By Carl S ~
No, you have not mistakenly accessed a porn or medical site. You're on the right site. We're here to deal with the penis as it applies to religion. The spokesmen for major religions have pushed their rules about sexual behavior on humankind for centuries, with wretched excess. They are obsessed with sexuality. And the penis has a lot to do with this. You wouldn't think so, because they're always projecting the “spiritual” at the public; that's a facade of denial to themselves as well as their unaware audiences.
Their problem and the problems they cause others, are based on a simple fact of nature: Male penises involuntarily react to the presence of desirable women (or for some, men, but this author will focus on heterosexual relationships), with the beginning of erections. Looking at a nude or semi-nude female can have the same effect. Religions have turned this simple reaction into a moral battleground. One Saudi cleric “explained why their women had to be tented-over: men would not be able to restrain themselves from molesting them. A famous condemnation from Jesus is that a man merely looking at a woman with lust has committed adultery. He also urged, if a man's bodily part “offends” him, he should chop it off. Women have been damned for having “power, “over men. They've been tortured and/or killed by men who believed not having control over their penises was a sign of moral weakness. Women have been blamed for “being in league with the devil” by “tempting” men to abandon their virtue. How did a physical good feeling become perverted into an evil? Who would have imagined an all-natural erection would become an indicator of immorality?
As a consequence of both philosophical and religious beliefs in the body being at war with the “spirit,” the spiritual came to mean a superior state of being to be sought at all costs, and men have suffered by default by giving in to spontaneous sexual feelings. The mind at war with body credo, promoted solely by “wise” men, is in bed with the wisdom of God, i.e., foolishness to the nature of humans. This causes damaging and unnecessary suffering for men and women. Doesn’t this have something to do with “God” being a male, and males have a penis? What if this god has no control over his penis, he himself wants none, and who dares to say 'no' to him? This god is Omni-Potent and, it is asserted, other attributes follow, such as omni-wise, omni-knowing, omni-merciful, etc. As if having a penis alone automatically confers such attributes. The one-with-the-penis creates everything, rules, dominates, and can screw his creations if he desires; and does.
Without the penis, where would the Abrahamic religions be, where would those “spiritual” goals to self-perfection be, without erections to war against and control? Without a penis, the male god could not penetrate a virgin (ask her, she was there alone, take her word for it). The Catholic Church alone would be without a Feast of the Immaculate Conception, a Feast of the Annunciation, and Christmas, if God wasn't able to penetrate her through the best-option method he himself created. Without a penis, how could an Islamic man benefit from virgins at his disposal in Paradise?
Not all organisms procreate as humans do. And even the penis bedecked reps of their male god are accepting in-vitro fertilization. Supposing men didn't have penises; wouldn’t there be equality between the sexes, since each would resemble the other while retaining their sex drives and deep need for intimacy? There is no present answer to that question. How quickly would the fights over abortion rights come to a conclusion if men could become pregnant? If men menstruated, would they tolerate rejection for being “unclean?” Without penises involved, millions of boys, for centuries, wouldn't have believed masturbation to be immoral and shameful, or that spilling their seed is a defilement of their bodies, the “temples of the Holy Spirit!” Without a penis, men would not have been flagellating and starving themselves in quests for “spiritual purity bound to physical purity,” nor would they urge others to follow in their paths.
Without penises, there would be no power to rape, there would be no advantage to kidnapping virgins, nor could rape be used as a weapon of war, where it causes the victim to be killed by her own family because her “defilement” has “dishonored” them. No children could be penetrated for a priest's pleasure.
Without a penis-god, how differently would/will humanity be regarded? Exposing the deeply hidden roots of the insistent penis domination is a fear: women have power to remind men, through sexual intercourse, that they are animals and mortal. Even the man-gods are threatened by this reality. Because sexual relationships have the effect of diminishing male escape from feelings of immortality and superiority, the male god has set strictures (through male authorities), whereby woman is to be obedient to man. Male god sides with the males made in his image, of course, and demands women be held in check, and “know their place.” He dictates a woman's purpose in life is to be a companion and comfort to a man, to procreate his children. Note: As recently as February 2017, an Oklahoma legislator said “I understand they (pregnant women) feel like that is their body..., what I call them is, you're a host.” If his male-dominated law is passed, a pregnant woman will lose the right to decide for her own body.
The man's godly duty is to use her to make babies. That's not all. To paraphrase St. Paul: Blessed are those who have sexual relations to procreate, but more blessed are those who have no sex at all.
Scriptures never mention men being “unclean,” only women and certain animals, like pigs. Cleanliness was a big thing with really big time dirty and smelly nomadic desert tribes. A time in the pond was heavenly. Cleanliness became an obsession; cleanliness of body, thoughts, and spirit. Women in menstrual periods were “unclean;” face it, obsessed with cleanliness, what god or man wants to put his penis in an unclean place? And then they got cleansed in the River Jordan by baptism, etc. (“Cleanliness is next to godliness,” after all.) This got carried over to extremes like “bathed in the blood of the Lamb,” (icky!), which washes away sins and guilt. More damned primitive purification rituals. Children are brainwashed through indoctrination, protected from sex, kept “innocent” until marriage.
Scriptures never mention men being “unclean,” only women and certain animals, like pigs.Compare these religious traditions with sexuality in all its expressions: “Dirty” pictures, erotic and pornographic “filth.” Erotica is exotica. Dirty homosexual love. A dirty mind. What's morally wrong with even imagining you and a loving other sharing one of the best things in life together? You may feel so dirty, reading about pedophile clergy that you need a good long shower to feel right again, but there's nothing dirty about cuddling after sex. Ignore those purity-prudes; if sex is dirty and messy, so? A lot of pleasures are. Those in the throes of sexual intimacy are “as happy as pigs in mud.”
(Note: If you want to have a few good laughs, read the sermons of St. Bernard of Clairvaux ( 1090 – 1153), on the bible's “Song of Songs,” a. k. a., “The Song of Solomon.” He interprets those erotic verses as a theological spiritual relationship!)
Finally: reject all the male penis gods. Let's be equals and enjoy pleasuring each other the way freely equal humans can. Keep that male god in his heaven. Maybe he envies us, and our sexuality is a god he wants us not to worship over him. He and his absent-of-sex-drive, repressed or hidden sexuality representatives should abandon their ancient fears. That would mean emasculating their god, wouldn't it? Time to rip the loincloth off the crucified S. and M. savior. Maybe it’s covering an erection?
Their problem and the problems they cause others, are based on a simple fact of nature: Male penises involuntarily react to the presence of desirable women (or for some, men, but this author will focus on heterosexual relationships), with the beginning of erections. Looking at a nude or semi-nude female can have the same effect. Religions have turned this simple reaction into a moral battleground. One Saudi cleric “explained why their women had to be tented-over: men would not be able to restrain themselves from molesting them. A famous condemnation from Jesus is that a man merely looking at a woman with lust has committed adultery. He also urged, if a man's bodily part “offends” him, he should chop it off. Women have been damned for having “power, “over men. They've been tortured and/or killed by men who believed not having control over their penises was a sign of moral weakness. Women have been blamed for “being in league with the devil” by “tempting” men to abandon their virtue. How did a physical good feeling become perverted into an evil? Who would have imagined an all-natural erection would become an indicator of immorality?
As a consequence of both philosophical and religious beliefs in the body being at war with the “spirit,” the spiritual came to mean a superior state of being to be sought at all costs, and men have suffered by default by giving in to spontaneous sexual feelings. The mind at war with body credo, promoted solely by “wise” men, is in bed with the wisdom of God, i.e., foolishness to the nature of humans. This causes damaging and unnecessary suffering for men and women. Doesn’t this have something to do with “God” being a male, and males have a penis? What if this god has no control over his penis, he himself wants none, and who dares to say 'no' to him? This god is Omni-Potent and, it is asserted, other attributes follow, such as omni-wise, omni-knowing, omni-merciful, etc. As if having a penis alone automatically confers such attributes. The one-with-the-penis creates everything, rules, dominates, and can screw his creations if he desires; and does.
Without the penis, where would the Abrahamic religions be, where would those “spiritual” goals to self-perfection be, without erections to war against and control? Without a penis, the male god could not penetrate a virgin (ask her, she was there alone, take her word for it). The Catholic Church alone would be without a Feast of the Immaculate Conception, a Feast of the Annunciation, and Christmas, if God wasn't able to penetrate her through the best-option method he himself created. Without a penis, how could an Islamic man benefit from virgins at his disposal in Paradise?
Not all organisms procreate as humans do. And even the penis bedecked reps of their male god are accepting in-vitro fertilization. Supposing men didn't have penises; wouldn’t there be equality between the sexes, since each would resemble the other while retaining their sex drives and deep need for intimacy? There is no present answer to that question. How quickly would the fights over abortion rights come to a conclusion if men could become pregnant? If men menstruated, would they tolerate rejection for being “unclean?” Without penises involved, millions of boys, for centuries, wouldn't have believed masturbation to be immoral and shameful, or that spilling their seed is a defilement of their bodies, the “temples of the Holy Spirit!” Without a penis, men would not have been flagellating and starving themselves in quests for “spiritual purity bound to physical purity,” nor would they urge others to follow in their paths.
Without penises, there would be no power to rape, there would be no advantage to kidnapping virgins, nor could rape be used as a weapon of war, where it causes the victim to be killed by her own family because her “defilement” has “dishonored” them. No children could be penetrated for a priest's pleasure.
Without a penis-god, how differently would/will humanity be regarded? Exposing the deeply hidden roots of the insistent penis domination is a fear: women have power to remind men, through sexual intercourse, that they are animals and mortal. Even the man-gods are threatened by this reality. Because sexual relationships have the effect of diminishing male escape from feelings of immortality and superiority, the male god has set strictures (through male authorities), whereby woman is to be obedient to man. Male god sides with the males made in his image, of course, and demands women be held in check, and “know their place.” He dictates a woman's purpose in life is to be a companion and comfort to a man, to procreate his children. Note: As recently as February 2017, an Oklahoma legislator said “I understand they (pregnant women) feel like that is their body..., what I call them is, you're a host.” If his male-dominated law is passed, a pregnant woman will lose the right to decide for her own body.
The man's godly duty is to use her to make babies. That's not all. To paraphrase St. Paul: Blessed are those who have sexual relations to procreate, but more blessed are those who have no sex at all.
Scriptures never mention men being “unclean,” only women and certain animals, like pigs. Cleanliness was a big thing with really big time dirty and smelly nomadic desert tribes. A time in the pond was heavenly. Cleanliness became an obsession; cleanliness of body, thoughts, and spirit. Women in menstrual periods were “unclean;” face it, obsessed with cleanliness, what god or man wants to put his penis in an unclean place? And then they got cleansed in the River Jordan by baptism, etc. (“Cleanliness is next to godliness,” after all.) This got carried over to extremes like “bathed in the blood of the Lamb,” (icky!), which washes away sins and guilt. More damned primitive purification rituals. Children are brainwashed through indoctrination, protected from sex, kept “innocent” until marriage.
Scriptures never mention men being “unclean,” only women and certain animals, like pigs.Compare these religious traditions with sexuality in all its expressions: “Dirty” pictures, erotic and pornographic “filth.” Erotica is exotica. Dirty homosexual love. A dirty mind. What's morally wrong with even imagining you and a loving other sharing one of the best things in life together? You may feel so dirty, reading about pedophile clergy that you need a good long shower to feel right again, but there's nothing dirty about cuddling after sex. Ignore those purity-prudes; if sex is dirty and messy, so? A lot of pleasures are. Those in the throes of sexual intimacy are “as happy as pigs in mud.”
(Note: If you want to have a few good laughs, read the sermons of St. Bernard of Clairvaux ( 1090 – 1153), on the bible's “Song of Songs,” a. k. a., “The Song of Solomon.” He interprets those erotic verses as a theological spiritual relationship!)
Finally: reject all the male penis gods. Let's be equals and enjoy pleasuring each other the way freely equal humans can. Keep that male god in his heaven. Maybe he envies us, and our sexuality is a god he wants us not to worship over him. He and his absent-of-sex-drive, repressed or hidden sexuality representatives should abandon their ancient fears. That would mean emasculating their god, wouldn't it? Time to rip the loincloth off the crucified S. and M. savior. Maybe it’s covering an erection?
COMMENTS