ErosBlog

The Sex Blog Of Record
 
 

Mad About Your Dildos

Friday, July 7th, 2023 -- by Bacchus

This isn’t an atheism blog and I see no reason to waste much time hassling people about their religions. But it’s no secret that I have very little respect for religions that set themselves in opposition to pleasure. An omnipotent deity who’s mad about dildos is risible, not worthy of worship:

an image of the Christian god captioned imagine worshipping a god who despite creating 100 billion galaxies is really mad about your dildos

Similar Sex Blogging:

 

The Polished Shaft: A Sermon

Tuesday, December 18th, 2012 -- by Bacchus

No, really, it’s the title of this man’s actual sermon:

Dan Savage found the story in Chicago Magazine:

In July 2010, an hour into the “Polished Shaft” sermon–in a church packed with thousands of teenagers there for a youth conference–Schaap went further. He lifted a stick in his left hand and a silver cloth in his right. He moved the bottom of the stick near his groin and angled it away from himself. Head thrown back, eyes squeezed shut, mouth gaping, he began rubbing the shaft rapidly with the cloth, up and down, up and down…. What he was doing was unmistakable: simulating masturbation, in front of thousands of children, in the middle of a church service. A row of white-coated high-ranking churchmen seated behind Schaap watched in silence.

If you’re thinking that demonstrates a dangerous level of hypersexualization in a Baptist pastor, you’d be right:

Last September, Schaap, 54, a married father of two, pleaded guilty to taking a 16-year-old girl he was counseling at First Baptist across state lines to have sex. Denied bond, he awaits sentencing in the Porter County Jail; the minimum term is ten years.

Folks, we see the pattern over and over. Folks who preach hard and heavily against sex (of whatever kind, it doesn’t matter) are almost always talking to themselves first and foremost. So whenever you hear a sermon (religious or secular, again it doesn’t matter) against sex of any kind, you might, as Dan Savage says, “wanna keep your kids the hell away.”

Similar Sex Blogging:

 

Visions of Ecstasy Excerpt

Saturday, August 13th, 2011 -- by Dr. Faustus

Russell Blackford on his blog Metamagician and the Hellfire Club brings our attention to this short YouTube excerpt from the short 1989 film Visions of Ecstasy, which was (and I believe, still is) banned in the United Kingdom. I think it well worth watching, though due warning for squick:

This seems to play with tropes we’ve seen a lot before on ErosBlog, and which some people play with in even more extreme ways than we see here. Is it erotic? Religious? Blasphemous? Is there really a deep difference?

Similar Sex Blogging:

 

Condemning The Very Idea Of Sex As Sin

Tuesday, October 19th, 2010 -- by Bacchus

Sometimes I worry that the intellectual tradition of the good internet rant is falling out of favor. Oh, the stupid and noisy ranters on television will be with us always — but the finest thoughtful internet rants seem to grow increasingly rare.

A couple of weeks ago, though, Emily Nagoski delivered a barnstormer, on why it is not (and should not be) respectable to conflate sex and sin:

Believing that gay people are going to hell gives a cultural purchase to hatred and violence. Like a little bump on a rock where over years barnacles accumulate, the idea of sex as sin is a foothold for discrimination, bullying, harassment, and violence.

That’s just the tiniest taste of an epic and righteous rant. Like all good rants, it’s a one-piece; I can’t snip three paragraphs without doing horrid violence to the art form.

Similar Sex Blogging:

 

Religion Is Bad For Your Sex Life

Tuesday, June 8th, 2010 -- by Bacchus

I don’t write about religion much on ErosBlog. It’s a sex blog, not a religion blog nor yet a politics blog. But when talking about sex, religion is often the 800lb gorilla in the bedroom, which is probably why I get “you’ll burn in hell” emails on a regular basis.

Here’s college sex educator Emily Nagoski in what she calls her most offensive post yet:

Religion is bad for your sex life. I don’t mean it doesn’t help, I mean it’s actively destructive.

There are exceptions. I had a good friend in grad school who was a religious conservative. Her faith community strongly supporter her decisions around her sexuality and everything seems to have worked out fine for her. No irreparable harm done, to my knowledge.

But globally speaking, religion is bad both at the individual level and at the cultural level. Individually, it results in inhibitions, shame, fear, guilt, bias against others, and acceptance of gender-based stereotypes. Culturally it results in the oppression of women and sexual minorities, the spread of disease (stigma is as much a vehicle of transmission as any bodily fluid), and the obstruction of the scientific study of sexuality.

There I said it.

Go ahead and comment about how some religion or other isn’t like that. Tell me all about how your faith tells you to celebrate god’s gift of the body. I know. Whatever. You’re trying to make your religion work for you. Good luck with that.

I’d say “don’t yell at me, yell at her” except that would be cowardly. I’m not a sex educator nor nor any other kind of credentialed sex expert, but I agree with what she’s saying. It matches all of my reading and observations.

That’s what makes her post pertinent for ErosBlog. Well, plus this little pair of paragraphs from much later in her post:

None of this is aided by the fact that most of the work I do related to religion involves trying to untangle the knots religion has knit into a person’s sexuality. In my experience, in 90% or more cases religion has caused some form of damage to a person’s sexuality. Sometimes it’s indirect — like, a person has to learn that in fact gay people are completely fine — and sometimes it’s as direct as it gets — like the person is in recovery from child sexual abuse perpetrated by their church leader.

To say nothing of the systematic oppression of women, the violence justified by the fairy tales of idiots and madmen (teams of virgins in heaven, awaiting the arrival of a suicide bomber), and the devastating public health consequences of “morality.”

Now, I’m going to indulge myself. Because, however true the above blockquotes may be, they’re not why Emily’s post made me want to shout “Amen, Sister, preach it Baby PREACH it!” Nope, that happened when she got into why religion is absent from her own life. First sentence emphasis added by me:

But the worst thing about religion is that it makes it okay to just believe shit because you want to. No religion, no matter how liberal, escapes that.

I acknowledge a basic bias. For a variety of reasons not immediately relevant to this blog, I think faith/religiosity is an innate part of human psychology. I think human belief in an invisible family in the sky is either product or byproduct of evolution. However, it is, for no apparent reason, NOT an innate part of MY psychology. I had the capacity for faith (in the absence of any particular religion) when I was an adolescent, but the more my prefrontal cortex developed, the more impossible it became for me to believe in ghosts, fairies, invisible friends, etc. It was utterly gone by the time I was 25.

So I’m biased.

I know that the experience of faith is both real and important for lots of people, and I know it offends them when I discuss faith as a form of self-delusion, but I genuinely don’t understand, plain old don’t understand (like, imagine a terrier watching its owners have sex), how a person can CHOOSE to believe in something.

They choose to believe it because it makes them feel good. And I think this characterizes MOST people. I think MOST people are able to believe more or less anything they like the sound of. Indeed we’ve made a virtue of it. Just BELIEVE. It’s The Secret, ya know.

Well, shit, dude. If I could choose to believe whatever I wanted, I too would stop believing in global warming and start believing in angels. But I can’t. I can’t choose to believe anything; I believe what appears to be, given evidence and experience, true. As evidence and experience change, so does what I believe.

Just so.

I, too, lack the ability to “decide” to believe in something. I’ve never had it. I’ve never understood it. Like Emily, I don’t comprehend it. This. Does. Not. Compute.

All my life, people of faith have been urging me to join them. “Just BELIEVE”, they tell me, and all will be peachy.

“Just assemble the jigsaw puzzle”, they might as well be saying, “and when it’s all done and the picture clear and beautiful on your coffee table, the puzzle pieces will magically arrive in the mail.”

Like Emily, I can’t do that. I don’t know how to put the puzzle together before the pieces arrive. Don’t have the ability. At one time, around age 10 when all my friends were evangelical Christians, I wanted to have it; but I didn’t have it. And now, I don’t want it if I could get it. It’s not okay to just believe shit because you want to.

The reasons it’s bad for sexuality, Emily has covered. The other reasons it’s not okay are mostly beyond the scope of a sex blog. But it’s just not.

Similar Sex Blogging:

 

There Is A Line, Nor Is He This Side Of It

Saturday, November 14th, 2009 -- by Bacchus

Here at ErosBlog we’ve had some spirited discussions surrounding the use of religious imagery and its intersection with eroticism. Although it can be hard to distinguish genuine religious hostility to sexuality from its much-more-common companion, culturally-conservative hostility as expressed by religionists who aren’t interested in clarifying the distinction, there can be little doubt that conflating sex and religion is a handy (even lazy) method for culture warriors on both sides to generate a lot of noise and heat with minimum expenditure of effort.

The ErosBlog editorial line is opposed to sex-negative cultural conservatives and warily neutral about organized religionists. Religious objection to erotic expression is most often risible, but if the expression in question seems mostly aimed at poking thumbs in eyes to generate cheap outrage, my sympathy for it does sometimes wane.

And that strikes me as the spirit behind the photographs linked from Spanking Blog, in which the photographer invaded a working-but-unattended church and arrayed schoolgirl-attired models in a variety of naughty poses, even unto the extremity of conducting simulated lesbian sex on the altar:

lesbian sex on the altar

I suppose I would be untroubled by this if the artist had laboriously simulated the background for these photos in his studio. But I’ve enough of a respecter of property and civility to be sympathetic to the annoyed priest who took umbrage at this. An enormous amount of sweat and treasure went into the preparation of that altar as a space sacred to those parishioners, and it seems pretty dickish to disregard that so utterly in the pursuit of some artistic and sexy photographs.

Similar Sex Blogging:

 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 
cupid