Nothing inspires murderous mayhem in human beings more reliably than sexual repression. Denied food, water, or freedom of movement, people may lash out at what they perceive as the source of their problems, albeit in a weakened state. But if expression of sexuality is thwarted, the human psyche tends to grow twisted into grotesque, enraged perversions of desire.

Dr John Kellogg (on the left) claimed not to have sex with his wife for forty years. So who did he have sex with then?

Unfortunately, the distorted rage resulting from sexual repression rarely takes the form of rebellion against the people and institutions behind the repression. (If it did, perhaps we’d be reading of abused priests rather than priests as abusers.) 

Instead, the rage is generally directed at helpless victims sacrificed to the sick gods of guilt, shame, and ignorant pride.

Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi, an Iranian cleric, recently warned that adultery causes earthquakes. I assume he said this with a straight face, Iranian clerics not being known for their impish sense of humor.

Lest we dismiss this as just another example of distant fundamentalist lunacy, we might take a look at some examples a bit closer to home.

Christianity is a religion centered upon a figure whose holiness begins with his having been conceived asexually. Mark Twain noted the bizarre anti-eroticism of Christianity when he considered heaven:

[Man] has imagined a heaven, and has left entirely out of it the supremest of all his delights, the one ecstasy that stands first and foremost in the heart of every individual of his race . . . sexual intercourse! It is as if a lost and perishing person in a roasting desert should be told by a rescuer he might choose and have all longed-for things but one, and he should elect to leave out water!

(Letters from the Earth)

There’s little question that the centuries-long campaign of child rape enabled by institutional cover-up is a direct result of the Church’s inhumane teachings concerning human sexuality. If priests were allowed to form erotic connections with consenting adults, does anyone doubt that countless children would have been spared their abuse in the hands of these distorted, twisted men?

Of course, religions aren’t the only institutions to champion such abuse of spirit and body; medical doctors have participated in some of these shameful crimes against humanity, as well.

In 1850, the New Orleans Medical & Surgical Journal echoed mainstream thinking by declaring masturbation public enemy number one, warning:

Neither plague, nor war, nor smallpox, nor a crowd of similar evils, have resulted more disastrously for humanity than the habit of masturbation: it is the destroying element of civilized society.

“Scientific” declarations like these inspired Dr. John Harvey Kellogg (brother of the Corn Flakes Kellogg) in his campaign to eradicate masturbation from the United States. Though widely considered to be one of the leading sex educators of his day, Kellogg proudly claimed never to have had intercourse with his wife in over four decades of marriage.

As a medical doctor, Kellogg asserted the moral authority to instruct parents on the proper sexual education of their children.

If you’re unfamiliar with the writings of Kellogg and his contemporaries, their gloating disdain for basic human eroticism is chilling and unmistakable. In his best-selling Plain Facts for Old and Young (written on his sexless honeymoon in 1888), Kellogg offered parents guidance for dealing with their sons’ natural erotic self-exploration in a section entitled “Treatment for Self-Abuse and its Effects”:

A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision… The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anaesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment.

If circumcising a struggling, terrified boy without anesthesia wasn’t quite what a parent had in mind, Kellogg recommended:

(T)he application of one or more silver sutures in such a way as to prevent erection. The prepuce, or foreskin, is drawn forward over the glans, and the needle to which the wire is attached is passed through from one side to the other. After drawing the wire through, the ends are twisted together and cut off close. It is now impossible for an erection to occur.

Lest you think Kellogg was interested only in the sadistic torture of boys, in the same book he soberly advises the application of carbolic acid to the clitorises of little girls to teach them not to touch themselves.

Kellogg, the Catholic church, and Iranian clerics all demonstrate that the repression of human sexuality all-too easily becomes a “malady that considers itself the remedy,” to paraphrase Karl Kraus’s dismissal of psychoanalysis.

Christopher Ryan will be speaking at the 2011 Adelaide Festival of Ideas (7-9 October), and will be appearing at the Sydney Festival of Dangerous Ideas, at the Wheeler Centre and at Readings Bookshop in Melbourne.

220 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Fiddler says:

      06:56am | 21/09/11

      Dr Kelloggs wife must have been really fat. Or had blue waffle.
      I think a lot of this comes from sexual insecurity. If people aren’t meant to enjoy sex then it doesn’t matter if you are crap at it.

    • Tubesteak says:

      09:02am | 21/09/11

      Interesting factoid (which I think could be urban legend and can’t research it whilst at work):

      Kellogg’s Corn Flakes were designed to reduce the male sexual libido.

      I’m glad I eat Weet Bix.

      Anyone who seeks to repress (consenting) sexuality should be ignored.

    • Shooter says:

      10:41am | 21/09/11

      Fiddler did you have to go there. lol

    • neo says:

      11:18am | 21/09/11

      I eat those corn flakes and my libido is too much! Especially ever since i quit smoking :(

      Moving on.

      Catholic Priests should definitely be allowed to marry. Orthodox Priests can, and they seem to serve God just as well.

      The thing is, a man will never be complete without a woman, and the longer a man is without a woman, the more empty he becomes.

    • rita says:

      12:26am | 22/09/11

      I think the article is a bit messy. Podeopholia did not start with the church. It has always been in any community. Celibacy is only in Catholic Church and pedopholes ara all over the place. Actually, I am not particularluy sure what is the main idea of the article.
      I got the impression that the author wants to criticise both Isklam and Catholic church. Never mind the aruments.
      By the way, Catholic sexuall repression is still much lower tha a puritan/protestant one!! or Mormons’. or haredim.

    • Angela says:

      09:36am | 22/09/11

      Dr Kellogg’s wife probably ate to dull her decades-long misery.  Poor woman, being married to a sadist.

    • marley says:

      07:02am | 21/09/11

      Are you sure that caption on the photo is correct?  The fellow on the right looks an awful lot like George Bernard Shaw to me.

    • Lucy Kippist

      Lucy Kippist says:

      10:08am | 21/09/11

      Hi Marley, well spotted! Our error. George Bernard Shaw is on the left, and Dr Sex Is Bad Kellogg is on the right.

    • Pando says:

      12:32pm | 21/09/11

      ?Did you change the photo’s orientation or the caption after this comment?

    • marley says:

      12:41pm | 21/09/11

      Kellogg is the guy with the goatee, Shaw is the guy with the full beard.  They both had their issues with sex and sexuality.

    • Shameless repeat says:

      05:16pm | 21/09/11

      There was a young man from Nantucket
      who got his head stuck in a bucket
      a girl pulled it off
      The bucket was removed later

    • Tina says:

      07:02am | 21/09/11

      “If priests were allowed to form erotic connections with consenting adults, does anyone doubt that countless children would have been spared their abuse in the hands of these distorted, twisted men?”

      I am not sure about this. If I was not allowed to have sex with adults I still wouldnt hurt children. I would buy batteries in bulk.

    • Mahhrat says:

      07:20am | 21/09/11

      Yeah you’ve got to think that’s a nonsense.

    • acotrel says:

      07:30am | 21/09/11

      Sex is not a little kitty that can be locked in a cupboard and ignored.  If you do that, it turns into a great big bear, and jumps out and tears you limb from limb !

    • John says:

      07:43am | 21/09/11

      The child molester is like a thief, strikes when the opportunity awaits him and like a rapist. The reality is they are all common criminals and criminals also have one thing in common, a lack of self control and pleasing their own self interests and not caring about others.

    • Reddragon says:

      07:44am | 21/09/11

      Agreed. The pursuit of children is a perversion pure and simple and should not be related to the sex act at all. It is about abuse and abuse of power is at the heart of it.

      I hope to return later with a suitably tasetless comment once the topic moves away from a point that deserves no trivialisation.

    • Criminologist says:

      07:55am | 21/09/11

      In fact this statement is completely erroneous.  It’s quite a simplistic perception.  Child sex offenders aren’t able to form natural healthy relationships with adults.  That’s why they are child sex offenders.

    • Fiddler says:

      08:32am | 21/09/11

      @Criminologist, who is making a simplistic perception?

      You can’t even begin to classify child sex offenders like that. Not even close, their actions, motivations are as individual as any other person.

    • Reddragon says:

      08:51am | 21/09/11

      @criminologist. So the priests who commit these crimes cannot form relationships with adults and that’s why they do it? muuahhhhh, oh you are good..

    • Brian says:

      09:14am | 21/09/11

      I think we’d find that if priests were allowed to have relations with consenting adults, we’d have had a lot fewer cases of priests abusing children - but perhaps not for the reasons we’d expect!

      The rules about celibacy offer a perfect disguise for those who have no desire for a relationship with an adult. There’s no social stigma about being the forty year old virgin, no questions asked about why there’s no ‘Mrs. Priest’. It’s exactly where someone who has desires which don’t fit the norm would want to go in order to not raise eyebrows (particularly historically, when we weren’t so tolerant of those who didn’t want a wife and kids), and it’s certainly possible that some of the child abuse occured because child abusers became priests, rather than priests became child abusers.

    • fml says:

      09:37am | 21/09/11

      Well in that case, for all the people that cant get any nowadays the government should implement a prostitution welfare like system, if you dont get any for a couple of months you get a hooker bonus. It would be great for the economy and save the children! its win - win.

    • Babe in the Woods says:

      09:38am | 21/09/11

      @Tina, just don’t make the mistake I made by buying no-name brands from the 2 dollar store.  Frustration will abound!

    • Roland says:

      09:38am | 21/09/11

      Is it possible that a lot of religious men chose to become priests in the first place because as young men they realise they have sexual urges that fall outside the norm?

      For example: “I am a good catholic boy, and I am expected to get married and have many children. Problem is, I am attracted to males and that is an evil sin. I will become a priest to make ammends for my flaw and make sure that I am never expected to sleep with a woman”.

      10 or 15 years of sexual repression later.. well you get the idea.

      anyone else think that this might be possible?

    • Liz says:

      09:53am | 21/09/11

      Abuse of children by adults is about power not sex.

    • Criminologist says:

      10:06am | 21/09/11

      @Fiddler/Reddragon

      Perhaps you should read and understand the vast research into paedophilia before you pass comment.

    • Peter says:

      10:23am | 21/09/11

      @Criminologis and Tina, I agree.  The Dr has oversimplified a great deal, I think.  I find it a long bow to draw to say that, wherever someone is not able to “express” themselves sexually they tend to “grow twisted into grotesque, enraged perversions of desire”.  What an absurd over generalisation.  Maybe in Barcelona, perhaps, but I seem to recall there are, for example, thousands and thousands of Nuns who do not have sex and are far from gotesque perversions of desire.  Mother Theresa anyone? 

      I think hysterical assertions such that are made in this article are unhelpful.  Certainly there is a point to be made about the effects of sexual repression, but surely we can temper it a bit with facts and common sense.

    • reddragon says:

      10:50am | 21/09/11

      @criminologist. So, in your humble view, I have either not the read the vast amount of literarure in this field and/or do not understand it?

      Of course I have taken a simplistic approach this is not a scientific forum. But why does the church attract so many of these deviants? Does opportunity and power play any part here? Self gratification at the expense of others?

      I really, really do try not to feed the trolls but you are just too funny and, well, simplistic.

    • neo says:

      11:11am | 21/09/11

      I’d say logic dictates that if child offenders were having sex with adults, less of them would offend. Keep in mind that many of them only offend because they are unable to hook up with someone their age. This is common sense.

    • Gratuitous Adviser says:

      11:17am | 21/09/11

      Roland
      “Is it possible that a lot of religious men chose to become priests in the first place because as young men they realise they have sexual urges that fall outside the norm?”
      In the gay community your theory is well known and accepted for those that joined the priesthood especially before the liberation (coming out) of gays (prior to the 70’s, I guess).

    • Tina says:

      11:27am | 21/09/11

      @ Babe

      Duracell max - thats all I am saying

    • Babe in the Woods says:

      12:09pm | 21/09/11

      @Tina, off to the shops now smile

    • Peter says:

      12:13pm | 21/09/11

      @Neo - “I’d say logic dictates that if child offenders were having sex with adults, less of them would offend. Keep in mind that many of them only offend because they are unable to hook up with someone their age. This is common sense.”

      You must think that sex is sex and raping a child is akin to having sex with a consenting adult.  I assure you, it is not.  In fact, I would challenge you (and the Dr) to direct readers to statistics or evidence to back this assertion up.  I think you will find that child molestors do NOT offend because they aren’t getting enough sex from other sources.  There is no correlation.  Criminologist: can you shed some light on this?

    • neo says:

      12:35pm | 21/09/11

      Peter, there is no way possible to prove this either way. While sex with adults will not “cure” everyone, it is sure to help some.

      You see, as the sample becomes large enough, an action which will logically cause a certain outcome is more and more likely to cause that outcome in at least some cases. And I think you would agree that if child abuse rates fall by even 1%, it is a very good thing.

      Sure, you can say that the effect could be very small, because child molesters do what they do regardless of being able to get sex from adults, but I am still of an opinion that even if 1 less child gets abused because of an action, the action is worth taking. Examples of said actions are: allowing Catholic Priests to marry, increase the accessibility of sex from adults etc. etc.

    • Gavin says:

      12:55pm | 21/09/11

      @Liz,
      What about creeps that sit in front of a computer on their own and look at child porn. Is that about “power” too?

    • kate says:

      12:57pm | 21/09/11

      @Criminologist says:07:55am | 21/09/11

      ” Child sex offenders aren’t able to form natural healthy relationships with adults.  That’s why they are child sex offenders. “

      Isn’t it possible that the warped teaching of the catholic church has actually caused this brain disfunction in certain priests? It is drummed into them since childhood that sex is evil, dirty and sinful, and that if they have sex outside of marriage they will be eternally tortured, and of course they can’t marry - so of COURE they “aren’t able to form natural healthy relationships with adults”

    • JT says:

      01:40pm | 21/09/11

      What crap. Paedophiles/Child molesters choose professions that place them in positions of power and trust over children; priests, teachers, scouts etc. Their ‘‘occupation’’ does not create them, it simply gives them access to fulfil their evil desires.

    • P. Darvio says:

      01:43pm | 21/09/11

      The Bible has no “Age of Consent” - so children for Christian Priests are fair game in accordance with BIBLE LAW. If one looks at so-called Christian Countries - where the percentage of the Population is overwhelmingly claimed to be Christian (eg Italy, Mexico, Philippines etc) they more often that not have very low ages of consent - often as low as 12 or 14. The so-called official State of the Christian Church, The Vatican, has an age of consent of 14 years – I still don’t understand how a bunch of Virgins living in a State created by a fascist right wing Christian Dictator has an age of consent…..although it does help to explain why Christian Priests rape children.

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      02:35pm | 21/09/11

      Tina (and Babe in the Woods) - don’t go buying expensive high-quality batteries. That’s what makes the motors burn out more quickly. Use the cheapo ones and replace them more often. No, I’m not joking, the question was done to death on another forum.

    • Peter says:

      02:37pm | 21/09/11

      @Gavin “@Liz,
      What about creeps that sit in front of a computer on their own and look at child porn. Is that about “power” too?

      Actually, yes, it is.  Why else do you think they are turned on?  Because they like the idea of it.  The abuse of someone who is helpless or vulnerable.  Just because they are not themselves doing it does not mean that it isn’t about power.  Think about it.

    • Shiralee says:

      03:08pm | 21/09/11

      Just because Catholic priests don’t make them Child rapists. And a stupid question but why didn’t mention Christopher Ryan metion the Pastor reverens etc who also molest children. They all can marry and still enjoy children. And know I’m not catholic but I do believe in educating myself in whats going on in the world.

    • BJ says:

      04:27pm | 21/09/11

      Great logic guys, except Catholic priests are actually less likely to be convicted child abusers than the general population.

    • Ro says:

      08:18pm | 21/09/11

      I think the Doc’s statement is an attempt to simplify. Repressing sexual urges is not natural, the religious stigma around sexual urges combined eventually affects the minds ability to express these urges appropriately.

      I grew up with the idea that even thinking about sex in my own private mind was sinful and wrong, spent many of my teenage nights crying and begging god to forgive me for my sinful thoughts… Im 29 now and have gained much of my knowledge from Cosmo, best friends and other sources.  BTW, some of these Iranian clerics actually encourage the union of older men and minor(child) girls. I can vouch for that first hand, once upon a time we had a visitor who belongs to the same sect as these Iranian clerks, made the statement to my Father that marriage to a minor girl is acceptable in his sect. Needless to say my Dad’s gentle, civil ability to contain himself flew out the window and landed back in this dude’s sick face.

    • egg says:

      06:37pm | 22/09/11

      @tony, so THAT’S what happened to mine! thanks dude, i’ll buy el cheapo batteries from now on. wink

    • Carz says:

      07:07am | 21/09/11

      “There’s little question that the centuries-long campaign of child rape enabled by institutional cover-up is a direct result of the Church’s inhumane teachings concerning human sexuality. If priests were allowed to form erotic connections with consenting adults, does anyone doubt that countless children would have been spared their abuse in the hands of these distorted, twisted men?”

      Actually there are a lot of questions regarding this. Child sexual assault has nothing to do with being denied a normal sexual relationship with another consenting adult. There are plenty of married child sex offenders out in the community. If it was the vow of chastity that caused priests to force themselves on the vulnerable then why don’t we see reports of rape against adults, many of whom are in a position of vulnerability to the power of a priest, in the same numbers that we do against children?

    • Joan says:

      09:20am | 21/09/11

      Right on -plenty of molesters and rapists out in the community many married -  and family members/friends are one of the most likely . Sexual expression is extensive, weird as the human imagination can make it possible. all you have to do is watch SBS 10pm Friday nights to witness all manners of sexual expression, some of it some people would label as perversion.The fact that the person chooses to follow sexual repression as a way of life does say a lot about that person from the start. - that they are already wired differently re matters sexual. Quoting past century views without looking at knowlege of the day is ridiculous. Syphillis and all manner of STDs rife and poor personal hygiene- ie rarley bathing,  led to unusual remedies as it did with all medical conditions.  It took centuries for man to relate sexual activity and birth of child. ... not surprising that birth of Christ asexual in Bible.

    • Brian says:

      09:40am | 21/09/11

      Children are easier targets, and more likely to keep quiet. I’d say that he repression of healthy sexuality has had a link to some of the cases of child abuse, but each case would be different - to claim it as the primary cause of the cases is probably wrong, but to claim it has nothing to do with it is probably just as wrong.

    • Shiralee says:

      03:17pm | 21/09/11

      A little bit of usless infomation here. most children that are molested are by someone the mother knows eg her HUSBAND (childs father),  parents reletives or close friends not priests. Hands up all those who did police checks before they got married. anyone. No I diidn’t think so.

    • Bob Stewart says:

      07:38am | 21/09/11

      Sex.
      I think it was Kipling who described it thus:
      “The pleasure is momentary, the positions to perform it very often ridiculous and the cost is damnable”

    • David Stasey says:

      10:20am | 21/09/11

      It was Lord Chesterfield.
      It took precisely 3 clicks to confirm that (compared to 8 keystrokes to type “I think” or about 2 dozen to do an initial quick search).
      This is not directed particularly at you Bob but more at people who do much worse and to remind others that it is not hard to check stuff. You are already on the net!

    • Wynston Cruso says:

      02:42pm | 21/09/11

      If the pleasure is momentary you’re doing it wrong.

    • neo says:

      04:54pm | 21/09/11

      If the pleasure is momentary, you are a male.

    • David Stasey says:

      10:58pm | 21/09/11

      @neo
      Thanks for showing me that. It will be getting a workout.

    • Elizabeth1 says:

      07:43am | 21/09/11

      Seems to be a big jump in logic to me as well. Nope doesn’t explain this behaviour to me. I am sure that there are celibate individuals who have not gone down that road.  Doesn’t answer the lack of empathy for the children, lack of remorse and total narcissism that it would take to rape a child.  That this behaviour has been going on for so long, has involved so many individual priests and has been ignored by their superiors is totally incomprehensible to me.

    • Cry in my Gin says:

      07:43am | 21/09/11

      Go Tina!! Agree totally. The only difference, I’d have RSI in the wrist!

    • gobsmack says:

      07:49am | 21/09/11

      Masturbation is okay as long as it doesn’t get out of hand.

    • Richard says:

      08:33am | 21/09/11

      Yeah I agree… What’s the point of crying over spilt milk?

    • Richard says:

      08:33am | 21/09/11

      Yeah I agree… What’s the point of crying over spilt milk?

    • Pastor Sauce says:

      09:02am | 21/09/11

      Richard, wouldn’t it actually be whipped cream?  Seeing as you have to beat it.

    • stephen says:

      07:55am | 21/09/11

      Yes it’s jolly good fun, and there should be a discount for the working class.
      (If there’s one thing that’ll keep the lid on revolution, it’d have to be that.)

    • Sceptic says:

      07:58am | 21/09/11

      So we had to go to Iran and the 1850’s to suggest that human sexuality is repressed?  Nothing more modern?

    • Lloyd says:

      10:17pm | 21/09/11

      I don’t think modern day Iran is too liberated…

    • baal says:

      08:14am | 21/09/11

      @Tina.
      There are two types of child abusers.
      pedophiles and opportunistic molesters. The majority of abuse is carried out by the opportunistic molesters. It is why girls comming into puberty are actually the most vunerable group. Hell not that long ago 12 year girls used to have sex as married women and still do in many muslim countries.
      The point is simple. Celibacy is unhealthy and unhealthy people will take opportunities as they arise. Children make logical targets becuase of their vunerability.
      If only pedo’s molested we would have far less abuse. Makes me sad.

    • Tina says:

      08:36am | 21/09/11

      But I hope that most people fall into neither of those categories. Just because you could hurt a child doesnt mean you would.

    • Peter says:

      11:21am | 21/09/11

      @baal, would like to see some stats for that assertion.  What does celibacy have to do with opportunistic molestation?  You don’t say.  I can’t imagine that the majority of “opportunistic molestors” are not also getting sex from other sources.  No way.  In fact, i’d bet you 100 to 1 that the majority of “opportunistic molestors” are married men or single men who are otherwise sexually active.  Which makes this article a crock.

    • Your Name: says:

      11:37am | 21/09/11

      Tina.
      The problem is you’re trying to view it from your perspective (which is fair enough).  You, as most sane people in the world, see the idea of causing a child harm, as sickening.  However, the power of rationalism is a dangerous thing to an unhealthy mind.  People who commit these, and other, atrocities may often find justification though some quasi-rational process in which they conclude their actions are not as damaging as they are, or are for the child’s best as a twisted form of punishment, or any variety of other confused conclusions.

    • Ro says:

      08:33pm | 21/09/11

      @baal, when you say “many muslim countries” I have to disagree with you.
      This practice has long been eradicated by law in the majority of Muslim countries. In fact sexual awareness and pleasure in marriage is a subject I can seem to get away from, Muslim women seem to playfully chatter about it wherever I go, if not more than it is discussed in the West. I am an Australian and after living in the Muslim world for over 6 years as an expat, I can sadly say that Aussies are more pruddish about the subject than people of the Middle East.
      It is a documented Islamic practice that sexual intercourse is a natural, healthy pleasure that a husband and wife have as a right with each other.

      I will say child marriage is prevelant in only small pockets of certain countries such as Yemen, Afghanistan and certain African countries, where the great television, electricity and education have not yet evolved. With Globilisation we are all getting closer and closer, it is only a matter of time that these places catch up.

    • Alter ego says:

      08:21am | 21/09/11

      The author seems to subscribe to a world view equally as twisted as the one he rails against: conflating intimacy and sex.

    • Aidan says:

      08:23am | 21/09/11

      Okay, opinion poll time.
      Which of the following are considered “good” and which are “evil”;

      Rusty Trombone
      Dirty Sanchez
      Boston Pancake
      Pink Sock
      Alabama Hotpocket
      Donkey Punch
      Angry Dragon
      Blumpkin

    • Fiddler says:

      08:47am | 21/09/11

      How could you forget the Cleveland Steamer?

    • Bitten says:

      08:55am | 21/09/11

      You know you’re just forcing people to google…

    • MD says:

      09:13am | 21/09/11

      You missed Cleveland Steamer.

    • Dave-o says:

      09:27am | 21/09/11

      Alabama Blowdart?

    • Aidan says:

      10:16am | 21/09/11

      @ Fiddler & MD
      You’ll understand why I left out the Cleveland Steamer when you look up the Boston Pancake.

      @Bitten
      Yes.

    • Simonious says:

      10:37am | 21/09/11

      Urban myths the lot of them. See if you can find any of these being performed in either a film or photo. I bet you cant. The whole list was dreamed up by a bunch of drunk college kids.

    • Budz says:

      10:52am | 21/09/11

      Wow! I just read so much stuff I almost wish I hadn’t!

    • AFR says:

      10:56am | 21/09/11

      In my uni days I was more of a “pig on a spit” kinda guy.

    • Gavin says:

      01:06pm | 21/09/11

      what about Space Docking?

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      02:38pm | 21/09/11

      Jamaican Snowstorm (or Jamaican Blizzard)

    • Wynston Cruso says:

      02:46pm | 21/09/11

      Slippery Gecko?

      On a somewhat related matter, apparently it’s not rape if you yell surprise.

    • AFR says:

      04:32pm | 21/09/11

      Space Docking? Now that’s one I haven’t heard of!

    • nossy says:

      08:28am | 21/09/11

      If God hadnt wanted man/woman to masturbate Christopher he would have ensured our hands didnt reach our genitals!  hahahaah How Priests ever survive allegedly without any sexual gratification remains one of the great mysteries to me so I suppose they must masturbate? A touchy feely subject Christopher and as the day goes on I am sure our Punchers will get a good grip of the subject.

    • Fiddler says:

      08:57am | 21/09/11

      exactly, that is why the t-rex went extinct. It’s arms were too short so it was always angry.

    • Your Name: says:

      11:54am | 21/09/11

      The supposition that all people must masturbate to function properly is a bit of a stretch.  I don’t have the references so don’t ask, but there is some correlation between sexual activity (including masturbation) and sex drive.  Those who have very little, or no, sexual activity have a dramatically decreased sexual drive, thus it is quite possible to function without masturbation.  However, that’s not to say some drive isn’t there. 

      p.s. “Good grip of the subject.”  Nice one.
      Also @Fiddler, got to be the best name in this conversation.

    • Ian Powell says:

      08:28am | 21/09/11

      Christopher, Your article seems a bit like reading a fresh defence of the world being round - Wow - really such a novel incisive “brave” attack. Just right for the Dangerous Ideas festival where old weak unrepresented enemies get a good beating and none of the sacred cows of the organisers or attendees are ever raised - are they even aware of their cows, or that they even have own any.
      You are right that sexual repression may do great damage (we don’t need any research because Freud’s minimal researched(but brilliant) work, unread and learnt through movies and pop psychology is the final word). Repression is not the same thing as being conscious of our desires and choosing to not act them out and that doesn’t kill or distort.
      You ignored the huge celebration of erotic sexuality in Bible as seen especially in the Song of Songs and echoed in Genesis and Proverbs. The origins of Christianity’s troubles with sexuality are mostly due to their unconscious imbibing of the Greek philosophical-spiritual division of physical and spiritual. 
      And what a surprise that you said nothing about mainline Buddhism’s very negative view of sexual pleasure - The Dalai Lama’s recorded views on sex make the Vatican look like a slightly diluted Hugh Hefner - though some of his colleagues have written that he sadly edited some of his views out of some of his books due to the strong urging of American fans.
      Sexuality is a wonderful deep part of being human, with huge power for good and sadly also destruction. Probably better to critique the dominant ideas that are tearing our young people and families apart than just keep wacking the a selection of idiots as if they represent the mainline views of Christians. enemies.

    • Warwick says:

      10:07am | 21/09/11

      Ian Powell, this is very well said. “Like another defence of the world’s being round”; that’s wonderful..

      There is one defence of pieces like this, which is that the battle is never finally won and that ratbag religions like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Muslims are still pressuring their sons and daughters to regard masturbation as evil.

      And I agree that it is drawing a long bow to say that child sex abuse amongst priests can be convincingly attributed to their vows of celibacy. The people in charge of non-religious child-care institutions also sodomised and otherwise raped the kids in their care. And many modern pedophiles have never known any significant sexual restrictions at all.

      Furthermore, it is not necessary to bring up the matter of perversions in order to defend sexual freedom; sexual freedom is a good thing in itself.

      It is a strong indicator that we humans are the result of millenia of haphazard evolution rather than intelligent design, that boys from the age of twelve or thirteen find themselves subject to huge sexual desires that they cannot reasonably expect to satisfy. Sure, they can masturbate, but masturbation is a very poor substitute for sexual congress with a woman/girl (I don’t know anything about homosexual desires and their satisfactions.)  Even if a boy commences real sexual activity at the age of seventeen, he still has four years of terrible frustration. I’m not sure how it is for girls but I don’t think that their desires are as huge as ours when they are very young teenagers.

    • Elizabeth1 says:

      08:05pm | 21/09/11

      Warwick - I knew how to arouse myself when I was very young, I didnt actually orgasm until I had reached puberty.  I knew my way around my body very well by the time I was 15.  The torment of trying to be a good girl and resist the temptations and pressure from my boyfriends I will never forget.  Now that will do your head in.

    • Reddragon says:

      08:34am | 21/09/11

      Okay. The standards seemed to have dropped so here goes a quote: “Masturbation is like procrastination, it’s all good and fun until you realize you are only f*cking yourself.”

    • the apologist says:

      08:35am | 21/09/11

      The Church has perverted God’s teaching on sexuality at times yes, but the Bible certainly celebrates sex (just have a read of Song of Solomon…). God invented sex, Christians have no reason not to rejoice in it. In fact, it condemns forbidding marriage (1 Timothy 4:3) so there’s no question that Catholic priests are being un-Christian by forbidding to marry.

      But sexuality was created to have boundaries as well - this article concedes it by condemning the abuse of children over the years. The problem is that without God, we have to make up our own boundaries - and as we are witnessing right now in society these boundaries are shifting all the time.
      If it’s my word against yours, then it becomes hard to defend all sorts of perverse expressions of sexuality.

      Sex was created for marriage - for a committed, trusting relationship between a man and a woman. That’s what God says in the Bible. Stick with that, and there is great blessing in it. Break that, and you start breaking peoples lives.

    • Tina says:

      08:54am | 21/09/11

      Which includes that you assume “God” has written or told someone to write the bible.

      My take is that a bunch of blokes should not dictate the rest of the world how to enjoy or live their lives. We all know very well the boundaries of our sexuality - no God required.

      As we say “All good fun as long and it doesnt involve kids or kittens”.

      And where are the gay-defenders when you need them? No threesomes allowed either?

    • the apologist says:

      11:13am | 21/09/11

      Tina, since we talked about assumptions in our last post, and you didn’t give me any convincing answers, i won’t push the issue here.

      You haven’t looked at the merit of the propositions put forward in my comment either (regardless of dealing with the assumptions…).

      YOUR opinion is that kids and animals should be kept out. What gives you the right to dictate your values to someone who thinks they are fair game?

      You don’t want to listen to a ‘bunch of blokes’ - i’m sure a peadophile doesn’t want to listen to you either. Why shouldn’t their opinion be just as legit as yours?

      ps. you want to allow threesomes? you’re mounting my case for me by admitting that you’ve got no grounds for denying polygamy.

    • Tina says:

      11:32am | 21/09/11

      Of course people shouldnt listen to me. Thats the point. Following someones guidelines without questioning them and thinking for yourself is never a good idea. If its me, you, a “bunch of blokes” or “God”.

      I think that every (sane) person knows right and wrong - bible or no bible. We dont need a bible to know that molesting children is wrong.

    • John says:

      11:39am | 21/09/11

      God invented sex???  Masturbation is for self pleasure (sexual urges arrive at young teens and self exploration is not harmful). Sex can be for self or mutual pleasure between consenting adults (let’s not dismiss the important role of prostitutes in our society).  Making love is a highly pleasureable experience between two consenting lovers.  Gender in sex and making love is irrelevant as long as it is between consenting adults.  Christianity, especially the Catholics, have a long way to go to catch up with what is actually occuring in society.  As far as I’m concerned forced celibacy is criminal, could this be why so many Priests and Brothers commit paedophilia.  They are humans like the rest of us and should be allowed to experience the pleasures of sex with consenting adults without fear of ‘the wrath of God’.

    • the apologist says:

      01:04pm | 21/09/11

      @Tina:

      so your argument is basically: ‘we just know’. that’s not exactly rigorous.
      And you’re happy to criticise religious faith why??

    • the apologist says:

      01:08pm | 21/09/11

      Not really a fan of your definition of sex John. Who gave you the right to set the boundaries for what it is and isn’t? Why should i or anyone else agree with your opinion on the matter?

    • SimpleSimon says:

      01:18pm | 21/09/11

      “Sex was created for marriage - for a committed, trusting relationship between a man and a woman.”

      Bullshit. Absolute crap. Animals, including humans, have been having sex for both pleasure and procreation for millions of years - long before men invented God!

      Do Christians hate dolphins? They are an animal known to have sex for pleasure. Does that make them dirty sinners?

    • mel says:

      01:51pm | 21/09/11

      Oh apologist, not your presuppositionalist theology again. Can’t you think of a better proof? Or at least one that works?

      “Sex was created for marriage”. No, it wasn’t, your god is wrong, as sex existed well before any marriage ceremony. Have sex with one or more consenting adults and you’ll find there’s a great blessing in that too. And there’s nothing wrong with multiple partners or polygamous relationships, just ask that biblical hero Solomon.

      You also said to Tina: “so your argument is basically: ‘we just know’. that’s not exactly rigorous. And you’re happy to criticise religious faith why??” If we go back to your presuppositionalist proof, all you do is make up a start point: you suppose god created everything, without offering any real proof or evidence for that supposition. Hardly rigorous either, so I wouldn’t feel all that superior if I was you. And religious faiths are easy to criticise because they offer neither proof nor evidence for their beliefs.

    • the apologist says:

      02:36pm | 21/09/11

      @Simple Simon:
      1. Obviously I was referring to the human aspect of things – but yeah, animals do it too. It’s a different kettle of fish though, cause we’re not animals.
      2. God invented men, not the other way around.
      3. God also created sex for pleasure and procreation – within the context of marriage.

      @mel:
      1. Don’t like it, don’t bother commenting on my posts if you don’t want to! smile Besides, you didn’t exactly provide counter arguments for my position last time we talked (as I remember, you just ended by disagreeing on the grounds that some other people had - without actually naming why they disagreed - and without answering my criticisms of your own position). Until you or someone else does, well, it stands by anyone’s standards of rational exchange and you should consider dropping your position until you can answer the questions i put to it.
      2. You admitted to my criticism of Tina as legit – even so you didn’t defend it. You didn’t even try to counter my criticism of her, so I take it that you agree with me that there’s no rules when it comes to sex?
      3. The first marriage ceremony was Adam and Eve in the garden – so no I’d disagree and say that marriage came first.
      4. Well, Solomon is clearly condemned for his polygamy in the Bible, so he’s not so much of a Biblical hero as a Biblical failure.
      5. Having sex with one or more adults brings great blessing? Try and tell that to your husband (if you have one – or at least the person you’re in a committed loving relationship with) when he catches you with another guy. He’ll be shattered. We’re designed to have a loving committed relationship with one other – jealousy and emotional hurt are just another testimony to the truth of it. One of the most painful things you can experience is this kind of betrayal.

    • John Reiter says:

      04:38pm | 21/09/11

      Apologist - dear oh dear, who said you have to believe my opinions? No one, it’s my opinion and a simple statement. Was just trying to differentiate between the act of Sex and ‘Making Love’. As far as your Biblical quotes and Christ crap goes you can keep those opinions to yourself. And now you’ll be slightly upset because someone has questioned your opinion / belief in fairy tales.

    • SpiritWolf84 says:

      04:44pm | 21/09/11

      @ The Apologist - Ummm… Technically, we ARE animals. We are carbon based life forms, like every other creature on this Earth. That was taught back in primary school… You might want a refresher mate…

      Also… What proof does the Bible provide for anything in this matter? It’s a man made thing, and yes, this is coming from an ex Christian who saw sense. I accept you have your beliefs, but as a “Christian”, accepting other’s different beliefs is supposed to be a part of yours. Live and let live, we are all different, you may believe in no sex before marriage, I believe in the try before you buy scheme (come to think of it, I don’t even believe in marriage… You do not need a piece of paper to prove a lifelong bond with someone). However I do draw the line at paedophilia, that is just plain wrong in today’s society (not that it has ever been a concept that we will accept).

    • mel says:

      06:26pm | 21/09/11

      Oh apologist, why do you constantly misquote the bible for your own conservative ends. You’ve done this before and you seem to be doing it again. It seems your god wasn’t angry at the 700 (!) wives and 300 concubines, only that they convinced old Sol to turn away from god.

      1 Kings 11:1-3: 1 Now King Solomon loved many foreign women, along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, 2 from the nations concerning which the Lord had said to the people of Israel, “You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods.” Solomon clung to these in love. “

      1 Kings11:9-10: 9 And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice 10 and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods. But he did not keep what the Lord commanded.

      So god not so much worried about the number of wives, rather that Solomon turned his heart away from god. You really should learn your bible.

      Now, your presuppositionalist argument is regarded as poor by both philosophers and other apologists. I provided links to where those criticisms could be found. You did not refute them then and now you squeal that I didn’t argue the point with you. Why should I? A lot of smarter people have against resuppositionalism, why do I have to bother to do it too?

      And when did Adam and Eve get married? Is there a passage in the bible that says so?

      There is only one rule really when it comes to sex: informed consent, where people make a conscious decision to fornicate. Anything else is rape or trickery. If you want to be polyamorous or incestuous in your sex life, it doesn’t worry me, as long as there is informed consent.

      And let me say from personal experience: having sex with one or more adults brings great blessing, oh yes it does! Now you supposed my gender: I’m male, not female, and yes, my partner knew about when I was having sex with another person. Indeded, she was there. Great blessings indeed!

    • the apologist says:

      11:07am | 22/09/11

      @John: I don’t get upset when someone questions my beliefs. I don’t even get upset when they disagree or ridicule me for them. But I do draw the line at being told to keep my opinions to myself – I’ll keep speaking them until forced not to. You don’t have to listen of course.
      My point in asking the question why should anyone believe your opinions was really to ask the question – what compelling reasons do you have for believing your opinion is true? Anyone can have an opinion – if it’s not true, it’s not worth a thing. Can you tell me why yours is true? (I presume you hold it because you think it’s true).

      @SpiritWolf84: if you restrict existence to matter, then yes we are physically speaking - we are made of the same ‘stuff’ as animals, and in that way are similar to them. My problem with this definition is that it presumes that physical matter is all there is to existence.
      That we have a soul, reasoning ability, intelligence and a host of other qualitites sets us apart from them however – and testifies to the Biblical account that we are created in God’s image and are a different class of being to the animals. In short, we have an eternal soul - they do not.

      I’m not sure what sort of Christian you used to be, but it doesn’t sound like you grasped Christianity at all based on your statement. As a Christian, accepting others beliefs is NOT supposed to be part of my beliefs. Christianity makes claims about the world and rejects counter claims that contradict it. Jesus’ claim, for instance that He is ‘the way, the truth and the life’ requires that it’s true to the exclusivity of other religions. No Mohammad, no Buddha – they’re wrong. I’m not going to accept those beliefs. I will lovingly argue with those who have those beliefs, and will not try to force them to change (it’s their life, and I respect and accept their responsibility to live as they will and believe what they will). I’ll hold to my dying breath that their beliefs are not true however. But I can show respect and love to them while I do that.
      Beliefs must ultimately stand upon truth. If they aren’t true, they aren’t worth anything and should be rejected.

      You say sex outside of marriage is fine, and peadophelia is wrong – you believe that that is true. What compelling reasons do you offer for the truth of those beliefs? If you don’t have any, you stand on shifting ground my friend, and have no reason to hold those beliefs or propagate them to anyone else. I don’t think you can offer me a compelling reason for those beliefs - and if you can’t do that you shouldn’t hold them.

    • the apologist says:

      12:07pm | 22/09/11

      @mel:

      Please pardon my error – I falsely assumed Mel was short for Melanie.

      Re. Solomon – yes, you’re quite right. In my haste I made an error by typing that he was condemned for polygamy – I was meaning that he was condemned full stop - and mis-typed it. My emphasis was that he was not a Biblical hero (which you have quite thoroughly established by arguing that the Bible does condemn him – thank you!); my quibble was not what he was condemned for per se – which is a sepertate issue to the flow of the discussion on that point. Although his polygamy was certainly integral to his condemnation. The Bible does not forbid polygamy as you say; and nor would I for that reason. However, I think a convincing Biblical case can be made for arguing that it is not the fundamental pattern of marriage and is less than ideal – which is why I don’t approve of it. Also - not that you’ll probably believe it, but i don’t try to misquote the Bible - i try my absolute best to accurately understand and adjust my opinion where i’m wrong.

      If my arguments re. presuppositionalism are poor, then it should not be at all hard for you to refute them easily – which you did not do at all. My point was to highlight that offering reasons against an argument counts as refutation. Highlighting a link and saying you’re wrong does not. I could go into a discussion on the basis of the articles you highlighted, but that’s hardly holding a conversation with you now is it? And the punch is hardly a forum to enter such a discussion.
      Can you honestly say that you apprehended the arguments I made, read the counterposition, and concluded that the criticisms sufficiently refuted my arguments? That would be the only real grounds on which you could say that I was wrong (unless you have some other argument that you didn’t bring up at the time for some reason). If yes, then it shouldn’t have been hard for you to state why I was wrong and why you were right in your own words. You didn’t do it. If you want to, perhaps you could go back to the other thread and do so and we can continue our conversation. It’s a bit intellectually sloppy to say ‘I believe it because someone else said so…’ (particularly when said someone else is some random on the internet whom you’ve never met).

      A couple of remarks on the last bit.

      What are you basing your one rule on? Or put another way, what compelling reason can you give me to accept your position as truth? (consent being your rule). I take it then that you have no problem with necrophilia, beastiality and polygamy based upon your rule.

      I have to say that I find your last comment shocking, but really shouldn’t be surprised.

      Do you think your partner would have an issue if she came home one day to find you having sex without someone else and weren’t telling her about it? 

      Are you telling me that you love this woman (your partner), but that you still have no problem with having sex with someone else? Or are you so focused on the personal pleasure it brings that both women are more a means to a selfish end? In reducing sex to mere physical pleasure, you have indeed robbed it of its blessing in ways you don’t even know about. I’ve no doubt you experience great pleasure in your actions, but blessings you don’t have and will not have in what you’re doing. I think the test of time will prove it too – ultimately when you’re required to give an account for yourself before God.

      Ps. Interesting that you choose to use the word ‘fornicate’ – the word itself basically means sexual immorality (Biblically speaking).

    • the apologist says:

      02:03pm | 22/09/11

      @mel - please note that in the following para i meant to say ‘with someone else’ not ‘without someone else’.

      “Do you think your partner would have an issue if she came home one day to find you having sex without someone else and weren’t telling her about it?” 

      Thanks

    • John Reiter says:

      02:39pm | 22/09/11

      Dear apologist, we certainly agree on one thing that everybody is allowed to have an opinionI don’t get ups - I obviously misunderstood your intial statement because it basically read to as ‘keep your opinion to yourself’. Proof for an opinion? no such thing.  Opinion = “judgement or belief based on grounds short of proof” from the Concise Oxford Dictionary. The main Article and comments are opinions. Surely no one would agree that Mr Kelloggs philosophy on sex and masturbation is based on proof. In my opinion he was three snags short of a BBQ. All animals, and that includes humans, have sex. Making Love, in my opinion is ‘special, super meaningful sex with your partner’. But back to ‘proof for an opinion’, where is your proof and please don’t quote the Bible which, in accordance with the Earth’s timeline, was written yesterday compared to when animals started having sex. What proof do you have that the Bible is true or even based on any facts what so ever? Personally I don’t care. We have different opinions and that’s fair enough, but don’t use the Bible as proof because to me it’s not worth the paper it’s written on.

    • mel says:

      03:34pm | 22/09/11

      Apologist, you’re backpedalling like a circus clown here. You really should be more careful about what you write. Argument after argument that you put up gets shown to be either wrong or inconsistent and so you keep shifting your meanings around. Complete rubbish from you.

      And I cannot bother arguing presuppositionalism with you. As you said, I provided links to people who outlined the the arguments against your unfavoured theological non-proof. They dissected it over a number of pages, slowly and surely. Why rehash a winning argument for my satisfaction.  I also notice that you criticise posters for not providing the logical basis for their comments. Neither do you. You provide a biblical answer which you believe to be “logical” and on firm foundation but you nor anyone else have shown that to be the case nor that it has any relevance to the world.

      I have no trouble with polygamy. Why do you, given Solomon’s 1000 woman harem has biblical approval. Polygamy still wasn’t his problem thoough, no matter how you try to spin it.  Your god just said not to marry those women because it would turn Sol away from him. God didn’t say “Hey, Solomon, just one!”, did he? Your preference for one man/one woman marriage is just a preference, there is no requirement for it, given Solomon, David, Abraham, Jacob, etc.)

      I guess my argument starts with the idea that I have no wish to be harmed and I have no wish to harm others. Things just flow from there. Esentially it’s a pragmatic argument, as societies seem to work better that way. You christians will argue that without a god, it’s a hollow illogical argument, while I would say that it conforms to the way humans construct their societies, and it works.

      Now, I’m not sure how your logic works when you say that the rule of informed consent allows for necrophilia and bestiality (why is it always bestiality with christians? Is there some passage in the bible which approves of it?) Unless written before dying, how to the dead give informed consent? And if the recently deceased had given consent, what is it to me if someone likes that? Animals cannot give informed consent either. What strange world do you inhabit where the dead and animals do?

      And thankfully, the fornication going on wasn’t ‘biblically speaking’ at all! You really should try it sometime: lots of fun for everyone, blessings all round if you know what I mean. You just have a shrivelled concept of what a sexual blessing is. And the idea of my partner coming home and finding me having sex with someone is one of her fantasies. She’s quite an amazing person.

    • the apologist says:

      04:06pm | 22/09/11

      To be sure, everyone is allowed to have their opinion. But if your definition of an opinion is true, then I’m not interested in holding opinions – I’m interested in understanding and believing the truth. Is that an opinion of what an opinion is?? wink I think an opinion is a position someone holds on a given topic – and which must be based upon some sort of justification. If we’re holding unsubstantiated beliefs then we’re all wasting our time and may as well forget about expressing them. Opinions should be accepted and rejected based upon the disproval or proving of the justification. I am 100% convinced that the Bible is the truth – thus the positions I hold are formed on it to the best of my understanding.

      Now you’ve demanded that I prove the worth the Bible. I’ll say from my perspective that the Bible is self-validating and utterly true as God’s revelation to mankind. It makes truth claims that demand submission – not scrutiny before acceptance such as you request. Upon submitting to the authority of God in His word (thus there are answers to your questions of it’s historical validity I believe) – I have since had no reason to doubt and every reason to believe that it is the truth, but again that’s not why I accept it. Every claim of the Bible that I’m aware of aligns perfectly with reality.

      Doubtless that doesn’t satisfy you and you’re ready to accuse me of circular reasoning (the Bible is self-validating – incidentally I’d be interested to hear if you’ve read it before?) – but one question for you before you dismiss my position – prove to me the validity of your demand for proof.

      Think carefully – you demand proof for the Bible – but why should I accept your demand for validity/proof as legitimate? On what grounds do you make your demand? To put it another way, please prove to me that I should give you proof - tell me why i need to prove my position to you.

      Once you’ve validated/established your demand for proof – you’ll be in a position to demand proof from me for the Bible and I’ll be happy to attempt an answer to your request.

      I’m not trying to be cheeky here, this is a genuine line of inquiry.

      Thanks for your thoughts and measured response, it is appreciated.

    • mel says:

      04:50pm | 22/09/11

      Apologist says: “please prove to me that I should give you proof - tell me why i need to prove my position to you”  You put up a statement in a public forum, someone asks you for proof or evidence. If you don’t supply either of those, you just end up looking like a pompous blowhard with nothing to back up his or her claims. Isn’t that right, apologist?

      Oh, apologist, all you offer is tedious circularity and sophistry. One day you might supply evidence: that would make a change.

    • the apologist says:

      08:45am | 23/09/11

      @mel: and you have not given me one good reason why I should give you evidence at all - based upon what you claim reality is. You demand evidence, but you’ve really got no good reason to do so based on your worldview. I’m not trying to be clever, just trying to help people to face the implications of what they claim to be true. You claim there is no God, but you are entirely unwilling to face up to the cold hard implications of that claim. You seem to be entirely blind to them.

    • mel says:

      09:31am | 23/09/11

      Apologist, I thought the obvious answer as to why you should supply proof is that you have made statements or presented ideas in a public forum, and people have asked you for proof of those statements. It’s only polite. Especially when you have supplied ‘proof’, ie, biblical quotes, for what you believe and it turns out that those quotes don’t actually prove what you said.

      But according to you, if we can’t supply “a good reason” to supply evidence, you feel no need to answer the request. Therefore it all hinges on the question of your definition of “a good reason”. Explain to me again why we have to accept your judgement on this? You see, it’s very easy to spout biblical nonsense and when asked to provide evidence, just say “why should I accept your demand for validity/proof as legitimate” as a way of avoiding having to explain the things you write. I know you are trying to introduce your supposed theological ‘proof’ for god, but really, that ‘proof’ is weak and it just goes nowhere, so your statements end up being a series of your often erroneous, out of context, misapplied interpretations of the bible. And not very convincing to anyone.

      I think my comment on blowhards still stands.

    • the apologist says:

      09:34am | 23/09/11

      @mel:

      Backpeddling? What I did was admit my error on that point and concede to your criticising it. I thought you might have appreciated that. I’ll do again too. You’re right, I should have been much more careful in what I typed there – it was a careless mistake on my part. I’m happy to concede when I’m shown up.

      You said: “I also notice that you criticise posters for not providing the logical basis for their comments. Neither do you.” This statement shows me that you really haven’t understood what I’ve been arguing about at all the entire time. I seek to show others that they can’t provide a logical basis for their comments to show them that knowledge is NOT what they suppose it is. That’s the point. I can’t empirically prove my presuppositions, you can’t, no one can. Presuppositions are fundamental beliefs in a person’s worldview that are faith based assertions. Everyone has them, no one can empirically prove them.
      Logic is legitimate, but it requires logically unprovable beliefs to function.

      In criticising the demand for logical proof I’m attempting to show others that they have entirely misunderstood what knowledge is. Unproven assumptions about the universe are necessary for everyone. Once you realise that, you should be able to see that the discussion is not primarily based upon empirical process/rationalistic process at all. You think it is, but in showing up the fallacy of your presuppositions and acknowledging my own presuppositions it must become a discussion on the validity of said presuppositions before any further dialogue can take place.

      You say I’m wrong – then answer the simple question – why should I give you proof of the Bible’s validity? Why is it legitimate to use reason (which your inquiry is in the active form of)?

      I didn’t say I had a problem with polygamy – I said it’s not ideal. There’s a difference between saying it’s not ideal and saying it’s morally wrong. My preference for one man one woman is based upon what I believe to be Biblical wisdom. Not to mention polygamy is illegal in this nation.
      Ok. You don’t want to be harmed, and you don’t wish to harm others. Well and good. I’m genuinely glad that you have such an opinion. I really am. But from there, how can you tell someone who does wish to harm others that they are doing wrong? As I see it, they can’t be doing wrong – they are breaking your opinion of what is wrong, but morally speaking they merely doing what is right in their eyes. I don’t believe you’ve got a case for actually arguing that they are doing wrong. The point is to say, that if morals are subjectively determined, then morals are entirely subjective according to each individual’s judgment. The implication is that nothing is actually wrong or right. That is a horrific implication when you consider it.

      The reason Christians use beastiality and necrophilia as examples is to hopefully show you how perverted your view is by giving a shocking example and showing you that you’ve got no grounds to actually say it’s wrong. The sheer abhorrence of the examples, it is hoped, might outrage your conscience where your logic fails. If you can say with no issues that you have no problem with necrophilia (which you did – albeit conditionally), well I just hope you can see the perversity of that and rethink the implications of your worldview. The other implication is that it is possible for a human and an animal to have consensual sex – therefore you cannot have a problem with it. On your rule, you might also condemn peadophilia, but you must logically be accepting and understanding of the urges of peadophiles provided they don’t act on them (unless the child consents). The subject here disgusts me, but I hope you can see the horrific implications of your view here.

      Let me tell you about what I think sexual blessing is. I’m getting married in 2 weeks time. I’m 26. I’m a virgin and so is she. I love my fiancée in a way that I love no other in the world. No one compares with her. When we marry, and make love for the first time in our lives, it will be more than mere physical pleasure (although it will no doubt be that). It will be a deep, intimate, spiritual, emotional and physical bond that consummates our love. I will seek at all times to bring her pleasure before me. The thought of having sex with someone else is repulsive. My love for her is one of a kind, and my sole fidelity to her is the physical expression of the uniqueness of my love for her and no other. The fact that I have kept myself for her, and am anticipating something wonderful that I have never experienced before to be shared with the person whom I love and will love until our dying day – that is blessing. It is the best gift I can give her to show that I am truly devoted to her and no other, to show her that I am committed to her.

    • the apologist says:

      11:08am | 23/09/11

      @mel: you said: “I thought the obvious answer as to why you should supply proof is that you have made statements or presented ideas in a public forum, and people have asked you for proof of those statements. It’s only polite.”
      Ok - i think that’s your first attempt at an answer. It’s good as far as it goes, but it is not answering the challenge meaningfully. When I say why should I supply proof - my challenge is really saying explain/verify the logical validity of the demand for proof.
      I could ask ‘how does your car work?’ (for example) and to sufficiently answer that you might give me a basic explanation of the mechanics/combustion process of motors etc. and give me a causal explanation. That is the kind of reason I request in regard to your demand for proof/reason itself. Please account for it’s existence, show what it is how it works and why I should accept it.

      Surely if I must justify the Bible (which I base my reasoning on), it is only reasonable that you must justify the validity of your demand for proof?

      Because it’s polite is not an explanation or establishment of it’s validity (it would be like me asking you to explain how your car works and you then start telling me all about the paintwork on it and how it got there - in terms of an explanation, a non-sequitur) - although I fully agree with the necessity for politeness in all discussion. I hope I have afforded it to you and I would apologise if I haven’t.

      The problem is that you cannot empirically/rationally/logically establish the validity of reason without simultaneously using it. It’s called circular reasoning, and you’ve been accusing me of it on a number occassions.
      As I said, the point is to show you that you do it too - we all do. Reasoning is intrinsically circular - the only difference lies in the presuppositions that you have. It is then a question of why you hold your presuppositions.

      I think in our last discussion i analysed your presuppositions and firmly established that they do not align with reality and therefore MUST be rejected (at least you didn’t answer my criticisms of your presuppositions).

    • baal says:

      08:35am | 21/09/11

      Tina.
      Priests and Nuns actually gave each other company.
      Also molesters fall into two groups. pedophiles and opportunistic molesters. The second group are by far the most numerous and usually target girls and boys from 10 years old plus. Sick people yes but just men and women who are the everyday evil. In societies like Iran where child brides are legal this opportunistic crime is mulah approved. That is correct the same people who hate adultery will let a 30 year old man rape a brainwashed 12 year old. But heh they are following the example of thier prophet!
      Point is point is people have been taking advantage of young kids and most are not pedophiles in pathology. The more restrictive a societies sexual mores are the higher this abuse.
      Our society only has such high rates of reported abuse because we have only recently begun to try and stamp it out. Historically our minimun boning age is  
      something quite new.

    • Tina says:

      09:07am | 21/09/11

      baal

      So that actually means that in contrast to the apologist (post above yours) praising religion in guiding us to be good people in dealing with our sexual behaviour, you are saying that religion can as well be the cause for bad behaviour.

      So we can say that people who follow a religion without questioning in and applying some sense and morale are potentially dangerous.

    • Timmy says:

      08:36am | 21/09/11

      Failure to repress sexual urges has a name - rape.

      The reason why sexual abuse seems more prevalent in Catholic priests than it does in other positions of power over the weak (eg teachers) is that the Catholic church fails to deal with it adequately.

    • Michael says:

      08:49am | 21/09/11

      A spontaneous wank is not rape, but it is the failure to repress a sexual urge isn’t it?

    • neo says:

      07:44pm | 21/09/11

      A spontaneous wank! That’s gold.

    • Fiddler says:

      08:37am | 21/09/11

      Dr Kellogg’s wife must have been really fat or had a case of blue waffle

    • TheRaptured says:

      08:37am | 21/09/11

      Dr John Kellogg was Illuminati, very keen on De-population and great fan of eugenics. Not a good example of human race lover. Big fan of using pesticides in food grown by his company.

    • Ian Powell says:

      08:38am | 21/09/11

      Also just for the record - there is not one condemnation of masturbation in all 66 books of the bible - If you have read enough internet etc nonsense you can sound sort of knowledgeable and say what about Onan - Until you read the grotty story of Onan in the Bible - Genesis 38 (but hey - why let a fun prejudice get all marred by facts) he engages in Coitus Interuptus (spelling?) and refuses to help the widow he is happy to use.
      This in a Bible that is unembarrassed to speak of avoiding having sex with animals and with close relatives etc. Its silence i take to be because it is not worth commenting on. UN soldiers we know sometimes rape those they are paid to protect - we don;t therefore disband etc the UN - We seek to get it to do what it is set up to do - so to i take it with Bible stuff.

    • the apologist says:

      04:38pm | 21/09/11

      Leviticus 15:16 suggests that it’s likely not ideal; also Jesus condemnation of lust in Matt 5 suggests that the fantasies that almost universally accompany masturbation are morally wrong. I’d agree that it’s not forbidden in the Bible, but it’s wiser not to in light of other teaching touching on the subject; i think doing it while lusting is wrong.

    • mel says:

      06:47pm | 21/09/11

      Let’s ahve a look at Leviticus, shall we?

      Lev. 15: 16-19: 16 And if any man’s seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even. 17 And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even. 18 The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even. 19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.

      Given all you have to do if clean up after yourself after masturbation (did the Israelites really need to be told this?), your god seems to think menstruation is worse, given women have to be put away for seven days.

      Let’s be honest here, the Leviticus passage really doesn’t say masturd\bation is a bad thing, all it says is to clean up after yourself. Go for it apologist!

      Now let’s look at Matthew 5: 27-28: 27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”  Not really anti-masturbation, since I can lust without masturbating. And is it still adultery if neither of you are married?

    • Al Chunk says:

      08:49am | 21/09/11

      His position and family wealth put him a position to influence for the good, but he was obviously not as smart as his brother.

    • marley says:

      08:55am | 21/09/11

      The caption on the photo is incorrect.  Dr. Kellogg is the man on the left:  http://www.nndb.com/people/018/000133616/

      The man on the right is, I believe, George Bernard Shaw. There are wildly different versions of GBS’s own sexuality - whether he was repressed (he allegedly never consummated his marriage of 40 years) or promiscuous (he supposedly had a number of mistresses).  He was known to believe, however, that the perfect love affair was “one conducted entirely by post.”  I rather like that.

      And if he was sexually repressed, it didn’t stop him from writing some very great plays.

    • Fred File says:

      08:58am | 21/09/11

      Confucius say :- learning to masturbate is good idea, can come in handy !

    • stephen says:

      08:47pm | 22/09/11

      Confucius’ w fe say ... learning to masturbate bad idea, you get busy, I stay randy.

    • old fart says:

      08:59am | 21/09/11

      Costco Doctor
      One day, in line at the company cafeteria, Joe says to Mike, “My elbow hurts like hell. I guess I’d better see a doctor.”

      “Listen, you don’t have to spend that kind of money,” Mike replies..

      “There’s a diagnostic computer down at Costco. Just give it a urine
      sample and the computer will tell you what’s wrong and what to do about it.

      It takes ten seconds and costs ten dollars. A lot cheaper than a
      doctor.”

      So, Joe deposits a urine sample in a small jar and takes it to Costco.

      He deposits ten dollars and the computer lights up and asks for the
      urine sample. He pours the sample into the slot and waits.

      Ten seconds later, the computer ejects a printout:

      “You have tennis elbow. Soak your arm in warm water and avoid heavy activity. It will
      improve in two weeks. Thank you for shopping at Costco.”

      That evening, while thinking how amazing this new technology was,
      Joe began wondering if the computer could be fooled.

      He mixed some tap water, a stool
      sample from his dog, urine samples from his wife and daughter, and a
      sperm sample from himself for good measure.

      Joe hurries back to Costco, eager to check the results. He deposits
      ten dollars, pours in his concoction, and awaits the results.

      The computer prints the following:

      1. Your tap water is too hard.  Get a water softener. (Aisle 9)
      2. Your dog has ringworm. Bathe him with anti-fungal shampoo. (Aisle 7)
      3. Your daughter has a cocaine habit. Get her into rehab.
      4. Your wife is pregnant. Twins. They aren’t yours. Get a lawyer.
      5. If you don’t stop playing with yourself, your elbow will never get better.

      Thank you for shopping at
      Costco!

    • Aussie Wazza says:

      09:07am | 21/09/11

      With the grasping, manipulative, greedy and selfish attitude of the vast majority of young sows today, to young men I say:
      :
      WANK, WANK, MONEY IN THE BANK.

    • SpiritWolf84 says:

      04:53pm | 21/09/11

      Not cool, dude. I’m a chick who isn’t manipulative, greedy or selfish (I earn my own money, and pay my own way through life, unfortunately my good attitude lead to being cheated on, apparently I wasn’t needy enough, so really…). Definately not a sow, either. Please don’t make assumptions about all young women mate. Have a good one. smile

    • John R says:

      06:39pm | 22/09/11

      Good response SpiritWolf84 says.  With all the other crap that’s being touted by religious zealots the last thing we need is blatant and unwarranted sexism. Relationships should be based on mutual love, respect and sharing. If sex is the only thing you require Aussie Wazza then take things in hand or visit a prostitute, nothing wrong with either method, but you’ll live a lonely live.

    • Aaron says:

      09:11am | 21/09/11

      “Kellogg, the Catholic church, and Iranian clerics all demonstrate that the repression of human sexuality all-too easily becomes a “malady that considers itself the remedy”

      BAAAHAHAHAA!!!! Catholics are definitely FOR sex, have you seen their families? They breed like rabbits!

      Also, the whole ‘priests not getting married’ can be traced back to two things. One is Paul saying in the bible that it’s a good (read honourable) thing for a man to be celibate. It also stems from the church not wanting to turn into a monarch, so they stopped priests from marrying, therefore having children and stopping the church from becoming a family run thing.

    • Budz says:

      10:58am | 21/09/11

      The reason their families are so big is they don’t believe in contraception. Therefore sex = babies.

    • John R says:

      08:07am | 23/09/11

      Correct Budz and that is the problem with poorer Catholic nations.  Breed like rabbits, no money or resources to feed the population, crime and starvation, UN food, more survivors and keep on breeding.  It’s a vicious and very, very sad circle when little children have to suffer generation after generation because of the lack of sex education and unwillingness to use contraceptives.

    • LC says:

      09:25am | 21/09/11

      I somehow doubt that allowing priests to not be celibate will somehow stop the ones whom are pedophiles. If they’re already inclined to do it, their job puts them in a convienient place to do so, thus they’d likely take full advantage of it. No different to a pedophile school teacher. The best thing the church can do in regards to this is turn over offenders to the relevant authorities when cases pop up. If nothing else the church will come across looking better in the public eye than covering the whole thing up and moving offenders overseas.

      And damn, that Harvey Kellogg guy sounds like one sick f*ck. Glad I eat toast/crumpets and coffee for breakfast.

    • AdamC says:

      09:26am | 21/09/11

      The first paragraph of this article is ludicrous. Does the author have any evidence, apart from pop cultural portrayals of serial killers and the like, for this, supposedly necessary, link between sexual ‘repression’ and psychotic, murderous rampages? I take it that, according to Christopher Ryan, Stalin would have laid off the murderous purges had he put a harem in the Kremlin, for example? (I mean, I have no inside knowledge of how much nookie Josef got, but he never looked like he’d gotten any recently in the photos I’ve seen.)

      Another point:

      “If priests were allowed to form erotic connections with consenting adults, does anyone doubt that countless children would have been spared their abuse in the hands of these distorted, twisted men?”

      Yes, I think many people do. In fact, I think that assertion is both naive, and based on little more than prejudice.

      Lastly, while Dr Kellogg and his kooky ideas about sex may be fascinating to the perverse and historically-inclined, I am not sure how the writer thinks they cast any light on our modern, permissive sexual mores. He seems, rather, to simply enjoy arguing with dead people.

    • James1 says:

      02:37pm | 21/09/11

      I read an article a couple of years ago that argued Islamists, particularly suicide bombers, were in part made susceptible to the Islamist message by their desperation for sex, which is why it tends to occur in deeply conservative Islamic communities with much higher frequency than in progressive Islamic communities.  The article drew on limited quantitative evidence gathered by law enforcement agencies in places like Turkey, Iran and Pakistan in the course of reeducating captured Islamists as well as qualitative evidence in the form of interviews with former Islamist recruiters and people captured attempting to conduct suicide bombings.  If I can find it and I am able to find an open source version (which seems unlikely - I originally got it from Jstor through a university), I will post a link.  Otherwise I will hopefully at least find a full citation.

    • AdamC says:

      05:03pm | 21/09/11

      James1, I guess turning paradise into a brothel is a good marketing exercise if you want to get sexually frustrated young men to atomise themselves for the sake of murdering a few infidels. Though that is a quite different dynamic to, say, clerical celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church.

    • SMo says:

      09:29am | 21/09/11

      You were using the catholic church and Kellogg as a metaphor for islam to protect yourself from a fatwah on yo ass? Weren’t you?
      Women are temptresses and must cover their orifices so as not to inflame male ardour.

    • Grant says:

      09:34am | 21/09/11

      The priests with their voracious desire for both children’s bodies and souls throughout history have been one of the greatest crimes against humanity of our most vulnerable.
      These archaic and peculiar religious beliefs systems that include a telepathic connection with an unseen magical being were constructed to consolidate power and simply seek to address the human condition. 

      Usually in our society when a person states that their thoughts are being monitored by an undetectable creature, and that they have telepathic abilities, ‘thought’ communication (praying), with this creature we would encourage people like this to seek medical assistance, urgently.

    • Elizabeth1 says:

      09:00pm | 21/09/11

      Its a total mystery to me, what is it about some people that they need to believe and give power over to obviously flawed others based on the claim of special knowledge and communication with a higher power. To me, its like a mass psychotic episode. When I was young I went with a religious friend to church and the priest (in full dress up costume) was giving a sermon on evil pagan rituals. Within minutes he went on to recieve a chalise from some alter boys,  with all sorts of cloth folding and draping excercises and then he raised the chalise high above his head in the sign of the cross murmering latin words. The congregation didnt notice the hypocrisy in this ritual at all. Then came communion.  Totally obvious rituals for anyone to see and no one did.  They were like the walking dead just following the script. I believe that religion has powerful control over many people.I dont understand why.

    • Richard the Lionheart says:

      09:45am | 21/09/11

      Muslims ban sex before marriage and masturbation yet offer martyrs 72 virgins in paradise. Is frustration enough to blow yourself up? or treat western women as infidel easy meat? Sexual frustration is a powerful force more so amongst young men.

    • Leto says:

      09:57am | 21/09/11

      And yet, strangely, many parents still follow the teachings of Dr Kellogg and have their little boys mutilated. Although now it’s less about masturbation and more likely so that ‘they look like dad’ (kinda weird, because I have no idea what my fathers penis looks like) or because ‘it’s cleaner’ (because it’s so terrible to clean something).

      Did Dr Kellogg invent the Fruit Loop as well as the Corn Flake?

    • fml says:

      10:06am | 21/09/11

      Sometimes its required medical procedure, for example when the foreskin doesnt fully retract, if the father suffered from that, wouldnt it make sense to get the procedure done to the child while young? and not so they would have to go through it while older?

    • Leto says:

      10:53am | 21/09/11

      Amputation in the medical field should always be a last resort. There are surgical and non surgical methods for dealing with Phimosis. Phimosis is not genetic, so there is no reason to expect that a son would also have problems. If you had appendicitis requiring the removal of said organ, it does not necessarily follow that your son will get it, nor would you consider removing it at birth.

      I just like my foreskin too much to consider parting with it, and I think denying people the right to choose for themselves is wrong.

    • Michael says:

      11:14am | 21/09/11

      There was a story only a week ago that in a country in Africa who’s name i can’t remember right now, is planning to circumcise men to help stop the spread of HIV, something to do with tiny abrasions of the foreskin making the transmission of the disease easier than it is for circumcised men as they don’t stretch or tear the remaining foreskin during intercourse as often or as much.

      All very interesting, time will tell i guess.

    • Leto says:

      12:07pm | 21/09/11

      @Michael

      Yes I read that study as well. I believe the report found that circumcised males were up to 60% less likely to get HIV if they were circumcised. Understandably, once a man is circumcised, the skin covering the gland becomes thicker and tougher, making it more difficult for HIV to penetrate through micro abrasions caused by sexual intercourse.

      On the flip side, whether the man is circumcised or not makes no difference to the likelihood of the female contracting HIV. The study was abandoned on moral grounds once this was understood.

      If you were circumcised, would you take the risk at 60%? I take the ‘No glove, no love’ approach unless I trust my partner and we have both been tested.

    • LC says:

      01:12pm | 21/09/11

      @ Michael.

      1. The difference between the rate of HIV contraction was 4.2% in the uncircumcised group and 2.1% in the circumcised group. Yes, that’s a difference of 50%, but if you’re worried about a 4.2% chance of contracting HIV, I doubt you wouldn’t be worried about a 2.1% chance to contract it. It’s quite clever spin, but like with all spin, if you look into the details it falls on it’s face. That and you COULD, y’know, WEAR A CONDOM and get close to a 100% chance of not getting it (with the added benefit of not having to pay for and go through an invasive medical procedure), but hey, that’s just me.

      2. It only concerns the chance of a man getting the virus of his partner through one form of sex. There is many, many forms.

      3. It’s only covers the mans chance of contracting HIV. Not the womans. This was one of the reasons why the study ended early.

      We don’t chop off babies toes to prevent them getting tinea. We teach them proper personal hygiene. We don’t skin babies alive to prevent eczema, we use the appropriate creams. And in this country, at least, we don’t chop off a part of a baby boy’s cock to gain a TWO-POINT-ONE percent chance in not contracting HIV, we teach them to practice safe sex.

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      03:13pm | 21/09/11

      Or stick primarily to knobjobs

    • Beth Raven says:

      09:58am | 21/09/11

      Ever read Song of Solomon?

    • GerryW says:

      10:20am | 21/09/11

      Luv the jokes on this forum laughed so much…thanks people.

    • Luce says:

      10:26am | 21/09/11

      If you want to see learn about some of the serious evil that can come from sexual repression and dissatisfaction, do some reading on Heinrich Kramer, who wrote The Malleus Maleficarum, the book which was the beginning of the witch hunts in Europe, which eventually spread to the States. It’s some seriously scary stuff.

    • Al says:

      10:26am | 21/09/11

      I have a suggestion for all members of a clergy (or however described) which requires them to remain celebate.
      Try castration.

    • P. Darvio says:

      10:39am | 21/09/11

      Christian Priests rape children because the Christian Bible allows them to, I would say encourages them to. The Christian Bible is full of child (and women) abuse, torture, rape, murder and genocide. Even the Fictional Jesus Person (FJP) told parents to kill their children if they misbehaved and FJP fully endorsed BIBLE LAW – so the rape of children by Christian Priests is part of the Christian Bible belief system, it has nothing to do with whether they are married or not – that is just another pathetic excuse.

      Dr John Kellogg was a Christian…..enough said……more weird sexual behaviour and thinking.

    • Luce says:

      11:33am | 21/09/11

      It’s not a natural urge for most people to have to want to rape children, and a grown man isn’t going to do it if there is no urge just because an old book says he can. It has everything to do with sexual repression, which has a massive effect on the psychology of a person.

      It’s so clear in so many parts of the world: the pathological thinking of suicide bombers, while having many causes, is also tied in with sexual repression. If you go to Japan, their culture is so polite and so proper that sexual urges get pushed to the fringe, and as a result the underground sex world in that country is like nothing I’ve ever seen. The witch hunts began because the sexual insecurity and rejection of a few men. The list does go on, and the catholic church is a prime example of this.

      Not allowing someone to express their sexuality naturally can have strange and potentially very bad consequences.

    • P. Darvio says:

      12:02pm | 21/09/11

      These Christian priests could go to a brothel - but they will not - they go after children while preaching from a “child abuse manual” called the Bible.

    • Luce says:

      12:25pm | 21/09/11

      Can you please reference the parts of the bible which endorse child abuse? Specifically sexual abuse?

      The fact that they could go to a brothel doesn’t say much about the underlying causes of their urges. They’re heavily involved in an institution that has persistently drilled in the mantra that sex is a sin unless you’re married. They’ve spent their whole lives steering away from their urges towards adult women and/or men. It’s not that hard to understand these things get transferred to children. It’s wrong, but it’s not hard to understand why it happens.

    • P. Darvio says:

      01:26pm | 21/09/11

      Quote: Can you please reference the parts of the bible which endorse child abuse? Specifically sexual abuse?

      I get tired of this “can you please quote which part of the Bible” - Maybe just read the Bible yourself - Can I suggest as a start read up about what Fictional Moses Person did after he got the “Commandments” - or if you can’t be bothered maybe just listen.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27hWfE-_5pU

      Have a nice day……

    • Luce says:

      02:10pm | 21/09/11

      Haha mate I get tired of people making quite large claims and then refusing to back them up, saying its the responsibility of the person challenging them. I can’t decide if that’s intellectually dishonest or just plain lazy.

      As an atheist, I don’t think all that much of the bible or religion, but that doesn’t justify making statements like that and refusing to put forward any evidence to support them. And, as a side note, you didn’t address anything else I’ve said in my responses.

      And yes, I will have a very nice day thanks.

    • T S Sebastien says:

      02:18pm | 21/09/11

      P Darvio while I enjoy your rants as a study in hate speach if you really do believe what you have written above (i.e. that rape of children is part of the Christian belief system) can I ask you what you have done about it.
      If every Christian priest in Australia is raping children than I would assume that you as a concerned citizen have been out contacting the police, lobbying your member of parliament to outlaw Christianity or possibly taking more direct lethal action (defense of a child is an acceptable defense to a murder charge).
      I am going to have a guess that you have done none of the above which means you are either very, very appathetic or have been stretching your rants a little bit too far.
      Can I ask which is it?

    • David says:

      02:56pm | 21/09/11

      @Luce

      “Can you please reference the parts of the bible which endorse child abuse? Specifically sexual abuse?”

      God encouraged child rape (Numbers 31; Deut 20). Among the 613 laws in the old testament not one prohibits paedophilia.

      Actually I think most Xtians don’t have much of an idea about just what the bible does condone. They cherry pick all the bits about love and forgiveness and ignore all the rest.

    • Luce says:

      03:16pm | 21/09/11

      Not prohibiting it isn’t necessarily the same as actively promoting it though.. unless there are passages that explicitly do promote it?

      But yes, I agree with that last statement about cherry picking. No one does it better than religious people..

    • Zeta says:

      10:41am | 21/09/11

      I really enjoyed Ryan’s Sex at Dawn, one of the best books I read last year. When I read this article though, I wondered if there weren’t two Christopher Ryan’s in the field of sexual anthropology because these comments on sexuality contradict those in his book.

      I thought the research in S@D was pretty clear - Sexual repression stemmed from concepts of ownership during the agrarian revolution. The need to pass on assets to defined heirs forced us into monogamy, that’s the ‘original sin’ that really forced us into the sexual rut humanity finds itself in now.

      And from that, the reason prehistoric man didn’t go around having sex with everyone’s children was that he couldn’t be sure those children weren’t in fact his. Neolithic man starts farming around 7000BC. That’s the first invitation for child rape right there, millenia before the Church showed up.

      I’d really like to sit down with Christopher Ryan and talk about this stuff, but more importantly, I’d like to slap him upside the head for watering down important research into dramatic internet sound bytes the drooling commentariat can understand. It’s simplistic and stupid to blame sexual abuse on the Church when the history of sexual culture in our species stretches back so many thousands of years.

    • Amanda says:

      10:46am | 21/09/11

      Humans are so disillusioned when it comes to sex. Those that have reached true spiritual enlightenment have experienced a far beter state, of which Christianity calls it ‘Desire beyond desire’ ... True Eros. I feel sorry for those that sex ( although it has it’s place) will fulfil them entirely.

    • Ray says:

      11:08am | 21/09/11

      The author does not deal with what happens to those who spend time in solitary detention. Does sexual repression force those unfortunates to kill or rape when they eventually come out? If so, then those unfortunates would be condemned to spending all their remaining years in jail.  Perhaps some psychologist will be bright enough to ‘discover’ isolated instances of this end result of repressive behaviour, and thereby ‘head-shrink’ society into accepting that solitary detention should be banned because it causes sexual repression.

    • James1 says:

      01:03pm | 21/09/11

      Interesting thought.  To my mind, it would be far worse to be without access to sexual intercourse when a part of society, because you would be forced to see other couples as well as members of the opposite sex and by extension be forced to be aware of what you are missing.  In solitary confinement, you don’t really have a choice either way, and don’t have constant external reminders that you can’t get any.

    • michael j says:

      11:18am | 21/09/11

      Your question on whether Priest getting married would have stopped them raping kids is very easy to answer, OF COURSE NOT , because they are some sort of scum perverter of course there are scum perverter’s hiding in marriages all over the place in normal? society,,,, and they can be highly respected pollictitions or even policemen ,those two mentioned from Queensland ,one recently done for kiddie porn ,so it seems once you are scum perverter it does not easily go away,,as for floggen the meat well lets just say i have an open hand on the matter,,

    • Luce says:

      11:51am | 21/09/11

      Some people are perverted scum naturally. Others become perverted scum because of their circumstances. Of course there would be less children raped by clergymen if they were allowed to explore their sexuality in other ways instead of screwing the lid on so tight that it seems ok to them to exploit the trust of an innocent child.

    • World's Greatest Troll says:

      11:24am | 21/09/11

      Adam Smith 1776 spoke of the Invisible Hand guiding the world’s humans !!
      Australians have never been so well off as Australia has the world’s greatest treasurer..

    • World's Greatest Troll says:

      11:26am | 21/09/11

      Your comment:Australia is well off. Australia has the World’s greatest Treasurer.
      Adam Smith says the world is guided by an invisible hand.

    • World's greatest troll says:

      11:27am | 21/09/11

      Tories do it more often than the greens!

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      11:31am | 21/09/11

      I think the reason for celibacy in the church was more to do with inheritance of church property and titles than anything else.

      sexual mores and behavior are a social constructs, but in reality humans are little more than slightly advanced apes…..(even then there is doubt on the advanced part)

    • john says:

      11:36am | 21/09/11

      I simply don’t get this at all. Key words all in the same story & responses - kelloggs corn flakes, catholic priests, weet-bix, Iranian clerics, wanking, sex, horny priests, costco doctors. little boys, masturbation.  This is either a gob fest to throw around ideas for a new comedy to rival Dave Allen or a sick & desperate sexually deprived society digging up a sexually charged stories of little boys being chased around inside the churches of Australia some 20-40 years ago.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx6hAQmR1fg


      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx6hAQmR1fg

    • Peri says:

      11:36am | 21/09/11

      On the bible and God guys, you all should ready the bible chapter call “SOng 0f Songs”, its all about sex! and how to enjoy it how much a gift sexually intimacy is from God to a loving married couple. So the bible doesn’t repress sex people it extols its pleaures between a married man and woman. Getting facts right is important as it leads to all sorts of wrong thinking. No where in the bible does it say a priest should not be married period .... The only reference is from Paul who says if you are going into intense ministry that would take all of your time and then you can’t fullfuil your married duties and husband and father or wife and mother then you probably shouldn’t get married and concentrate on the ministry. Then when that season is over consider marriage.

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      12:00pm | 21/09/11

      The Roman Catholic Church is, as it so often is, 100% wrong with it’s nonsense of “Priestly Celibacy”. It claims tobe the flag-bearer for the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is not, nor has it been for over 1600 years.
      Given the times & practices at that time, where marriages were arranged &, except for a very few, all men were, & did get, married.
      It is fair to say that all 12 of Jesus’s Disciples & Jesus himself were married.
      Until he was 30 he was a local carpenter just as his disciples were fishermen, tax collectors etc.
      That they - or most of them - deserted their wives & families speaks volumes for them.
      Celibacy has nothing to do with Christianity. It is a perversion of the worst sort.
      Celibacy has made normal, & normally sexual men & women into perverted monsters. Yes, Nuns are required to be celibate too so it is no wonder these sexually repressed, frustrated women turn on the children under their control.
      Not all priests & nuns etc. are child abusers but a hell of a lot of them are.
      There should be no requirement for them to marry. They should simply be allowed to lead sexually healthy lives if they wish. If that includes marriage & children then so be it. If they choose not to get married then they should still be able to live a sexually active life.
      There are perverts at all levels of society. There always will be. That a normal man or woman should be denied the right to lead a normal life is an obscenity & will inevitably lead to aberrant, perverted sexual behaviour. That is why there are so many paedophiles in our churches. Not all of them abuse boys. Much of the sex abuse of children is perpetrated against little girls.
      This stupid rule of celibacy should be set aside.
      It is abnormal
      It is inhumane
      Nowhere can I find any teaching of Jesus where it is demanded.
      The real perverts are those at the top of this massive money-making machine ( The World-wide Roman Catholic Church)who force this on otherwise healthy, normal, decent men & women.
      There are some over the centuries which have accused the Roman Catholic Church of being an instrument of the Devil.
      Not that I believe in Heaven or Hell, God or the Devil but I tend to agree with them. The Catholic Church along with all the others & religion in general should be abolished. We would all be one hell of a lot better off.

    • St. Michael says:

      01:08pm | 21/09/11

      “It is fair to say that all 12 of Jesus’s Disciples & Jesus himself were married.”

      Got a list of their spouses for us?

    • redvixen says:

      01:33pm | 21/09/11

      “That a normal man or woman should be denied the right to lead a normal life is an obscenity & will inevitably lead to aberrant, perverted sexual behaviour.”

      They are not denied this right.  They don’t *have* to become priests and nuns, they choose it.

      “Not all priests & nuns etc. are child abusers but a hell of a lot of them are.”

      I was brought up in a Catholic family, went to a Catholic school, and went to Sunday school and church on Sunday.  So did my husband, who is not an athiest.  Between us we know don’t know anyone that has ever implied they were mistreated by a priest or nun.  (I am in no way suggesting it doesn’t happen and my sympathies to any that it has happen to).  So, what is the cut-off point of “a hell of a lot”.

      Having said that, I believe that the Catholic religion will not fall into ruin if it allowed its priests to marry.

    • Gherkin says:

      06:30pm | 21/09/11

      Eunuchs for the kingdom. Look it up.

    • The World's greratest troll says:

      12:03pm | 21/09/11

      Australia invented sex. Sixty Minutes 18 Sept 2011.
      Thats why Coalition Voters cannot keep their hands off their brains!

    • David says:

      12:05pm | 21/09/11

      I can’t understand why Christians and society in general get so worked up about sex and sexuality. Christian groups scream blue murder when sex is depicted on TV and vehemently oppose the teaching of sex education to children.

      I think society is far to obsessed with trying to shield children from sex. It can be well demonstrated that the most sexually repressive cultures that obsess with shielding children from anything sexual like the deeply religious bible belt states of the USA have the highest occurrences of teen pregnancies.

      I do not have kids but when I do they will be taught before they reach puberty to have a healthy respect for sex and the consequences that can come along with it. I don’t expect that anything I tell them will stop them from having sex and I wouldn’t want it to, but when they do they will understand that sex carries a risk of sexually transmitted diseases and they will be educated in preventing their transmission. They will also understand how to prevent unwanted pregnancies through contraception. The reason that I will teach them all of this is because shielding them from it will not stop them from having sex, just leave them much less informed about it.

      And I can’t understand why we get so offended by nudity. Really what is the big deal if a young child sees what a person looks like with no clothes on.

    • Tina says:

      01:47pm | 21/09/11

      I agree, David.

      And it is interesting that it has not always been like this. Or that for example being gay was not a problem in other or older cultures. We are now following the ideas of a few people that designed the concept of Christianity. But who knows. Christianity is on its way out, so who knows whats next? Christianity is nothing but a temporary trend in the larger picture.

    • David says:

      02:17pm | 21/09/11

      Actually on reflection that comment was a little heterosexist. My kids will also be taught that not everyone is born heterosexual.

    • marley says:

      03:48pm | 21/09/11

      Actually, I don’t think it’s a particularly Christian thing.  There are plenty of Christians who don’t have all these hangups, and there are plenty of Muslims who do.  There are “puritans” (for want of a better word) amongst most religious groups and amongst the non-religious as well. 

      I just think there are people who naturally gravitate to the extremes of hedonism and asceticism and use religion as a justification - their hedonism or asceticism isn’t generated by the religion, but by their own natures.

    • Kassandra says:

      12:16pm | 21/09/11

      This untested hypothesis has been advanced many times before in the psychology literature in one form or another for more than a hundred years and has been the rationale for “treatments” aimed at correcting the presumed adverse effects of people not having enough sex, usually by encouraging them to have more. Strangely such treatments have been popular with some. But it may surprise you (or not) to discover that not everyone has a very strong sex “drive” and some people seem to have none at all, and these people identified in research studies have not been noted to be otherwise any different from other more highly sexed people. They don’t, for example, seem to run around raping, murdering or molesting children. Not sure about suicide bombing though, I don’t think they’ve had any of those in the research samples so far.

    • Andrew says:

      03:16pm | 21/09/11

      I think you’re referring to Asexuality, as its called on wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality
      Since its such a small percentage of the population, its usually completely discounted so people can make wide sweeping statements.
      That said usually the inclusion would be along the lines of ‘statement about sexuality in humans’ followed by ‘except for asexuals, who dont care’

    • Kassandra says:

      04:26pm | 21/09/11

      My point is that sex “drive” in humans is not fixed but is on a continuum from high at one extreme to non-existent at the other, and there is no evidence that a low sex drive is necessarily associated with “repression” or with aggression sexual or otherwise as this article suggests. “Asexuality” is just a name given to one extreme of the continuum.

    • Paul says:

      12:17pm | 21/09/11

      The problem with masturbation, contraception and sex outside of a good marriage is that they are inherently selfish acts that deny responsibility to the other.

      This supposed ‘psychology’ -that ridicules religion and tries to assert that genital sex as essential as food or water- denies the deeper reality that the more we turn inward on ourselves, then the more destruction and evil is inevitable.
      (This, by the way, is what is really meant by masturbation turning you “blind”; it turns you blind to others, until all your interests and desires narrow in on yourself).

      At any rate, it’s just dumb to assume that the basic expression of our sexuality is through genitals or genital contact. The basic expression is in knowing that we are man or woman; knowing the gift of ourselves - our gender and the complimentarity that this has with the opposite gender. Then we can freely and joyously give ourselves to the other.

      The highest, most beautiful expression of this loving gift of ourselves is not found in sex, but in what Christ did on the cross.

    • David says:

      12:34pm | 21/09/11

      Paul, the problem with your one size fits all model of the only permissible sexual activity being missionary position between a married man and a woman is that society is much more sexually diverse than you think. Are you saying that gay people must be celibate all their lives and never once so much as masturbate? I know a catholic man who’s wife divorced him. The church forbid him from ever remarrying. Are you saying that he should never know intimacy again in his life. I can tell you that he has grown into a desperately lonely old man, longing for intimacy. He can not so much as co-habitate with a woman, as the church forbids this also.

    • shinydonkey says:

      12:41pm | 21/09/11

      Matey - it’s called SEXuality for a reason. Sounds like you’re engaging in some fairly outrageous cognitive dissonance - not getting any? Don’t try to pass off your bronze-age misunderstanding of gender and gender roles as knowing anything about sexual expression, and do not dare presume to call anybody else dumb if you’re sprouting this tripe. There’s a LOT more to sexuality than you think.

    • St. Michael says:

      01:05pm | 21/09/11

      “This supposed ‘psychology’ -that ridicules religion and tries to assert that genital sex as essential as food or water- denies the deeper reality that the more we turn inward on ourselves, then the more destruction and evil is inevitable.”

      (1) Genital sex is as essential as food or water.  Without it propagation of the species, and the creation or descent of new souls to Earth, is impossible.  Going by the Bible, God’s present headcount for reproduction without genital sex stands at three: Adam, Eve, and Jesus.  Indeed, God commanded that man “go forth and multiply”, if you take Genesis on its literal wording, which most sane believers don’t.

      (2) Aspects of some religions are entirely worthy of ridicule.

      (3) Self-reflection, being turning in on one’s self, is essential for growth and salvation.  Neither of these are causes of destruction or evil.

      “At any rate, it’s just dumb to assume that the basic expression of our sexuality is through genitals or genital contact. The basic expression is in knowing that we are man or woman; knowing the gift of ourselves - our gender and the complimentarity that this has with the opposite gender. Then we can freely and joyously give ourselves to the other.”

      Wank.  Especially for, as has been pointed out, the homosexual population which it is currently thought is the result of genetic disposition during early development, not a lifestyle choice.  By this reasoning, gay men and women cannot freely or joyously give themselves to anyone.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      01:30pm | 21/09/11

      Yeah, like overpopulating the planet, destroying the environment and over consuming resources is the height of responsibility. But it’s okay because God tells us we can…..

    • Tina says:

      02:10pm | 21/09/11

      We have had sex for quite a while before Christianity came around.So why do they think they can just come up with new rules? Apart from trying to make people feel bad about their natural drive?

    • Bitten says:

      02:16pm | 21/09/11

      F*ck. Complement and compliment are different f*ing words. Learn to spell, then post.

    • Bitten says:

      02:16pm | 21/09/11

      F*ck. Complement and compliment are different f*ing words. Learn to spell, then post.

    • James1 says:

      02:21pm | 21/09/11

      “The highest, most beautiful expression of this loving gift of ourselves is not found in sex, but in what Christ did on the cross.”

      You’ve obviously never had sex.  It beats torture and death by a considerable margin.  Each to their own, though.

    • Tina says:

      02:38pm | 21/09/11

      I wonder if Jesus though of his torture as the most beautiful expression of this loving gift as well when it happened - if it happened

    • Waz says:

      01:13pm | 21/09/11

      Tina & Babe watch out the Duracell max work too well and shorten the life of your toy, try for the heavy duty batteries rather than alkaline you will get more life out of your little friend…

    • More the merrier says:

      06:16pm | 21/09/11

      Agreed, any good sex shop worker says not to use high quality batteries, it will burn out the motor. Use the less expensive home brand versions. Cheap and nasty tongue laugh

    • Soos says:

      01:41pm | 21/09/11

      @ Carz says:07:07am | 21/09/11
      ...There are plenty of married child sex offenders out in the community…
      and my sperm-donor (father) is one, in having sexually assaulted three of his very young, vulnerable granddaughters and threatened them with who knows what to stop them from telling anyone.!!!

    • The Very Reverend Lance Boil says:

      02:58pm | 21/09/11

      Repent ye sinners or perish in the white hot fires of hell and damnation. As your Reverend I say to you all masturbation is a foul sin to be avoided at all costs.

    • neo says:

      03:13pm | 21/09/11

      Statistics are in, Aussies are not having as much sex as they want. I suggest everyone joins up to adultfriendfinder so we can raise the level of sex had in this country. Also, girls, next time a guy tries to hook up, go ahead and let them, if not for yourself, then for your country! Sex for everyone in 2012!

    • Josie says:

      03:14pm | 21/09/11

      Churches consider all sexual activity outside of marriage as SIN. Therefore when priests sexually abuse anyone, they are SINNING. Confession allows for the sin to be forgiven and therefore the sin goes away. Not so for their victims who live a life of guilt,pain and shame. Then the church forces the victim to forgive as it is the right thing to do. Priests hide behind these concept, continuing the abuse repent forgiven cycle whilst collecting victims. People are sexual beings enjoying the pleasure of their own and sharing bodies. It is biological. Yet for power and control, churches have reinvented the human condition to a social construct that has no basis except repression. I think God must be pissed off to see that his creation is denied as he intended to be enjoyed. How will church people argue that with HIM? so have fun but be safe as priests opinions don’t really count.

    • I am free! says:

      03:17pm | 21/09/11

      This is just another patheic forum to attack Christianity and the Church. I use to have wayward sexual desires and masturbate daily for 11 years. Christianity, in particular daily Holy Communion, liberated me. I am no longer a slave of disordered lust and desire. Through Christ, my sexual appetite is now well regulated and ordered. On the other hand, the lying, dying sexual revolution has not made humanity happier. That’s because lust, fornication, adultery, pornography, divorce, masturbation, homosexuality are disorders that can never bring peace.

    • Zeta says:

      03:48pm | 21/09/11

      You’ve only masturbated 4015 times. That’s assuming you only did it once per day. I’ve been masturbating at least daily for 15 years - 5475 times.

      Do you think God is going to be double pissed once I get into the high thousands? Like, ‘Zeta, you masturbated over 9000 times before you died of penis cancer. See this guy? He only masturbated 4015 before he stopped because he ate some wafers. Wafers Zeta. Did you eat them?’ Or do you actually think God does not in fact give a shit about your jerking/jilling off at all, because His works are being tainted daily by far worse evils than me, Sasha Grey, an some KY.

    • John says:

      04:01pm | 21/09/11

      It’s all tactics to weaken and destroy western christian society. Sex bombarded on television, lesbianism, homosexuality, marketed like the IPOD like another product to lust for. Marxist subversion is everywhere! Sexual perversion is not liberating, its self destructing.

    • Markus says:

      04:25pm | 21/09/11

      Zeta, what does the scouter say about his masturbation level?

    • mel says:

      05:52pm | 21/09/11

      Oh, I think lust, fornication, pronography and masturbation has brought lots of people lots of happiness! Homosexuality for those so inclined has no doubt brought lots of happiness too. I can’t see where the down side of this sexual revolution is! Just treat people fairly and honestly and it usually works out fine!

      Adultery and divorce aren’t so good, but they happen to christians too!

    • mel says:

      08:35am | 22/09/11

      John, are you sure you’re not General Jack Ripper from ‘Dr Strangelove’?

      If I may quote from the General: ”  I can no longer sit back and allow, Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids! “

      You do know Dr Strangelove was a black comedy, not a documentary?

    • Babs says:

      04:31pm | 21/09/11

      An awful lot of commentary about human sexuality is really about human male sexuality.  Women can and do live without sex, sometimes by choice, sometimes because the men they are with have a low libido and little interest in sex. Women are a teensy bit dependent upon the man having at least an equal interest; if not, tough titty as one of the rajneesh so famously said. Men at least have other recourses (internet porn, strip clubs etc) when faced with a sexless relationship.

    • Markus says:

      04:58pm | 21/09/11

      “Women are a teensy bit dependent upon the man having at least an equal interest”
      Why? Women were blessed with both hands just as men were. Plus with all the toys available nowadays, if anything they are in a better position than men in a sexless relationship.

      That, and in the situation they should feel the need to leave at any point, even the ugliest of women has more suitor options available to them than the average man.

    • TJ says:

      05:32pm | 21/09/11

      @Markus - oh I agree with you there, I still have not found a man that can satisfy me like I do, if I had to choose between a man and my trusty toy then sorry have to go with the toy, wouldn’t have to cuddle after at least. and if the guy doesn’t like you using toys whether he has a low sex drive or just bad form then just say darling I have needs you know and you’re not meeting them

    • I am free! says:

      04:50pm | 21/09/11

      Zeta, anger, hatred and ridicule, coupled with immense ignorance of Christian beliefs, do not amount to an argument. Meanwhile, I remain free and liberated, unchained from the lies of the sexual revolution and its proponents. Zeta, you are welcome to join the truly liberated any time.

    • St. Michael says:

      05:15pm | 21/09/11

      Proselytism without logic or facts don’t amount to an argument, either.

      Nor does quoting the Bible.  Mostly because it’s questionable logic or fact.

    • mel says:

      11:18am | 22/09/11

      Is this the “black is white” defence? God tells me what to do, so I am free. Zeta does what he wants and isn’t free.

      I never can understand christian logic.

    • shinydonkey says:

      05:53pm | 21/09/11

      Anger - doubt it - 5475 reasons against
      Hatred - nah
      Ridicule - BINGO
      Ignorance - well . . . . I’d call it a ham-fisted attempt at open inquiry

      1/4 ain’t bad, and I’m pretty sure Zeta won’t take you up on that.

    • Dark Horse says:

      08:15pm | 21/09/11

      It’s when we start to think that natural acts and processes are unnatural or to be denied that we run into trouble; Nature knows best. Many primates have anal sex, masturbate and lick each others’ sexual organs.

      In some countries, all the poor people have to do that is pleasurable and affordable is copulate. Repressing one’s sexual needs is wasting one’s opportunities.

    • Argue Better says:

      07:40pm | 22/09/11

      So was Mother Theresa an anomaly or a secret pedophile?

      Is the husband who sexually abuses his step-daughter just not getting enough sex from his wife? (Arguably this is just as common as an abusive priest).

      And abusive Priests definitely wouldn’t be predators who are drawn to such positions because they know its a position that gives them access and power over vulnerable young.

      If a 10 year old boy craves sex but is denied until he’s old enough is that abuse?

      Mr Ryan, as a Christian I believe there are theological and practical reasons for chastity. I’ve never criticised others for their sexual behaviors, what gives you the right to criticise Christians for their behaviors? And how can you base your argument on people like Kellogg, seriously. Are all Germans as crazy as Hitler was?

      I’m not going to speculate as to Mr Ryan’s sexual experience, but I would say that if someone who had never really committed themselves to chastity for any meaningful length of time wrote about it then it would be more of an opinion rather than fact. If you want to argue this point do some proper research, get facts. In this argument you say its an abuse against body and spirit, but where is the real proof?.

    • Lisa H. says:

      11:04pm | 22/09/11

      I’m obviously a very slow learner… just don’t bother visiting the punch.

    • Utopia Boy says:

      03:22am | 23/09/11

      .....and we wonder why the USA is a train wreck.

    • Kate says:

      12:38am | 25/09/11

      “If priests were allowed to form erotic connections with consenting adults, does anyone doubt that countless children would have been spared their abuse in the hands of these distorted, twisted men”?

      This is a myth. Married men and men who have happy, healthy sexual relationships with adults partners sexually abuse children too. Most children who are sexually abused are abused by their relatives or family friend under a veil of ‘normalcy’. Historically, priests themselves indulged in sex with ‘concubines’ - and still abused their power over women and children.

      It’s been found that most priests who sexually abuse children have sadistic tendencies and/or enjoy abusing their power over someone more helpless and weak than they are. The deeply hierarchical nature of the catholic church is the perfect breeding ground for such tendencies. This has much more to do with the cause of child sexual abuse than simple ‘sexual repression’. The same logic applies to other forms of sexual assault such as rape. It’s not so much about sex as it is about power and control.

      Perpetuating the myth that if only men could express their sexuality freely the crime would disappear is unhelpful. After all we live in an era of unprecedented accessibility to pornography and commercial sex. We’re hardly a sexually repressed society. But according to research in various fields, the incidence of sexual assault and child sexual abuse is increasing in many areas. The crime is certainly not going away.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

@BellaBoogaloo By far the world's most ridiculous continent.

Daniel Piotrowski

They should have this every week. #sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @danielstone: Techno-gypsy is my favourite genre #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter