Christianity Sex and Orgasm

What’s the Bible got to do with orgasms?

Woman from Bing search- Free to Share and Use

A New Study Provokes a Question About Christian Education

The answer might depend on how you interpret the creation stories. Here’s’ why.

On 31 July 2016 a Yale University study of female orgasm was published in the Journal of Experimental Zoology. The biopsychology of sexuality is viewed from an evolutionary perspective but until this study, previous research and attendant explanations failed to reveal a clear link between human female orgasm and either the facilitation of fertilization or increasing the number of pregnancies. In addition, female orgasms do not occur on a regular basis during heterosexual intercourse but are more reliably produced by other methods due to female anatomy. In contrast, male orgasm is clearly linked to the movement of sperm toward an egg during intercourse.

The researcher’s inquiry considered the production of hormones during human female orgasm then looked for other animals that showed similar hormone surges as a part of copulation-induced ovulation. The findings indicate a specific role for female organism in animals where copulation stimulates ovulation suggesting that this type of reproduction preceded the relative independence of orgasm from reproduction in humans and other primates. They suggest that like other traits, human female orgasm may have persisted as a trait for secondary reasons—reasons not related to reproduction.

Christianity and Sexuality

When it comes to teaching about sex, contemporary Christians often refer to the Genesis union of Adam and Eve as an example of a God-blessed sexuality. The story has been used in many ways, including the idea held by some that the purpose of marriage is procreation.

The difficulty in understanding the purpose of female orgasm has puzzled scientists for years. The new research points in a new direction guided by evolutionary theory. In contrast, a strict creationist view offers no specific scientific guidance in how to understand the presence of female orgasm, which does not appear necessary for procreation.

One integration approach to such issues for students of biopsychology is to consider God as Creator and evolution as a process that is not inconsistent with either the Bible or new developments in science.

See related posts on Christianity, Psychology, and Evolution below.

Thoughts and Questions

Can Christians studying sexuality at a conservative Christian college or university obtain accurate information?

Will graduates from conservative Christian colleges and universities struggle to get into respectable graduate and professional schools if they do not understand the evolutionary bases that explain much of biology and biopsychology?

Will Christians from conservative colleges and universities suffer from a general disrespect in cultures where scientists are highly respected for advances in health care and technology?

How can scientists at conservative Christian colleges and universities deal with parents and donors who insist on teaching creationism and reject all teaching about human evolution? (This assumes that scientists do not accept the view that creation is incompatible with evolution.)

Should graduates and other donors withhold funds and refuse to send their children to conservative Christian colleges or universities that deny the compatibility of creation and evolution?

******

My ad for a related book:  A House Divided

 A House Divided: Sexuality, Morality, and Christian Cultures.

Order from Pickwick              Order from Amazon

See the Website A House Divided

Related posts on Christianity and Evolution

How Can Christians Integrate Faith & Evolution?

Is religion a byproduct of evolution?

Is the Jury Still Out on the Scopes Trial After 90 Years?

DID THE POPE EVOLVE? Evolution Psychology & Christianity

CONTRACEPTION BATTLE DIVIDES CULTURE

Christian groups have protested a portion of the U.S. Health Care law that includes birth control coverage. The groups opposed to providing contraceptives argue their right to deny services based on religious freedom.

The issue is before the U.S. Supreme Court. The article in the Economist (13 April 2016) provides details of the concerns and reports an “extraordinary” effort to find a resolution. The response to this effort appears to require that female employees have separate coverage outside of a Christian organization if they wish to obtain contraceptives and related medical services.

Moral Psychology and the Divide

1. Contraception continues to be a divisive issue for Christians.

Although the current article focuses on contraception in the U.S., Christians around the world are divided over the morality of contraception.

2. Contraceptive issues are not just about abortion.

Some Christians oppose only those means of contraception that interrupt a life that has begun. In this view, the contraceptive method does not prevent conception but ends a life.

But the issue for other Christians is the view that contraception interferes with God’s purpose. The “Purpose Driven Sex Life” stems from the Genesis story where God blesses Adam and Eve and says, “be fruitful and multiply.”

3. Competing rights and moral responses

It appears to me that the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the rights of women and the rights of religious groups by seeking a way forward. The responses from interested parties reveal differences.

The religious nonprofits argue for a separate system. In effect, this protects the conscience of the employers—allowing them to be true to their faith.

Those opposed to splitting coverage point to the burden on women. The arguments come from a “care-harm” moral perspective.

4. How to protect a minority

Most U.S. women use contraceptives, regardless of religious beliefs. The government has attempted to respect the rights of religious groups. Separatism sometimes works when people form a cultural enclave for example, living in a community where all people share similar morals. I think the Amish communities come close to this separatist model.

In contrast, religious charities within a broad host culture who hire people holding different values from the employer have not separated themselves from the culture. Perhaps some religious groups will need to move toward an Amish-like community where they may have greater religious freedom.

Read more about Christianity, Sexuality, and Morality in
     A House Divided

Buy on Kindle only $9.99

Contact Information

Facebook Page:   Geoff W. Sutton

Twitter   @GeoffWSutton

House Divided website 

Website: Geoff W. Sutton   www.suttong.com

Amazon Author Page

Sex and Government Intimacy

Anonymous/imgur

“The Time Ted Cruz Defended a Ban on Dildos”

The headline is from a motherjones story by David Corn 13 April 2016. Clearly, U.S. politicians are under scrutiny for their present and past acts. What's relevant about this story for my blog is the identification of sexual acts, moral judgments, and the role of government. 

Surely others are more focused on how the views of this U.S. politician may affect what he does were he to be elected. I don't discount the importance of that focus. Nevertheless, in A House Divided,I write about the divide between Christian cultures. And Cruz provides evidence of a strong conservative moral perspective that has links to laws that purport to limit the sexual behavior of others.

As you see in the story, "The Texas Penal Code prohibits the advertisement and sale of dildos, artificial vaginas, and other obscene devices" but does not "forbid the private use of such devices."

The story discusses individual rights and government rights, which are clearly important concerns when it comes to any aspect of life, including sexuality.

Moral emotions at work

From a moral psychology perspective, I notice an effort to create associations that might sway a target audience. For example, the use of the sexual devices was compared to “hiring a willing prostitute or engaging in consensual bigamy.” Setting aside any analysis of the analogy, we see a common political strategy of linking something deemed “evil” such as prostitution with something at least some may consider neutral, a “sexual device.”

The word obscene also adds a negative feeling despite the problem with defining this vague concept used to describe many things people simply don’t like. Of course, I realize it has been used in legal contexts but that does not always mean the definition is clear. Laws against obscenity are important. Obscenity must be clearly defined in order to be applied. Using obscenity in political rhetoric is often like a trick to produce a favorable emotional response.

Morals and harm

In the decision from the court of appeals, we see a different argument based on harm concerns. The court identified the sexual devices as “safe,” which made me wonder if they might have concerns if the devices caused identifiable harm. Here again we are left to consider what safety means—presumably they focused on bodily harm yet many of the arguments one hears against noninterpersonal sex have to do with emotional well-being.

Morality of “Purpose Driven Sex”

Another aspect of the decision challenged a role of government in “sexual gratification unrelated to procreation.” It is of course a religious notion that sex ought to be for procreation with ideas of God’s blessing on the first couple of the Genesis story. Yet even religious persons likely would not insist that people not have sex if they are past child bearing age or unable to have children.

Again, the logic is not my concern here but rather the type of thinking that links sexuality to procreation as if pleasure must take a back seat to procreation.

Reflections

1. At least some U.S. leaders are very concerned about the private ways people have sex. Presumably, if you limit sales, you so some sort of good. Harm is usually associated with a progressive or liberal reason to consider something as wrong or worthy of a limitation. In general, the principle of “do no harm” is helpful but surely not a deal-breaker as one can think of the harm caused by years of smoking tobacco—future harm is hard to predict—so often we are making probabilistic statements. 

Arguments based on harmful effects can be a useful way to build a consensus provided there's evidence of harm. Identifying the harmful effects of a sexual practice can bring divided groups together to support a ban. Harm need to be overtly physical to be real. Psychological harm is important too.

2. When Christians take their faith to work and a sex-related issue arises, they seem to think about sex in moral terms. Conservative Christians may attempt to condemn some acts or sex-related issues not in the Bible (e.g., sale of vibrators) by linking them to acts that many deem immoral or even disgusting such as hiring a prostitute.

Slamming prostitution is an old political strategy. Find a group of people despised in society. Link something neutral to that group. Gain support for your cause. It works. Unfortunately, many people in sex work (prostitution) are not there due to choice. Sex workers need government protection from exploitation rather than government condemnation.

3. Some Christians think God’s view of sex is for procreation. This belief obviously has an impact on those that work to control behavior via creating or supporting laws limiting sexual activity (or in this case limiting the sale of objects aiding sexual activity). 

In my experience, even conservative Christians are willing to celebrate the Joy of Sex (it’s the title of an old book). There’s something a bit too cognitive about this kind of procreation-purpose language—people feel attracted to others and strong feelings mix with a biological drive to have sex.

One way contemporary Christian clinicians speak about sex is to call it “God’s gift.” Presumably, all sex is God’s sex, as long as a couple is married.

Read more about Sex-related morality and Christian cultures in A House Divided

Contact Information

Facebook Page:   Geoff W. Sutton

Twitter   @GeoffWSutton

House Divided website 

Website: Geoff W. Sutton   www.suttong.com

Amazon Author Page