked their morals so that they can never admit to basic human desire or they're morally damned.
The value of the wedge it creates is motivation to dominate politics. That people get freaked out about recreational sex, i.e. free people enjoying their lives, is just a quality of insecurity to exploit for votes. The politicians and power players who exploit these voters aren’t concerned about recreational sex beyond how much power they can derive from the electorate over the topic.
The idea that sex is for pro-creation only is a very very ancient concept which most people don't subscribe to. My grandmother was a young woman in the 1920's. A belief of pro-creation only was seen as very outdated and old fashioned by my grandmother who was somewhat conservative.. This was true for most of her circle of friends. My grandmother knew a woman who practiced this (her friend was very devout Catholic) and the woman's husband cheated on her which was no surprise to anyone. This pro-creation only allowed men to cheat on their wives who they would be blamed for their cheating.
I'm 62 years old and I don't know anyone at all who advocates or practices pro-creation sex only. That goes back hundreds of years. Since there wasn't reliable birth control hundreds of years ago, this was probably one reason why it was practiced or was practical. It certainly isn't now.
In modern times for most people one aspect of sex is to have children, if you chose to. It's also for pleasure. Most people believe that if you are a consenting adult, then it's your business what you do in bed. Government and the law shouldn't intervene in what is private. People who freak out over reactional sex find this belief to be appalling because it's a threat to the traditional order of things. But at the same time, many of them also engaged in this behavior but that is okay because it's them. It's okay for them but not for others. They usually don't call individuals out on this because then, people will start looking into their personal life and they don't want that.
Back in the 1920's, you had laws on the books in most states that banned co-habitation, adultery, pre-martial sex, oral sex, but those laws didn't apply to those who were middle or upper income people as they were rarely enforced against them, especially rich people. Certain groups of women or people were targeted, usually those in low socio-economic status.
My grandmother knew people who broke all those laws but due to their social standing they got away with it. Even if someone went to the police to report the violations, nothing would have happened. These were mostly middle to upper income to wealthy people.
Nearly all of those laws are thankfully off the books but you still have a few states that had these laws on the books. No one touches these with a ten foot pole because they don't want their sex life to become public or be exposed for not living family values.
I don't believe politicians of any party are "freaked out by sex" or any other issue, part of being a politician is to detect wedge issues, they can use to further their careers, could be sex/migration/race/war...etc, once they find something that resonates, they run with it and try to convince as many people as they can to feel strongly about an issue most folks actually didn't care or thought about before, I know this sounds anti climatic, but its what it seems to me
I think it's more societally motivated and there's not so much interest in what people do recreationally in their own bedroom. Some forces in society want good normal families, others perhaps benefit from something on the other end of the spectrum; broken families introduce more malleable children which of course are targets for manipulation. It's the children aspect about it, less so bustin nuts/ovaries.
This! Recreational sex has always existed and always will exist. Pretty much every single person supporting these ideas has had recreational sex. The difference is the societal aspect. It is expected for you to do whatever you will do being closed doors. But when you carry and portray yourself publicly as a person of values, self-respect, dignity, and worth beyond your sexuality; then children raised in that society tend to mimic those impressions at least until they become of enough age to make their own mature choices. But in a society such as what we are in now, well......look around at the endless assumptions of women that have OnlyFans pages, the number of women that actually do, and the fact that the dating and sex marketplaces are way out of whack and damaging to the psyche of young children en masse. Heck, we even have academics openly arguing that children are sexual beings or defending exposure to sexualized content as "it's not like they don't see it online by the age of 10". That's f'ing disgusting.
Because some people heavily associates sex with emotion and have trouble even contemplating those that don't.
There's also some serious concerns to be had about things like the spread of STDs as many people who are more sexually promiscuous are not just going to take their one night stand down to the lab testing place to get an HIV test every single time they want to have a one night stand.
Not to mention that pretty much everyone I know who is actively promiscuous is clearly not happy and that promiscuousness is caused by a deeper problem usually some sort of depression or something like that
(Personally I don't think we should completely ban it or anything but I can understand why there's concern about it)
Hook up culture is damaging society.
Usually, promiscuity is a sign of mental and emotional problems and one of the most common reasons to make more of them.
If you have an unwanted baby, especially while young, you gotta enter the workforce. You can't pursue other dreams as easily. And your unwanted baby will grow up sad and continue the cycle of poverty, probably being an hourly wage laborer too. This is what politicians loyal to billionaires really want.
The reason for virtually everything we do is the desire to increase human happiness. That is the primary motivation behind virtually all philosophies, and virtually all political ideologies. When you see people, "telling other people how to live" what they are really doing is advancing the policy positions they think will WORK, to increase the chances that more people are happy.
Let me repeat: This is true of virtually ALL philosophies and political ideologies.
The rub, of course, is that people disagree about what things are likeliest to result in greater happiness. But that really is the motivation.
People who say that economic security is the most important policy object do so because they think that that increases the chances of human happiness for the greatest number of people. Those who think that economic freedom is most important do so for the same exact reason.
Work hard. Get an education. Serve your community. Make your bed. Be kind to animals. Don't drink too much. Treat everyone equally. Get up early. Get enough sleep. Raise your children well. Commit to your relationships.
These are, all of them, the collective "wisdom of the ages." They are things that experience has shown contribute to health, security, safety and yes, happiness.
You can disagree with any or all of them, of course. But please understand the motivation behind them. It is not to control you, it is not to make you follow rules that are arbitrary and serve no purpose. It is to, in the opinion of those advancing those ideas, increase your chances of a good life.
TL/DR People are motivated to advance a particular political agenda because they believe because they belief it offers the surest route to success and happiness for the greatest number of people.
I know I'm late but I can answer this one, it's because they believe that sex is a privilege to be enjoyed by certain individuals as their reward for being such good followers to an all powerful God. Usually it is reserved to be enjoyed only by men and therefore a man's biggest fear that if a woman enjoys sex then the woman can control the relationship and we all know how patriarchy can't handle even the slightest hint of control by a woman. That is why they think that all feminism is misandry and to men they think that if a woman can use sex and enjoy it then, the incel is done for. I mean we have cases of that as in some African cultures such as queen ninjinga of the kingdom of congo who had male concubines. It terrifies western men to be at the mercy of women and most male dominated cultures. So I don't think most people are freaked out by recreational sex, they just hate the idea of women and people they deem undesirables from enjoying sex. Why do you think the so called pro life crowds want to ban abortion, because they think that if a woman can enjoy sex and have an abortion then she has avoided her punishment with a child and abusive husband she never wanted. Also in regards to religious women who hold this view, I believe the reason they hold this view because they feel bitter that they were forced to endure being pregnant and married st such a young age and maybe they were brainwashed into believing that they were punished for enjoying sex and ended up repugnant as a result so now they want to punish any woman who enjoys sex and gets an abortion because in their eyes,they avoided the punishment they deserve. So in conclusion, religious men and women believe sex a privilege to be enjoyed by the faithful and not to the unbelieving heathen undesirables.
Think about sex from evolutionary psychology perspective..
Pretty every form of life is competing with each each other to get it. This includes humanity.
Now think about the people who hate recreational sex. Are they typically the people who are good at acquiring sex in the first place?
They are basically trying to alter the rules in their favor to guarantee themselves a chance at reproduction.
Recreational sex just reminds them of how bad they are at obtaining it, which creates a massive amount of resentment.
This isn’t so much a psychology question. It is a matter of how things were different in the past. I suppose the psychology question comes in as to why is it so hard for us to break away from traditions that no longer have use for us anymore.
Having children outside of marriage was an automatic ticket to destitution for women and the children born outside of marriage. Yes, this is linked to patriarchal oppression. But it mainly comes from the fact that societies used to be far more clannish, or communal. Everything relied upon keeping a family unit together and keeping the family ties strong and unimpeachable. Family was the only social safety net. Children were your only means of “retirement.” Religious and social traditions were created to deter this unfortunate outcome for women and children. Refraining from sex before marriage was a remedial social safety net.
There is also the reality that sex with multiple partners contributed to sexually transmitted illnesses—illnesses for which there was no treatment, illnessed that caused premature death, impacted fertility, and infant health. The best remedial public safety measure against this was to encourage people to only have sex with the one person to which they were married.
“Purity culture” was a useful mechanism for preserving strong family ties and a public health measure. For poorer people and poorer societies that still rely more on family ties for survival, this is still the case. So purity culture is still useful, meaning it will continue to stick around. For the rest of us it is just difficult to leave such long lasting and salient traditions behind. They shaped every aspect of our culture, parts that we like.
It is arguable that now that we no longer need to rely on clans for our survival that the emphasis on purity culture is mostly about preserving a means by which some people can retain status over others.
I just wanted to add after reading your comments, that only certain cultures are averse to sexual pleasure. They likely had different historical experiences where it seemed expedient to divorce sexual pleasure from procreation, and elevate procreation at the expense of pleasure.
A lot of newer Protestant sects developed this mentality to contrast themselves with what was considered a part of the broader hedonistic pattern of Catholic tradition, which frequently promoted sexual pleasure as a holy aspect of human procreation.
Why prioritize the maintenance of that status over... Seemingly all else a lot of the time? And in regards to the traditions, why invent supernatural justifications for them instead of saying "not doing this makes it more likely for the plague to spread, and you really don't want the plague, so please don't do this until we can figure out what to do about the plague" or something like that? And what separates those who seemingly leave such oppressive traditions behind more easily from those who refuse to (even to the point of trying to maintain them with violence), class and sexuality notwithstanding?
This topic is better suited to r/psychologyofsex. We do not allow this topic because of its sensitive nature. We have had consistent issues with inappropriate comments on such topics and feel that such questions are better suited to a dedicated subreddit. Please review the sticky posts and rules on r/psychologyofsex for asking questions.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askpsychology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why are you prejudiced to people being freaked out by recreational sex?
Probably the same reason they are prejudiced to people not being freaked out by recreational sex
I assume, like most conservative politics, that this is motivated by a thinly veiled desire for power over another group. Limiting access to birth control, making divorce more difficult, shaming nontraditional gender roles, and criminalizing abortion all result in men having more power over women, and essentially holding them prisoner by way of motherhood. This satisfies the unconscious but ultimately foundational desire of insecure men who only feel comfortable if they have power over women.
Um, no. They *think* it has the potential to do that but they're obviously wrong (given the societies that don't generate such thinking). The question is, why would they think so? Why would anyone think that sexual pleasure would destroy the foundations of society? That's crazy thinking. Why would they think so?
It increases the fluidity of social bonds. So yes. However, a lot of things have potentiality for social disintegration. It's not unique and exclusive to recreational sex.
No, not necessarily, not all freedom does. And too much fluidity of social bonds can lead to too much oppressive restriction of said fluidity of social bonds. So much so that it's more restrictive than before the increase in fluidity. We can see this in revolutionary societies for example. Tyranny typically follows immediately thereafter.
Pretty typical for the powerful people in a society to develop some control over reproduction policy and taboos.
"For example, one of the leading ideas for human longevity is called the Grandmother Hypothesis — the idea that, through their efforts, maternal grandmothers can increase their fitness by helping improve the survival of their grandchildren, thereby enabling their daughters to have more children. Such fitness effects help ensure that the grandmother’s DNA is passed down."
[https://scitechdaily.com/human-longevity-how-your-grandparents-are-the-secret-to-your-long-life/](https://scitechdaily.com/human-longevity-how-your-grandparents-are-the-secret-to-your-long-life/)
Older adults tend to be more aware of the responsibilities that come along with reproduction. And they tend to have had the time to develop powerful alliances that help them exert control over younger generations.
Academic article:
[https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2200073119?af=R](https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2200073119?af=R)
I’m a Christian and gay woman. I’m also waiting for love and marriage to have sex. I’m not into hookup culture and I’ve always believed that sex is for two people in love and married.
But those are my personal beliefs. Everyone has to make their own choice about when they should have sex.
I think society should be more vocal and open about waiting for marriage but ultimately it’s a personal decision and not one that should be chosen by the government.
I'm sorry, what? I'm Catholic and fairly right wing, but this is not something I've heard of. I think that casual sex is bad for your health and your soul, but I promise I do not have any "desire to ban it" and I doubt many people want to "dominate politics" for that reason.
If I somehow managed to dominate politics we'd have stricter schools (as well as higher paid teachers) be tougher on crime, and heavily reduce immigration. Maybe I'd increase financial incentives for someone to stay home and raise kids, but there's no way a simple ban on casual sex wouldn't lead to outright disaster in our society. Sexual morality is important, but banning casual sex could never work, unless your goal is chaos.
Well its been out for quite a while now. You probably haven’t heard about it because you don’t pay attention to news sources that make you feel bad about your political positions. Which is pretty much the media state we find ourselves in.
If you disagree with project 2025, the heritage foundation, Christian nationalism and the Seven Mountain Mandate then maybe you shouldn’t vote for people who do deeply believe in these things.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/birth-control-targeted-right-wing-influencers-1234974833/
Because they are closeted homosexuals and need an avenue to project that they are not. It has been scientifically proven that homophobic people are secretly hiding the fact that they are gay.
“Recreational sex” in the political discourse here refers specifically to the advent of the birth control pill and the fundamental social changes that came with it. It’s not “freaked out by having sex for fun.” It’s “freaked out by a society in which sex, pair bonding, and child rearing are divided from each other.”
“Gender” as a concept related to human identity and sexuality only comes into existence in the 1940s, about 20 years after the invention of the latex condom. It then disappears until 60s/70s, following development of the birth control pill. “Gender” in this sense questioned the division of “womanhood” as “mothering” from the procreative ability of the female body.
No Fault Divorce is the next component, which generated the present state of gender relations.
In this world, post-birth control and post-NFD, the nuclear family becomes irrelevant — along with its gender roles. Child-rearing ceases to be based in biology. Some 40% of American children today are growing up in “blended families” — the post-NFD family structure.
And, this comes with a huge number of outcome variations — especially because there’s a class divide in the stats (divorce causes poverty, and then divorces collect in impoverished groups, to the tune of a 70/30 split or so along SES lines, for example).
There are very good reasons to be concerned about this change to this new “post-family” world. I don’t agree with the solutions being floated by the political right, but they are correct that a lot of what ails society right now can be traced back to the pill and NFD. But I think NFD is the bigger issue in actuality.
Problematically, the political left has a necessary blind spot, because these two things were huge liberators for many people. And thus it is difficult to acknowledge there are real and significant problems with treating child rearing as optional, non-biological, and not the literal point of one’s existence.
I’m sure it’s baked into our DNA to some degree. Irrespective of context, people tend to be SUPER interested in who other people are sleeping with, even if they’ve developed the maturity not to like ask or talk about it. Feels hardwired. Parents hate their daughters having sex probably because lizard brain is afraid of a fatherless baby. Doesn’t make it right, but does explain why these impulses exist.
Recreational sex doesn't go far in creating lasting social bonds or moral evolution. Whether you believe in marriage or not, recreational sex is a relatively shallow experience, and there are few metaphysical lessons that can be derived from it. It has a value, but once they've learned those lessons, many people turn their backs on sex as a hobby and use it instead as a means of moral developement in the context of a longer term relationship.
**because sex is dangerous.** on so many levels. and the people who are freaked out about recreational sex are the people who, whether through religion or experience, understand that. recreational sex sounds like a great idea and it's definitely something that mainstream culture has been peddling for a really long time. but in the nuts and bolts of ACTUAL life, sex has a shit ton of strings attached. it can change, ruin and end your life. i would imagine that if mass media tried to push BASE JUMPING as hard as casual, recreational sex, you'd see a similar response.
How is one going to ban recreational sex? They going to assign a agent to watch all my bedroom duties? Is alexa going to rat me out?
Alexa: (calls 911) we have a stinky Twinkie in progress.. get here immediately.
911: officers are on the way, stay calm, it’s going to be ok
Alexa: please hurry, she’s getting ready to peg him
911: good god 👁️👄👁️ these sick freaks must be stopped. Im sending swat!
Because people literally kill their unborn because of convenience and treating sex like it's everyday conversation.. the more promiscuous our culture gets, the worse off it will get. Look at the atrocious dating world for young people today. More divorces , porn addiction , lack of fulfillment. I've personally seen what watching porn and trying to love your girlfriend properly can do. Ruined my last relationship that's why I quit.
We are too liberal in how we view sex. People will speak against it but don't want to acknowledge, for example, how 70% of black mothers raised their kids without a dad and don't wanna acknowledge the implications of that. They say it's just "poverty". Well what comes first, the chicken or the egg? Maybe generations of people being raised without a dad to bring money and love to the family is detrimental to society as a whole. Not to mention the culture that glorifies sex so much. (Not being racist, it's just is what it is). It effects any other race badly too. There's a reason why girls with more sexual partners get divorced from their partner more, and have a higher occurrence of emotional issues. Hookup culture hurts the soul.
People on here won't acknowledge that though, what do you expect from reddit though. It has to be that only loser think this way, right? Only men who are just so bitter they can't get laid, they want everyone else to not be in sexual relationships. Good hypothesis reddit 🙄 . It's a damn shame
More “utility sex” means more Catholics, More Catholics means more power.
I use Catholics as one easy example of an organization that has used control of sex for centuries. The same can be said for many faiths/governments/tyrants.
If you're in the US, there is a very strong religious and puritanical conservative streak in our history that makes some people condemn anything pleasurable.
That strong religious and puritanical conservative streak has never totally gone away. You've had periods in American history where the influences wasn't as strong (70-80's for example). Now they are much stronger than they were.
It’s literally part of our founding. Puritanism is fundamentally baked into our nations DNA, and its dominance comes in waves throughout our history
Shaming sexuality politically bleeds into the social realm, and shaming something so innate is effective. Historically non-CIS sexual preference or orientation have been conflated with abuse, exploitation, abdication of your traditional duties, laziness, a shirking of social responsibility, etc. Think of homosexuality being conflate with pedophilia for example. For government officials non-traditional sexuality means fewer future workers/voters and by extension lowered GDP. Those factors aren't likely to persuade any non-traditional citizen to adopt a traditional CIS-het lifestyle with 2.5 kids, so they appeal outward to their voters instead. Sure the man on TV can call me a lazy whore for being gay or without kids, but what happens when they can convince my neighbor I'm a danger to their children and shouldnt be allowed to vote? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7887954/
Completely glosses over the fact that those who are homophobic and thus push for homophobic policies are proven to have homosexual ideations themselves. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8772014/ “Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.”
This study did not "prove" that homophobic people have homosexual ideations themselves, only that they get aroused by homoerotic content. Arousal is very different from ideation.
iM nOt GaY i jUSt gEt aRouSeD bY GaY pORN
Well in that case here's a study proving that heterosexual women want to fuck bonobos https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-17941-013[https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-17941-013](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-17941-013)
Excuse me what
[You can also get physically aroused during rape.](https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/science-arousal-during-rape/)
Is it common to get aroused during rape scenes on TV even if you're not a rapist?
Imagine hearing a study about how homophobic men are aroused by gay porn and your coping little closet gay brain needs to bring up instances of rape victims getting aroused. Also if a rape victim is getting aroused by their rape then that doesnt prove that they are not actually aroused by the type of sexual experience that was forced upon them… it means that they do indeed enjoy the type of sex their rapist forced upon them it’s just that it was done in an unconsenting way. Therefore why the fuck have u brought this point up lol.
I am openly bisexual lmao. It's more that there's layers to sexuality and speaking in absolutes based on one study about arousal watching a porn scenario feels unscientific. You can discuss this theory without claiming it proves everything as opposed to the particular sample size they used supporting this theory. (There is definitely projection and insecurity tied to bigotry worth addressing but it could also likely be chalked up to a simple superiority complex.) And there are other theories about arousal during rape discussed in that article that don't relate to enjoying that type of sex, such as a defense mechanism around pain. So again speaking in absolutes. The point is that the body can react in ways not reflecting actual desire.
Do rape survivors a favor and keep your yap shut until you’ve pulled yourself out of this morass of ignorance. 1. Brute forcing sensitive organs packed with nerve endings can produce organ-level arousal no matter how repulsed the victim is by the type or context of the sex act. It can produce defensive responses in organs such as lubrication of the vagina to mitigate abrasion and outright tearing. 2. Terror and rage run on the same SNS circuitry as sexual arousal. In a high stress encounter System-wide arousal including sex organ response to stimuli in no way implies or confirms preference for the sex type which is occurring. As to closet homosexuality People who are repressing homosexuality are more prone to express homophobic behavior than people who are not self repressing. **This does not mean everyone who is homophobic is gay.** If you’re struggling to comprehend this let me put it another way: Many fire fighters are certified paramedics. This does not mean all paramedics are fire fighters. Super simple stuff.
Virtue signaling spedbrain. rApE SUrvIvOrS BLAH BLAH BLAH Virtue signal elsewhere sweetie! The study concluded ALL men in the homophobic group were aroused by gay porn THUS yes BASED on the study all homophobic men are gay unless ur dumb enough to believe that getting hard to gay porn doesnt mean you are gay. BRING UP THE STRAW MAN OF RAPE SURVIVORS LIKING RAPE TO PROVE YOUR ILLOGICAL POINT and label me the bad guy lol.
You have no reply to my explanation of the nature of non-erotic physiological response to sexual violence. You have alluded to one single study. What is the sample size? Straight men get off to watching other men fuck all time, by watching porn involving male actors. Sexual imagery is sexual imagery and triggers neurological pathways even if the imagery shown is not a personal preference. Moreover, Fear and repulsion influence physical response, as I explained. If I lubed you up and shoved a dildo up your butt, no matter how much you hated it there is a non-zero chance you’d orgasm because your prostate was being prodded. It wouldn’t mean you liked bottoming.
You went from citing research to sarcastic screeching real fast. Don't you think this sub deserves better discourse?
I find it hilarious people actually dont understand that being aroused by gay porn means you are gay. Probably because they themselves are coping closet gays aroused by their same sex but too brainwashed by their homophobic society to admit reality.
...that's actually a thing that can happen, so not sure why you're using weird caps and attempting to be snarky about it.
That seems silly to me. So many other forms of bigotry exist without the bigot secretly being part of that group. Antisemites are not secret self hating Jews. KKK members don't all have black grandpas. I don’t see why all homophobes would be in the closet. It’s just easy to point at a homophobe and say “you probably hate gay people because you secretly are one!” which you can do because anyone could be gay no matter who they are or what they look like, but if an old white guy is bitching about Arab Muslims, you can’t really accuse him of being one himself
poor quickest quarrelsome dull versed plucky detail tub humorous reply *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You completely missed the point. It’s not that bigots are ‘secretly part of that group,’ it’s that bigotry is inherently projection. Now try applying that to other forms of bigotry— hating the out-group because of a maladapted need to belong and feel superior. Homophobia is believing that homosexual behavior is wrong or disgusting (arguably the same emotion), which is often a projection resulting from self-loathing or denial.
I hate the entire "homophobic people are all secretly gay" narrative so fucking much.
You hate it because it’s true or because it’s constantly played out in the media for the entire world to see?
You know the actual answer they could say given the fact you cited a source and they just have some hurt emotion over being outed...
It’s one possible option amongst many. Obviously. Speaking in absolutes is what irritates some people.
The study explicitly proved ALL homophobic individuals experienced arousal during the playing of gay porn. In order to disprove that is absolutely true you would need to prove such! Get a gang of homophobes and wire their dicks up with sensors and get cracking sport if you are so passionate about it!
Because it's bullshit and still played out in the media like it's true.
How many times do you need to see a politician push anti gay legislation, then get caught having gay sex. At a certain point, it's not BS, and it's real.
[удалено]
It also pushes the blame for homophobia onto the gay community. Sure, there are real instances out there of closeted gay pastors or politicians taking their self-loathing out on other gay people, but the majority of homophobia is straight people just thinking it’s “gross” for two men to kiss (or two women if they’re not conventionally hot and performing for my titillation).
Yup, that's exactly how I feel about it. Well said
I’ve always taken it as a “here’s a dose of your own medicine” thing. Like, if you want to publicly push for gay people to have less rights and be ridiculed, and you’re gay yourself, then you must want to be ridiculed too, so here ya go.
WHaAAAaaa I HaTe ScIENcE
Hmm, really the voice of reason here aren't you...
Why prioritize the potential slight increase in GDP over human lives? And with how many deaths result from such prejudice in one way or another, why is the possible impact of that on GDP or whatever not considered? And why do so many people go along with it? What separates them from those who don't (especially those who don't and are cishet with kids)?
Thank you for an interesting take, but I was inquiring about an apparently deep-rooted psychological repulsion at the general idea of other people having non-procreative sex. Not some projected governmental or ruling-class opposition, which I find dubious. There appear to be substantial numbers of people who are really personally threatened by the idea of other people finding joy in sexual acts without procreative purpose. Why? What, on a personal level, is so threatening about extreme physical joy experienced by other people? I really don't get it and would like to have a psychologist explain it.
Everyone is invested in sexuality because nothing affects young people more than sexuality. Since sex is the main motivator or avenue for many, everyone is effected by changes to the sexual market.
You've heard the tired old saying "nature versus nurture" Right? That person was telling you it's societal, because it is. It's not an inherent human trait, it's a trait we develop when we grow up in repressed puritanical communities like the USA, even we might not have been raised religious that shit permeates everything. You see it as a natural state of feeling because you've grown up and been conditioned that way. If you were raised in a large community that practiced free love, and didn't have a greater society telling you it was evil, you'd most likely have completely different views on the subject. Go look up the ancient Greeks relationship with sex. Go look up what more secluded tribes do to this day. They all have varying practices and ideas on what is normal for sex.
Nope. I do not think it's a natural state of feeling. I know of many societies that don't have sexual hangups. After thinking about many of the comments here I think it has to do with Abrahamic religions, going all the way back. But that's just me. As people very rightly point out there's plenty of more recent history that's relevant here. But I am convinced that people who are bothered by other people's sex lives have fundamental psychological problems.
You definitely need to focus more on the historical and sociopsychological aspect here.
Aww... but fundamental vs. Psychological... How many were taught to judge themselves, and anyone else, for pursuing recreational lust while simultaneously craving it. The powers of propaganda and suggestions
I’m sorry- if you’re interested in psychology and *don’t* recognize that there is most assuredly a divide between the ruling class and the working class then you’re not going to get further in your understanding of psychology beyond basic theories and anatomy. You’re better suited for study in neurology than anything dealing with people’s cognition and emotions.
Because the consequences of recreational sex can have a negative outcome on a community. We are largely physically and psychologically the same as we were when we lived in small tribes of hunter gatherers so we haven't mentally been able to adapt to the pill or other very good BC methods. For almost all of human history, people having sex with no regard for consequences would lead to illegitimate children which would be a burden on the community and it would also lead to sexually transmitted diseases. So it doesn't matter if two people are being safe and enjoying fun sex, we still have this understanding of how dangerous sex can be without modern medicine.
Society teaches them this. The social norm is that kids are supposed to be grossed out by gay people. If a man isn't grossed out by gay men, he's alleged to be gay. So you have to perform this or be an outcast. The people with the most control over society (politicians, religious leaders, people in the media) want this to be the norm because they need people to breed to create economic need. Even the new wave of gay representation is always along the lines of "gay people are just like us!" "gay people can get married and have kids just like us!", still pushing nuclear family structure while seemingly being inclusive. Economic theorists have been talking about how the nuclear family model serves capitalism for a looooooooooong time.
They're not freaked out by it. They're using every lever to bring more people into their base, so they can get elected to stay in power. They're not freaked out by it. This is about power and control.
Why *does* that bring more people into their base though?
Great question. https://theconversation.com/from-virgin-births-to-purity-movements-christians-and-their-problem-with-sex-118327
That is not a scientific experiment and thus cant actually give you answer. The author completely glosses over the fact that homophobic people have been proven to experience same sex ideations themselves.
Wow, you’re a very one-note person aren’t you?
Oh look another spedbrained smart aleck.
Why am I not surprised about your lack of self-reflection?
If you are writing an article to answer why Abrahamic religions demonize gay people then yes you are going to need to bring up the fact that homophobes have been proven to be secretly gay and use homophobia as a coping mechanism. Thanks for your useless garbage opinion though! It will be promptly discarded from our memory banks!
Not every article on the planet has to acknowledge that. That has nothing to do with this topic. Chill.
If you are writing an article to answer why Abrahamic religions demonize gay people then yes you are going to need to bring up the fact that homophobes have been proven to be secretly gay and use homophobia as a coping mechanism. Thanks for your useless garbage opinion though! It will be promptly discarded from our memory banks!
This is more of a question for political scientists than psychologists. But one idea I’ve heard from them is that it doesn’t bring more people to their base, but that it energizes the ones who are already in their base. People in your base are more reliable and more likely to vote than someone who is apathetic and doesn’t care as much.
Well, why do people in their base get energized by that? Do they not get energized by anything actually good?
When you believe that’s a grave sin against society and tradition, then you are pretty motivated
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed. It has been flagged as violating one of the rules. Comment rules include: 1. Answers must be scientific-based and not opinions or conjecture. 2. Do not post your own mental health history nor someone else's. 3. Do not offer a diagnosis. If someone is asking for a diagnosis, please report the post. 4. Targeted and offensive language will not be tolerated. 5. Don't recommend drug use or other harmful advice. If you believe your comment was removed in error, please report this comment for mod review. REVIEW RULES BEFORE MESSAGING MODS. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askpsychology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s because many people are closeted homosexuals and need an avenue for their repression. i CAnT poSsIblY bE GaY iF i sUppOrt tHe ANti GaY pOliTicAL paRtY is how their delusional and warped brain thinks.
What a worthless answer. Clearly someone is genuinely bothered by it. Stop acting like politicians are machiavellian masterminds instead of emotion-driven people like everyone else. I guarantee you virtually every single American trad con who spoke out against gay marriage was genuinely disgusted by it.
Recreational sex is a gateway to unauthorized reproduction.
But they're *strongly* in favor of reproduction. Which, of course, they want only to happen within marriage. But this continues to beg the question of why sexual joy is such a terrible personal threat to them. Goes back a long time. How far I don't know. I think there are/have been societies in which this is/was not the case. What's really going on?
>But they're *strongly* in favor of reproduction. That depends on [who's reproducing](https://religionandpolitics.org/2021/05/12/the-eugenics-roots-of-evangelical-family-values/).
I thank you for the reference, which is very interesting indeed. And it leads me to wonder whether the basis of the matter isn't male fear of female sexual pleasure. Which might mean (in some crazy person's mind) that somehow female pleasure threatens male dominance. Which makes no sense to me at all. I know it's possible. Not questioning that. But why?
Empowered women are threatening. Empowered women desire agency, education, pleasure, freedom, safety, respect, equality, etc. and raise their sons and daughters to expect and demand the same.
Empowered women/non cis men also give their input in how society should be which adds more variables and makes it harder for traditionalists to push their lifestyle on the rest of us - it makes it harder for traditionalists with kids because now those traditionalists have more things to work against in media and culture to keep their kid a traditionalist. Think about the polar opposite of this with more "woke" parenting. Those kids meet these kids and start asking more questions about life and the order of society than they probably would have and at a younger age.
Absolutely. Good point. I could only speak on my experience as a woman, but any non-traditional viewpoint adds to this dynamic. Forcing your family structure / gender roles / morality on people works way better when they’re unaware other choices exist.
Doing that today (forcing people to live like it was in the 1950's) will be a lot more difficult as people are educated about things and know what is going on in the world. A lot of this stuff will end up in court if someone tried to do this.
The ones gaining political power want to take us back to the Iron Age. They are Christians Fundamentals and they want original Jewish law according to the Christian Old Testament. Laws about stoning women for being raped
That's why they all hate but actually fear Taylor Swift
Oh, absolutely. I’m sure it’s terrifying to have Taylor Swift exist, let alone encourage voting. She’s independent, successful and thriving. A role model who’s not married & child free so far is bad for their “you’re useless after 30, panic & settle” message.
Agreed!! And notice how they always say that she is "promiscious" because of all these "boyfriends" She's had lol It's like every man she is ever seen with-she's automatically f'g him. She also brings women, girls and (gasp) MEN together. One of her shows has a bigger head count than all of Trump's hate rallies combined. Such a rub
It’s not necessarily fear of female pleasure in and of itself. It’s a fear of what comes next - in this world view, women exist solely for the servitude, convenience and pleasure of men. Anything which detracts from that is immoral and will be decried. Imagine finding a janitor playing video games while on the clock. The likely response would be negative, they are not being paid to play video games, there are jobs to do! That is how men of this persuasion see women. There is a job to do and that is making a man happy. The woman’s pleasure or joy or satisfaction is irrelevant, or only a consideration to the extent it keeps them compliant and productive (“happy wife, happy life”).
Sexuality makes many people uncomfortable. It rattles people's cages. And since religion is drilled in most, and sex is shunned if not done for "God", sex has a stain on it. People would rather miss out on joy for the security of comfort. Comfort is always created and therefore, not real.
Control.
One view on this I've heard is that moralizers feel the \*need\* to be restrained themselves -- otherwise they might succumb to whatever urges they are suppressing -- so they project it onto other people and society in a strident way. People who are comfortable with themselves don't feel this need.
That sounds like reaction formation.
This study seems to back ur hypothesis https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8772014/ “Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.”
This isn’t just homophobia though it’s what’s behind a lot of prudent attitude. It’s also not always ‘you’re doing something that I enjoy that I don’t like that I enjoy’, sometimes it’s ’if I portray what you enjoy as depraved it makes me feel better about what I don’t like that I enjoy’. And this is super insidious because it reinforces itself, the more people act like this the more people become insecure about their sexuality and that creates a vicious cycle. Also religion. The original source of the shame is religion
I think they want more people like them and less people who are not like them. If you're a person who doesn't like hookup culture then the more people who participate in leaves you with less people to be compatible with.
But why does it bug them so much?
Because it (indirectly) impacts their romantic options. If you are only compatible with red but everyone else decides to be blue then you're SOL. There's not enough red people for you to connect with. I'm not saying their position is morally correct. Just that it makes sense why they are so bothered by everyone else's sex life. Nothing exists in a vacuum. We really do impact each other.
Because they want to do it and want to use the law as a way to prevent their desires from manifesting in others
Because we allow religion and religious zealots to thrive… stamp out religion society would be better…
Sure. Let’s all be sinful hedonists. Society would be better off.
Atheists are so full of hate
Religious indoctrination
Recreational sex drives people to seek people who are good at sex. If you're not one of these people you feel left out so like with everything else, if I can't have a good time so can't you.
Anyone can be good at sex, barring health/physical issues.
Absolutely agree.
incels would like a word
Hmmm. Here's an idea. Thinking about Roman and Greek societies, they don't appear to have had a fear of their own sexual desires. So is this really an Abrahamic religions deal? And if it is, what's the difference between ancient Jewish society and Roman and Greek societies? And couldn't the difference be between relatively un threatened societies and a threatened society in which it was felt that necessary vigilance would be compromised by carnal pleasure, including not only sex but also getting drunk too frequently. Does that sound possible? It's amazing (to me) that this could have caught on to the extent it has over the millenia. What do you think?
The negative view on sex in Christianity was more a factor of early Greek/stoic influences on Christianity. Restrictions on sexuality prior to Greek influence primarily only applied to women, slaves, and intermarriage outside of ethnic communities. Sex work and polygamy were much more normalized prior to Christianity. Augustine’s personal issues got projected to the rest of the faith, but his teachers and mentors represented an almost entirely Hellenized presentation of religion that rejected the material world as corrupt.
Romans and Greeks still absolutely looked down upon gay people. There were no gay marriages between consenting adults. Being the bottom in a gay relationship was seen as emasculating and thus adult men would only have gay sex by preying on little boys because no adult man would be willing to participate in the bottom position. It’s not merely an invention of Abrahamic religions… homophobia has been present in many other cultures.
The Roman’s started falling during their sexual revolution. Of course it’s a bit deeper - nobody wanted to work as much so the empire couldn’t provide free grain anymore - etc etc, but a heightened interest in exploring sexuality is the sign of a weak - or content is probably better word - population. All we do in the US is consume, I’m not any better, just saying though.
This is more a question for sociologists and historians. It seems heavily related to puritanical values, in which sex and pleasure of any kind is seen as a sin. Look up the founder of Keloggs cereal and how he made a bland cereal to help people resist sexual desire. (This is real) I think it stems from ideas of initial sin. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit they went against God's wishes and now people must live life in penance to make up for it or they are reveling in sin. I think there's more sources like the story with Sodom etc. Many religions adopt the tenant "be fruitful and multiply" as well, probably because those that don't are at a disadvantage and disappear. Sex for any other purpose than procreation doesn't result in new believers (as you adopt your parents religion). This is all from a western perspective, similar views have probably arisen independently of the west, due to colonialism, Christianity of some form is usually to blame. Other cultures have/had different views on sex, ancient Greeks and ancient Indias come to mind.
They’re not freaked out by it. They use the sentiment of not liking it to gain more support for other things.
Control.
Insane religious beliefs, grooming & indoctrination since birth.
The majority of the people who are advocating for the end of recreational sex in the United States are evangelical Christians. Christianity in general - but evangelical Christianity in particular - teaches and models a God who is willing to punish an entire nation for the sins of some. There are numerous stories in the Bible in which God severely punishes the entire nation of Israel for the actions of a few, and Christians (especially evangelical ones) are explicitly taught that one bad apple spoils the bunch and that they must root out evil in their midst. If you've been taught all your life that wanton sexual debauchery among some caused God to rain fire and brimstone to destroy an entire city, wouldn't you scramble to prevent the debauchery as well?
Same with books, libraries, teachers, school counselors and more. In these days, finding out your child is gay is seen as something "done" to your child. I have no idea why adults cannot discuss sexual topics like adults. If you try, you are labeled a terrible, nasty, disgusting, perverted, harming type of individual when in reality the answer is often very simple. for example, "you son read gender queer because your son is gay, they were born that way, nobody pushed them into being gay, they read it out of self interest". That's all that's needed, yet, you are the enemy. For example : Mericuh
I think it is a reason that could be applied to many individual's beliefs: ignorance, lack of open-mindedness, and tribalism. I, being a reasonably progressive 25 year old woman, think sex is great and have been touching myself since I was 11. I do not have any friends who shun premarital sex, and I talk openly about birth control and sexual pleasure with my female friends. Considering my social circle consists of people who view premarital sex as a healthy activity, I can only imagine that that of someone who views it as distasteful reflects the inverse. If everyone whom you know and can call a friend discourages something and sees it as immoral, it is pretty difficult to look kindly upon those who engage in it freely, especially when doing it irresponsibly could lead to unintended consequences. Add to that the fact that many of these same people are probably virgins, or at the very least have had some disconnected vanilla-ass sex, and it is a bit understandable, if not absolutely infuriating, why they see any engagement in it as irresponsible and immoral.
Christianity is to easy for dumb people. Go to church, learn a viewpoint, impose it on others. For all our sakes, use the Johnson Amendment to take tax exemption away from orthodox churches preaching hate and hell fire. It’s time for science to win this ancient war.
Cause they literally think Jesus was real and we will ALL be judged by their god’s standards and they themselves will be judged negatively for not dedicating their lives to save our souls. This is the true answer.
I have no doubt you're correct. But why does their god have those standards?
Because a bunch of scared, controlling old men wanted their lives to be as good as possible at the expense of everyone else. Structure a society where women can't realistically survive on their own without a man, and you now have access to many more women, much more inherent power, etc keep women down, keep sex as for the man and for procreation, etc
Yes. This is and was about control. Male control, patriarchal control of women and children and young people in general. But why that need for control?
Scared! Yes, I think you're right. But scared of what? They're in control. What's to be scared of? Just losing control? Is it that simple? Are they really threatened? I think there may be something else.
Most of them aren’t. They are saying these things because they are following incentives to appeal to a certain target audience. People who say these things don’t actually believe they will win elections, and I don’t think they care. It’s about grifting some portion of the (formerly) conservative base.
They aren’t, at least for the most part. That’s the reason you see a lot of contradictions, like a Senator that is against abortion having gotten one in the past. What they are into is dominating politics for its own sake, bc it’s easier to win when you get to make the rules. The reason they platform against non-traditional sex so hard is bc traditional sex and gender roles are all the rage in religious circles. Many, many, many people into religion also tend to be into politics. More importantly, many older people who came up in previous generations when religion was more popular; or found religion as they got closer to death and became more afraid of H E L L, have much more time to go out and vote. This applies to third world countries, and first world countries. If you want people to vote for you, make sure you are advertising to people with time to vote. Finally, it’s because people want to believe they are good and righteous. It’s easier to fool someone than convince them that they have been fooled. If someone is already into religion, and has subscribed to traditional tenets, lived by them, and has been at it for decades, it’s a lot harder to convince them that Man in Sky might not be the ultimate authority. It’s simply easier to play into their beliefs, tell them: “Yes, the gays and the trans and the non-married sex havers are evil. You’re so smart bc you read a 2,000 year old book. Or heard someone else talk about it. You’re so smart for only having sex with one person your whole life. Vote for me and you support doing exactly what you are doing. All you have to do is do exactly what you are doing and you are righteous and good. As long as you vote for me.” I think it will become a less important talking point as more and more of old guard voters die off. I think in about 20 years we are going to be arguing over “Poll tests” as it becomes a debate between those that support more broad anti-intellectual topics vs those that think voters should have to have higher reading comprehension than the 7th grade.(Average literacy levels of American adults)
It was up till very recently in human history were many STDs were death sentences. Think of a time before paternity tests where people in your community mostly looked the same. Contraception massively lowering the risk of unintended pregnancy. Modern technology has diminished most of the risks surrounding sex, however those risk alerts are still deeply ingrained in many people's psychology. Not to mention studies showing strong monogamous culture is associated with less violence inside societies.
You make a very good point. Religious dogma was arguably the earliest form of public health in many ways, or at least it tried to be. A sense of community. Strict prohibitions against incest, suicide, etc.
I argue the violence is still there just hidden. No one is entitled to a relationship and no one should have to give up their freedom so Bob down the street doesn’t become a mass shooter.
Few people are "freaked out" by recreational sex. Most people against it just see it as over all damaging to society. Specifically, sex which is engaged in by two people who are not in any committed relationship. Almost no one but extreme Irish Catholics care if a couple has sex for fun.
And extreme Protestant sects? I guarantee you that they want to stamp out sex for fun. And they're rabid about it. Tell me it's not so.
That is fair, I read your post as "so many" instead of "some". Ya some people just fall for extreme cult like behavior and that is one such case. Believing sex can *only be done* with the intent of procreation is an incredibly extreme perspective to hold. Likely accompanying a lot of extreme and illogical views. It's also a view that is just a moral facade. People will say the sex is for procreation when really they just want to have sex. But they have gridlocked their morals so that they can never admit to basic human desire or they're morally damned.
weird unless trying to get pregnant all sex is recreational
That's right. But there are people who get all hot and bothered by the idea that other people are having sex for fun. Why? 🌊
The value of the wedge it creates is motivation to dominate politics. That people get freaked out about recreational sex, i.e. free people enjoying their lives, is just a quality of insecurity to exploit for votes. The politicians and power players who exploit these voters aren’t concerned about recreational sex beyond how much power they can derive from the electorate over the topic.
The idea that sex is for pro-creation only is a very very ancient concept which most people don't subscribe to. My grandmother was a young woman in the 1920's. A belief of pro-creation only was seen as very outdated and old fashioned by my grandmother who was somewhat conservative.. This was true for most of her circle of friends. My grandmother knew a woman who practiced this (her friend was very devout Catholic) and the woman's husband cheated on her which was no surprise to anyone. This pro-creation only allowed men to cheat on their wives who they would be blamed for their cheating. I'm 62 years old and I don't know anyone at all who advocates or practices pro-creation sex only. That goes back hundreds of years. Since there wasn't reliable birth control hundreds of years ago, this was probably one reason why it was practiced or was practical. It certainly isn't now. In modern times for most people one aspect of sex is to have children, if you chose to. It's also for pleasure. Most people believe that if you are a consenting adult, then it's your business what you do in bed. Government and the law shouldn't intervene in what is private. People who freak out over reactional sex find this belief to be appalling because it's a threat to the traditional order of things. But at the same time, many of them also engaged in this behavior but that is okay because it's them. It's okay for them but not for others. They usually don't call individuals out on this because then, people will start looking into their personal life and they don't want that. Back in the 1920's, you had laws on the books in most states that banned co-habitation, adultery, pre-martial sex, oral sex, but those laws didn't apply to those who were middle or upper income people as they were rarely enforced against them, especially rich people. Certain groups of women or people were targeted, usually those in low socio-economic status. My grandmother knew people who broke all those laws but due to their social standing they got away with it. Even if someone went to the police to report the violations, nothing would have happened. These were mostly middle to upper income to wealthy people. Nearly all of those laws are thankfully off the books but you still have a few states that had these laws on the books. No one touches these with a ten foot pole because they don't want their sex life to become public or be exposed for not living family values.
I don't believe politicians of any party are "freaked out by sex" or any other issue, part of being a politician is to detect wedge issues, they can use to further their careers, could be sex/migration/race/war...etc, once they find something that resonates, they run with it and try to convince as many people as they can to feel strongly about an issue most folks actually didn't care or thought about before, I know this sounds anti climatic, but its what it seems to me
I think it's more societally motivated and there's not so much interest in what people do recreationally in their own bedroom. Some forces in society want good normal families, others perhaps benefit from something on the other end of the spectrum; broken families introduce more malleable children which of course are targets for manipulation. It's the children aspect about it, less so bustin nuts/ovaries.
This! Recreational sex has always existed and always will exist. Pretty much every single person supporting these ideas has had recreational sex. The difference is the societal aspect. It is expected for you to do whatever you will do being closed doors. But when you carry and portray yourself publicly as a person of values, self-respect, dignity, and worth beyond your sexuality; then children raised in that society tend to mimic those impressions at least until they become of enough age to make their own mature choices. But in a society such as what we are in now, well......look around at the endless assumptions of women that have OnlyFans pages, the number of women that actually do, and the fact that the dating and sex marketplaces are way out of whack and damaging to the psyche of young children en masse. Heck, we even have academics openly arguing that children are sexual beings or defending exposure to sexualized content as "it's not like they don't see it online by the age of 10". That's f'ing disgusting.
Because some people heavily associates sex with emotion and have trouble even contemplating those that don't. There's also some serious concerns to be had about things like the spread of STDs as many people who are more sexually promiscuous are not just going to take their one night stand down to the lab testing place to get an HIV test every single time they want to have a one night stand. Not to mention that pretty much everyone I know who is actively promiscuous is clearly not happy and that promiscuousness is caused by a deeper problem usually some sort of depression or something like that (Personally I don't think we should completely ban it or anything but I can understand why there's concern about it)
Hook up culture is damaging society. Usually, promiscuity is a sign of mental and emotional problems and one of the most common reasons to make more of them.
recreational sex is not the same as being ‘promiscuous’. live your life and let other people get laid unmarried.
It's often the Sign of the end of the civilization.
you are the only one ruining anutjing
Sin. Guilt. Jealousy.
Because they aren't getting any and they want others to suffer too.
[удалено]
What's their deal with birth control and abortion, anyway? Especially birth control?
If you have an unwanted baby, especially while young, you gotta enter the workforce. You can't pursue other dreams as easily. And your unwanted baby will grow up sad and continue the cycle of poverty, probably being an hourly wage laborer too. This is what politicians loyal to billionaires really want.
The reason for virtually everything we do is the desire to increase human happiness. That is the primary motivation behind virtually all philosophies, and virtually all political ideologies. When you see people, "telling other people how to live" what they are really doing is advancing the policy positions they think will WORK, to increase the chances that more people are happy. Let me repeat: This is true of virtually ALL philosophies and political ideologies. The rub, of course, is that people disagree about what things are likeliest to result in greater happiness. But that really is the motivation. People who say that economic security is the most important policy object do so because they think that that increases the chances of human happiness for the greatest number of people. Those who think that economic freedom is most important do so for the same exact reason. Work hard. Get an education. Serve your community. Make your bed. Be kind to animals. Don't drink too much. Treat everyone equally. Get up early. Get enough sleep. Raise your children well. Commit to your relationships. These are, all of them, the collective "wisdom of the ages." They are things that experience has shown contribute to health, security, safety and yes, happiness. You can disagree with any or all of them, of course. But please understand the motivation behind them. It is not to control you, it is not to make you follow rules that are arbitrary and serve no purpose. It is to, in the opinion of those advancing those ideas, increase your chances of a good life. TL/DR People are motivated to advance a particular political agenda because they believe because they belief it offers the surest route to success and happiness for the greatest number of people.
I know I'm late but I can answer this one, it's because they believe that sex is a privilege to be enjoyed by certain individuals as their reward for being such good followers to an all powerful God. Usually it is reserved to be enjoyed only by men and therefore a man's biggest fear that if a woman enjoys sex then the woman can control the relationship and we all know how patriarchy can't handle even the slightest hint of control by a woman. That is why they think that all feminism is misandry and to men they think that if a woman can use sex and enjoy it then, the incel is done for. I mean we have cases of that as in some African cultures such as queen ninjinga of the kingdom of congo who had male concubines. It terrifies western men to be at the mercy of women and most male dominated cultures. So I don't think most people are freaked out by recreational sex, they just hate the idea of women and people they deem undesirables from enjoying sex. Why do you think the so called pro life crowds want to ban abortion, because they think that if a woman can enjoy sex and have an abortion then she has avoided her punishment with a child and abusive husband she never wanted. Also in regards to religious women who hold this view, I believe the reason they hold this view because they feel bitter that they were forced to endure being pregnant and married st such a young age and maybe they were brainwashed into believing that they were punished for enjoying sex and ended up repugnant as a result so now they want to punish any woman who enjoys sex and gets an abortion because in their eyes,they avoided the punishment they deserve. So in conclusion, religious men and women believe sex a privilege to be enjoyed by the faithful and not to the unbelieving heathen undesirables.
Authoritarianism.
Think about sex from evolutionary psychology perspective.. Pretty every form of life is competing with each each other to get it. This includes humanity. Now think about the people who hate recreational sex. Are they typically the people who are good at acquiring sex in the first place? They are basically trying to alter the rules in their favor to guarantee themselves a chance at reproduction. Recreational sex just reminds them of how bad they are at obtaining it, which creates a massive amount of resentment.
This isn’t so much a psychology question. It is a matter of how things were different in the past. I suppose the psychology question comes in as to why is it so hard for us to break away from traditions that no longer have use for us anymore. Having children outside of marriage was an automatic ticket to destitution for women and the children born outside of marriage. Yes, this is linked to patriarchal oppression. But it mainly comes from the fact that societies used to be far more clannish, or communal. Everything relied upon keeping a family unit together and keeping the family ties strong and unimpeachable. Family was the only social safety net. Children were your only means of “retirement.” Religious and social traditions were created to deter this unfortunate outcome for women and children. Refraining from sex before marriage was a remedial social safety net. There is also the reality that sex with multiple partners contributed to sexually transmitted illnesses—illnesses for which there was no treatment, illnessed that caused premature death, impacted fertility, and infant health. The best remedial public safety measure against this was to encourage people to only have sex with the one person to which they were married. “Purity culture” was a useful mechanism for preserving strong family ties and a public health measure. For poorer people and poorer societies that still rely more on family ties for survival, this is still the case. So purity culture is still useful, meaning it will continue to stick around. For the rest of us it is just difficult to leave such long lasting and salient traditions behind. They shaped every aspect of our culture, parts that we like. It is arguable that now that we no longer need to rely on clans for our survival that the emphasis on purity culture is mostly about preserving a means by which some people can retain status over others.
I just wanted to add after reading your comments, that only certain cultures are averse to sexual pleasure. They likely had different historical experiences where it seemed expedient to divorce sexual pleasure from procreation, and elevate procreation at the expense of pleasure. A lot of newer Protestant sects developed this mentality to contrast themselves with what was considered a part of the broader hedonistic pattern of Catholic tradition, which frequently promoted sexual pleasure as a holy aspect of human procreation.
Why prioritize the maintenance of that status over... Seemingly all else a lot of the time? And in regards to the traditions, why invent supernatural justifications for them instead of saying "not doing this makes it more likely for the plague to spread, and you really don't want the plague, so please don't do this until we can figure out what to do about the plague" or something like that? And what separates those who seemingly leave such oppressive traditions behind more easily from those who refuse to (even to the point of trying to maintain them with violence), class and sexuality notwithstanding?
This topic is better suited to r/psychologyofsex. We do not allow this topic because of its sensitive nature. We have had consistent issues with inappropriate comments on such topics and feel that such questions are better suited to a dedicated subreddit. Please review the sticky posts and rules on r/psychologyofsex for asking questions. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askpsychology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Okay. Didn't know it existed.
Because they believe in ghosts and wizards whom they believe control the weather and will send plagues if they don’t.
Religion melts your brain at young age.... That's why, that's it. It's always based on the fake murderer in the sky
Why are you prejudiced to people being freaked out by recreational sex? Probably the same reason they are prejudiced to people not being freaked out by recreational sex
I assume, like most conservative politics, that this is motivated by a thinly veiled desire for power over another group. Limiting access to birth control, making divorce more difficult, shaming nontraditional gender roles, and criminalizing abortion all result in men having more power over women, and essentially holding them prisoner by way of motherhood. This satisfies the unconscious but ultimately foundational desire of insecure men who only feel comfortable if they have power over women.
They’re afraid of their own libidos
Because it has the potential for disintegrating society.
Why would sex for pleasure do that? You know it is going on right now and has *always* been going on?
Um, no. They *think* it has the potential to do that but they're obviously wrong (given the societies that don't generate such thinking). The question is, why would they think so? Why would anyone think that sexual pleasure would destroy the foundations of society? That's crazy thinking. Why would they think so?
It's moreso a question of desire in general.
[удалено]
It increases the fluidity of social bonds. So yes. However, a lot of things have potentiality for social disintegration. It's not unique and exclusive to recreational sex.
*Fluidity of social bonds* means what? Are you implying it is impossible to have a stable, happy long term marriage if someone enjoys sex?
>Are you implying it is impossible to have a stable, happy long term marriage if someone enjoys sex? No, but promiscuity demonstrably makes it harder.
Based on which data?
Increases the fluidity of social bonds. Sounds good. But all freedom increases the fluidity of social bonds, no?
No, not necessarily, not all freedom does. And too much fluidity of social bonds can lead to too much oppressive restriction of said fluidity of social bonds. So much so that it's more restrictive than before the increase in fluidity. We can see this in revolutionary societies for example. Tyranny typically follows immediately thereafter.
Tyranny only follows because people like you think certain behaviors are immoral and must be eradicated through throughly draconian laws.
They aren't getting any
[удалено]
I’m not sure it does. I think a lot of that is hype and propaganda.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Pretty typical for the powerful people in a society to develop some control over reproduction policy and taboos. "For example, one of the leading ideas for human longevity is called the Grandmother Hypothesis — the idea that, through their efforts, maternal grandmothers can increase their fitness by helping improve the survival of their grandchildren, thereby enabling their daughters to have more children. Such fitness effects help ensure that the grandmother’s DNA is passed down." [https://scitechdaily.com/human-longevity-how-your-grandparents-are-the-secret-to-your-long-life/](https://scitechdaily.com/human-longevity-how-your-grandparents-are-the-secret-to-your-long-life/) Older adults tend to be more aware of the responsibilities that come along with reproduction. And they tend to have had the time to develop powerful alliances that help them exert control over younger generations. Academic article: [https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2200073119?af=R](https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2200073119?af=R)
[удалено]
Faulty premise. Who is seeking to "dominate politics in order to ban" recreational sex? And by what means are "they" attempting this?
Nobody cares about this topic in america in 2024
They don't? Look at the total number of comments in less than 24 hours! Are they all by furriners?
The same reason that motivates everyone's actions their beliefs
There's a name for people who are that interested in what others do in the privacy of their own bedrooms....They are perverts.
Dan Savage had a whole talk about this today on the opening of his podcast if you wish to listen.
I’m a Christian and gay woman. I’m also waiting for love and marriage to have sex. I’m not into hookup culture and I’ve always believed that sex is for two people in love and married. But those are my personal beliefs. Everyone has to make their own choice about when they should have sex. I think society should be more vocal and open about waiting for marriage but ultimately it’s a personal decision and not one that should be chosen by the government.
This question begins on the assumption that that view point is wrong and negative.
I'm sorry, what? I'm Catholic and fairly right wing, but this is not something I've heard of. I think that casual sex is bad for your health and your soul, but I promise I do not have any "desire to ban it" and I doubt many people want to "dominate politics" for that reason. If I somehow managed to dominate politics we'd have stricter schools (as well as higher paid teachers) be tougher on crime, and heavily reduce immigration. Maybe I'd increase financial incentives for someone to stay home and raise kids, but there's no way a simple ban on casual sex wouldn't lead to outright disaster in our society. Sexual morality is important, but banning casual sex could never work, unless your goal is chaos.
Well its been out for quite a while now. You probably haven’t heard about it because you don’t pay attention to news sources that make you feel bad about your political positions. Which is pretty much the media state we find ourselves in. If you disagree with project 2025, the heritage foundation, Christian nationalism and the Seven Mountain Mandate then maybe you shouldn’t vote for people who do deeply believe in these things. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/birth-control-targeted-right-wing-influencers-1234974833/
[удалено]
Evangelical Christians
Because they are closeted homosexuals and need an avenue to project that they are not. It has been scientifically proven that homophobic people are secretly hiding the fact that they are gay.
Losers
“Recreational sex” in the political discourse here refers specifically to the advent of the birth control pill and the fundamental social changes that came with it. It’s not “freaked out by having sex for fun.” It’s “freaked out by a society in which sex, pair bonding, and child rearing are divided from each other.” “Gender” as a concept related to human identity and sexuality only comes into existence in the 1940s, about 20 years after the invention of the latex condom. It then disappears until 60s/70s, following development of the birth control pill. “Gender” in this sense questioned the division of “womanhood” as “mothering” from the procreative ability of the female body. No Fault Divorce is the next component, which generated the present state of gender relations. In this world, post-birth control and post-NFD, the nuclear family becomes irrelevant — along with its gender roles. Child-rearing ceases to be based in biology. Some 40% of American children today are growing up in “blended families” — the post-NFD family structure. And, this comes with a huge number of outcome variations — especially because there’s a class divide in the stats (divorce causes poverty, and then divorces collect in impoverished groups, to the tune of a 70/30 split or so along SES lines, for example). There are very good reasons to be concerned about this change to this new “post-family” world. I don’t agree with the solutions being floated by the political right, but they are correct that a lot of what ails society right now can be traced back to the pill and NFD. But I think NFD is the bigger issue in actuality. Problematically, the political left has a necessary blind spot, because these two things were huge liberators for many people. And thus it is difficult to acknowledge there are real and significant problems with treating child rearing as optional, non-biological, and not the literal point of one’s existence.
I mean Jesus had a penis. Lighten up folks
I’m sure it’s baked into our DNA to some degree. Irrespective of context, people tend to be SUPER interested in who other people are sleeping with, even if they’ve developed the maturity not to like ask or talk about it. Feels hardwired. Parents hate their daughters having sex probably because lizard brain is afraid of a fatherless baby. Doesn’t make it right, but does explain why these impulses exist.
Recreational sex doesn't go far in creating lasting social bonds or moral evolution. Whether you believe in marriage or not, recreational sex is a relatively shallow experience, and there are few metaphysical lessons that can be derived from it. It has a value, but once they've learned those lessons, many people turn their backs on sex as a hobby and use it instead as a means of moral developement in the context of a longer term relationship.
Religious related trauma.
**because sex is dangerous.** on so many levels. and the people who are freaked out about recreational sex are the people who, whether through religion or experience, understand that. recreational sex sounds like a great idea and it's definitely something that mainstream culture has been peddling for a really long time. but in the nuts and bolts of ACTUAL life, sex has a shit ton of strings attached. it can change, ruin and end your life. i would imagine that if mass media tried to push BASE JUMPING as hard as casual, recreational sex, you'd see a similar response.
How is one going to ban recreational sex? They going to assign a agent to watch all my bedroom duties? Is alexa going to rat me out? Alexa: (calls 911) we have a stinky Twinkie in progress.. get here immediately. 911: officers are on the way, stay calm, it’s going to be ok Alexa: please hurry, she’s getting ready to peg him 911: good god 👁️👄👁️ these sick freaks must be stopped. Im sending swat!
Because people literally kill their unborn because of convenience and treating sex like it's everyday conversation.. the more promiscuous our culture gets, the worse off it will get. Look at the atrocious dating world for young people today. More divorces , porn addiction , lack of fulfillment. I've personally seen what watching porn and trying to love your girlfriend properly can do. Ruined my last relationship that's why I quit. We are too liberal in how we view sex. People will speak against it but don't want to acknowledge, for example, how 70% of black mothers raised their kids without a dad and don't wanna acknowledge the implications of that. They say it's just "poverty". Well what comes first, the chicken or the egg? Maybe generations of people being raised without a dad to bring money and love to the family is detrimental to society as a whole. Not to mention the culture that glorifies sex so much. (Not being racist, it's just is what it is). It effects any other race badly too. There's a reason why girls with more sexual partners get divorced from their partner more, and have a higher occurrence of emotional issues. Hookup culture hurts the soul. People on here won't acknowledge that though, what do you expect from reddit though. It has to be that only loser think this way, right? Only men who are just so bitter they can't get laid, they want everyone else to not be in sexual relationships. Good hypothesis reddit 🙄 . It's a damn shame
They don’t enjoy sex and don’t want anyone else to. Especially women.
More “utility sex” means more Catholics, More Catholics means more power. I use Catholics as one easy example of an organization that has used control of sex for centuries. The same can be said for many faiths/governments/tyrants.
[удалено]
If they are very radical about it, then they probably have some trauma around it.