THE "SIN" OF FANTASISING ABOUT SEX
Preface
The Church forbids bad thoughts. That is you are not allowed to have deliberate
sexual or violent fantasies. Jesus said that adultery was a very serious sin and
to look at a married woman with desire was a big of a sin as adultery. And so
bad that it should make you wish your eye would be gouged out (Matthew 5). It’s
adultery in the heart. Yet the Church allows acting which involves rousing
violent emotions. Teenagers are blackmailed by the Church not to have wilful
sexual feelings or thoughts on pain of eternal damnation. To try and warp
sexuality and pervert it as the Church does is extremely damaging. When
sexuality is attacked so viciously one’s non-sexual relationships are impaired
for all relationships are sexual in the sense that it is a man or woman having
them. A system that teaches that to commit murder while being fairly insane and
therefore not guilty of a mortal sin is better than being fully sane and having
a wilful sexual desire for a few seconds is downright evil and any good it does
it not down to it but down to nature.
To write about nude women or sex involves much the same thing as thinking about
them so it must be a sin too. Even if you keep the picture out of your head the
picture is there subconsciously. Arousal is round the corner.
Some daring theologians have said that if you are a single person and are
reading a manual on sex out for educational purposes and you get aroused you
must stop reading. More logical theologians say you should not read such books
at all. They that if you are married or get married you will learn about sex by
practice and that is the way it should be. So you should not allow yourself any
deliberate sexual feelings outside of marriage.
SEX FANTASIES
The Church says that one reason sexual fantasy is so bad is because it leads to
forbidden and illicit sex.
Jesus said that any man who looks at a woman (he didn’t say married woman so it
is just woman in general for you can look at any woman) lustfully has committed
adultery with her as far as intention is concerned: “I say to you that everyone
who so much as looks at a woman with evil desire for her has already committed
adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). He means that this man would
commit adultery with her and only the circumstances are stopping him. The man is
as bad as actually doing it for if he actually got her in the sack it would be
his will that would be making him do it. It is the will that counts in
determining if a sin has happened.
Our quote from Jesus implies that he forbids erotica, pornography, nudity – for
nudity causes lust - and sexual fantasy and masturbation. Adultery is a crime
that deserves death (Leviticus 20:10) and repudiation by the Lord. Fornication
is also condemned by the law of God in the Bible but the price is compulsory
marriage. An adulterer or fornicator cannot go to Heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9).
What Jesus’ assertion means is that all wilful sexual desire and thoughts are
forbidden outside of marriage. Falling in love must be a sin for it is about
sexual attraction. Masturbation must be wrong for it is accompanied by dirty
thoughts.
That the teaching banning sexual fantasy and masturbation is harshness is plain
from the fact that the Church has always permitted violent thoughts and desires
when evoked in the context of acting and television. You need to feel and think
violent to act violent. So sex is worse than violence! The man giving the
lustful look does not want to hurt the woman who attracts him at all so the
consensus among Christians who want to do what they like that this just forbids
malevolent lust is incorrect.
Even a man who loves his wife is treating her with lust when he has sex with her
because if she aged 60 years overnight he wouldn’t have sex with her again. It
is not about her being a person so much as being a sexy object.
The Church does not follow through its doctrine on the importance of decent
desires and thoughts at all. Jesus undoubtedly forbade going to violent or sexy
plays even if the violence and sex were not explicit for the imagination fills
in a lot of the gaps subconsciously at least and a desensitisation towards sin
always results. All that proves that the Church made up the confessional where
Catholics have to tell their sins to the priest for the sin of sinful thoughts
would mean you would need to pester the priest every day. Jesus could not have
established the sacrament with the belief he had that sin was rampant in every
person. The Church ignores Jesus in this for it knows he went too far and that
if it obeyed him nobody would join it.
Some people think that if an old man or old woman looks at sexual images it does
no harm for there is no risk of lust stirring up. But it is possible even if it
has not happened for years. If mortal sin is the worst evil then even the
slightest risk of committing it or being tempted to should not be taken. You
wouldn't take your eyes off your child purposely for ten seconds in a busy
shopping mall and would consider yourself evil if you did. So how evil are you
if you play dice with mortal sin?
The old man and old woman are still taking something from sin. They are looking
at images of people sinning and they imply approval for this sin merely by
having the pictures and looking at them. There would be no such images if nobody
looked at them. So they share in the sin of the immodest people in the images.
These images are to be abhorred as idols are to be abhorred according to the
Bible. Buying papers with page three girls in them is sinful.
The Church will say that if you fantasise about a person who does not exist
during masturbation it must be a sin for you are pretending it is a real person
and you think you are degrading a person.
Religion condemns sexual fantasies because they allegedly treat a person like a
thing to be used for sexual pleasure and not as a person. But when you intend to
receive sexual pleasure you are not thinking of a person as a person but of
pleasure so that would forbid all sex. Its idea of treating a person as a person
in sexual matters is sleeping only with a person you intend to spend the rest of
your life with. But it is not clear why this should be. It is like saying that
you should only kiss a person you will never leave. There is nothing about sex
that means you have to remain true to the person you have it with forever.
Sex is sometimes a desire and sometimes a need. Rights are based on needs. It is
agreed that a man has a right to marry meaning he has a need to. Love is as
necessary as food and drink and shelter to live. Sexual love then is a need
though sometimes it is not a need but a desire. For example, someone who is
lonely and needs sexual love has a need but somebody who has a partner he loves
but who desires somebody else has no need but just a sexual desire. It follows
from all this that the Church in its attitude to sex is setting itself up in
opposition to human rights. It does not care about the needs of priests, fertile
women who don’t want children, gays and I could go on forever. The Church might
say it cares about gays when it helps them to live without a relationship. But
to help people live out your standard of morality and not let them find their
own way by experimentation is not helping them but exploiting them.
RAPE FANTASIES
Is a man enjoying rape fantasies doing wrong even if it will not lead to any
violent behaviour towards actual women?
Christians say that even if he would not rape in real life he is intending to do
it in the fantasy world and in fantasy you show what you really want and could
do if you could control reality the way you do fantasy. For them, this man is as
bad inside as the man who really rapes. On the humanist level, this teaching
that equates a rape fantasist with a real rapist is deadly. It as good as tells
a man he may as well rape for real if he is going to fantasise about it.
Many say the man is showing some leanings towards actual rape. They argue
that he chooses his fantasies despite being unable to know that they will NOT lead to
it.
The seem to have a point. But they say
nothing about the man who enjoys violent films like the Passion of
the Christ. He also does not know that his enjoyment will not
lead to him becoming violent. They hypocritically answer, "But as long as he has no reason to think he can go
out of control, he is not doing wrong." They are as good as saying the same
thing about the man who fantasises
about rape. They just won't admit.
Many say he distorts his relationships with women making it impossible for him
to relate to them.
Actual rapists are often so good at relationships with their girlfriends that
the girlfriends end up being unable to believe they are rapists. Saying it is
impossible to relate to women is strong and harsh. It could be difficult but not
impossible.
He is not being as good as the man who does not enjoy such stuff.
It is possible that actual violence against women may be just as easily triggered
by refraining from fantasies about violent rape. Religion then has no
right to argue that it has nothing to do with rape and that rape is
against faith just because it teaches that you must not indulge
fantasies about sin and abuse.
Some would assert that "if the man suppresses his desire to fantasise about rape, he becomes unable to face the desire and deal with it if it erupts uncontrollably. He becomes a pressure cooker of evil. The Christian faith by making it a sin to fantasise about rape, is clearly turning some men into rapists."
Chemical castration then? Religion slams that as a sin. It is as unhelpful as always.
The hypothetical is a good method for finding out exactly what is underneath people's noble and pious surface.
Take this exercise. Ask them, "Is man enjoying rape fantasies doing wrong even if it is not intended to lead to any violent behaviour towards actual women and if it will not happen in his case? If fantasies do lead to abuse, we are talking about a world where they do not. Does the absence of the intention ensure that he can fantasise without inciting himself to become a rapist?"
