Etiology of
Sexual Prohibitions

Many ancient religions had strong restrictions on sexual behaviors. Religions that have more recent roots tend either to not mention sexual restrictions or suggest a more liberal view.

However, since Judeo-Christian thought has had a significant impact on prevailing views about human sexuality, we need to look at why these sexual restrictions were deemed necessary.

First, the roots of the Judeo-Christian sexual prohibitions are found in Jewish tribal law.  During early times wives were considered "property" and laws were specifically codified to protect three things: livestock, wives and dwellings.  Although hard to fathom in this day of equal rights, this order was clearly spelled out in Jewish law. 

Judaism also feared "diluting" the Jewish race through liaisons with non-Jews. Since marrying a Jew and having only Jewish children were central to this, scriptural law governing sex was codified to support this need. (Remember, there was no effective birth control in those days.)

Even the rape of a wife was primarily viewed as a sin against the husband and his family. In fact, most scholars agree that sexual restrictions in the Old Testament have more to do with the needs and survival of the Jewish race than with sex, itself.

When early Christianity adopted Jewish scriptures these teachings simply continued more or less unquestioned into the Christian era.

Second, the greater sexual capacity of women was known by men -- and feared. Women who enjoyed sex were condemned as being "evil." (Later, in history they would be dealt with as "witches.") The fear of the woman's capacity for sex has been so great that in some societies the woman's clitoris was routinely removed to keep her from deriving pleasure from sex and possibly being tempted to "sin."

Next, and probably not unrelated, some men -- especially as they grew older and their sexual abilities waned -- realized that a younger male could more adequately satisfy their wives. (Strangely, sexual desire in females often increases with age.*) Male sexual prowess has long been paired with virility, and a wife who is better satisfied by another man obviously represents a major threat to a husband's status.

Fourth, according to Jewish sources, it was assumed that by controlling the sex life of subjects a significant degree of control over spiritual lives could be attained. Thus, husbands and wives were obliged to look to rabbis and priests (most of whom were celibate) rather to each other for sexual permissions. Early religious law set down very restrictive laws governing the "when and how often" of sex between married partners, even to the point of limiting sex to the "missionary position."

At one point the Catholic Church had "sex police." Married couples that were caught engaging in any non-approved form of sex were punished. For example, a married couple could be burned at the stake if they were caught having sex with the women on top. Sex was only for conceiving children, and for the male (and especially the female) to enjoy sex was deemed sinful.

Fifth, it was discovered that life threatening diseases were transmitted through sex. Many people died as a result of sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis. It was wisely reasoned that the spread of sexual disease could be controlled by placing limitations on sexual partners -- a line of reasoning that was especially important before safe sex practices.

Next, before effective birth control, sex commonly resulted in pregnancy. Church leaders wisely observed that a woman could theoretically get pregnant every year of her marriage. Back when women generally married in their teens, this could mean a great many children.

Although a few children may have been an asset in providing needed labor around the home and farms, it was clear that many couples could not (and did not want to) take care of a dozen or more children. Among other things, this would clearly have a negative religious and economic impact. It was therefore reasoned that sex had to be "moderated" or controlled by various means. Since the church had the only real authority over people, sexual prohibitions had to come from there.

Later, effective birth control would arrive on the scene.  The Catholic Church in particular banned it because (some argued) it could result in enjoying sex (still seen as a sin) without concerns about pregnancy.

Finally, we need to note that the Bible isn't nearly as "asexual" as might be assumed. In fact, the Bible contains some rather explicit references to the joy of making love. The Song of Solomon, which many view as at least semi-pornographic, is the classic example (notwithstanding the clear attempts by translators to make the original text less graphic by switching around some of the body areas discussed).  Despite prudish attempts to make the Song of Solomon into some type of allegory, more modern thinkers feel that the Song of Solomon simply demonstrates unflinching support for the joys of sex experienced by lovers.

The latter, however, has been effectively buried throughout the centuries. Because of centuries of the "sex-is-sin" thinking -- thinking that has been conveyed through what became "traditional values" and supporting law -- sex has evolved into an embarrassing and taboo subject. It has only been in recent years that fundamentalist Christian belief has started to deal with human sexuality in an open and positive (although still very restrictive) way.

Those who hold to prevailing religious belief tend to fear the presence of  sexually liberated views. Consequently, they attempt to not only control their own sexual experiences, but the experiences of everyone else. In fact, "illicit" consensual sex is viewed by some as more destructive to a society than violence. (One U.S. judge said it was a crime worse then murder.)

Today, many people are questioning and abandoning these beliefs -- even though the social consequences can be severe. With the availability of effective birth control the primary rationale for prohibiting sex among single people now is the risk of STD (sexually transmitted disease). Where adequate precautions are not taken, this risk is very real, and the consequences can be devastating.

Although social and religious restraints may be considered illogical and outmoded, we have to realize that because of prevailing social views violating these restraints can carry profound personal, marital, social, and even legal consequences. ("Separation of church and state" notwithstanding, many of our laws are based in prevailing religious beliefs.)

Possibly the Latin phrase that translates to, "First, do no harm," should be a guiding principle. The concept of "harm," of course, includes both you and others.

Social change comes rather slowly, but as new knowledge and understanding is gradually accepted, it does evolve.

Eventually, we can hope that sex will become a natural, open and special part of relationships, devoid of the guilt, shame, and fears that have plagued so many people for so long.

Examples of scriptural mandates that are rather clearly outmoded and even clearly illegal can be found here.

*The research on this is is mixed, due in part to the fact that the sexual needs of male partners diminish with age, and the resultant decrease in sexual activity in females generally results in diminished desire. However, evidence suggests that if desirable sexual opportunities exist, and no negative factors intervene, sexual desire typically increases. This tendency seems to be accelerating as women become liberated from centuries of sexual repression.

© 2005, All Rights Reserved