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.

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.
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?"


No Copyright