Why sodomy has been so banned by human specie?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Hey, the climate seems to be at this (well at debates about this...) nowadays, so let's go further, why sodomy made so much problems to the human specie?

Why has it been so banned throughout the epochs? Maybe cultures were more 'open' to this but globally, it seems it had been banned of a lot of cultures (or maybe I'm too ignorant, and it hasn't been that much banned outside of West).

Some ideas?

[opebo]

...why sodomy made so much problems to the human specie?

Why has it been so banned throughout the epochs?

Because K-Y wasn't invented until recently, Benwah Ball.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

...why sodomy made so much problems to the human specie?

Why has it been so banned throughout the epochs?

Because K-Y wasn't invented until recently, Benwah Ball.

And now I've to ask what 'K-Y' means, and why am associated with a Ball here. I miss the sens.

[titaniumtux]

Mort de rire!!

[Huge Hawk]

Sodomy is first of all is abomination against God,Romans 1:26-32.God made Adam and Eve,but not Adam and Steve,Eve and Susan.God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19:1-29,because they were dominated by fags along doing other evil things that are described at Ezekiel.God gave moral laws to Moses in Leviticus 18:22 regarding gays and this law was not abolished by Jesus,but instead way approved through His Apostle Paul in Romans 1:26-32.
Sodomy must be as a felony and must be punished by prison terms.

[John Dibble]

The degree to which it has been accepted has varied throughout history. Rome for instance initially had a culture which condemned it, but later it became much more accepted in certain contexts. Other cultures had similar cycles where attitudes changed.

As to why some would ever feel the need to condemn it, I would say just because it's queer. Pun intended. But seriously, that's the case. Most people are attracted primarily to the opposite sex - a supermajority are in fact. Something that deviates so greatly from the norm is bound to provoke some kind of reaction. However, over time if it's out in the open enough and doesn't cause any apparent harm, people gradually begin to accept it as part of the norm so negative reactions decrease.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Alot of Sodomy laws were historically fairly ignored (or applied, like most Ancien Regime law, in a fairly arbitrary manner or due to personal grudges, rivalries and the like) up until fairly recently in alot of Europe. As for the reason why such laws existed in the first place: would Stoic-Christian morality do?

[opebo]

...why sodomy made so much problems to the human specie?

Why has it been so banned throughout the epochs?

Because K-Y wasn't invented until recently, Benwah Ball.

And now I've to ask what 'K-Y' means, and why am associated with a Ball here. I miss the sens.

Wow I thought everyone had heard of KY.   Its an excellent water-based sex-lube:



As for why I mention 'Ball' after your name:

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

...why sodomy made so much problems to the human specie?

Why has it been so banned throughout the epochs?

Because K-Y wasn't invented until recently, Benwah Ball.

And now I've to ask what 'K-Y' means, and why am associated with a Ball here. I miss the sens.

Wow I thought everyone had heard of KY.   Its an excellent water-based sex-lube:



As for why I mention 'Ball' after your name:

Haha. That was just what I expected for both answers. Well, as for the way I've written my name, if these balls are famous maybe I'll consider something else...

As to why some would ever feel the need to condemn it, I would say just because it's queer. Pun intended. But seriously, that's the case. Most people are attracted primarily to the opposite sex - a supermajority are in fact. Something that deviates so greatly from the norm is bound to provoke some kind of reaction. However, over time if it's out in the open enough and doesn't cause any apparent harm, people gradually begin to accept it as part of the norm so negative reactions decrease.

About what is underlined, if your first proposition is effectively right, we could question why it hasn't been in the norm. And here seems you focus your answer on sodomy in homosexual context, I asked for sodomy generally speaking, given it seems to me to have been as much banned between Man-Man than between Man-Woman.

As for the reason why such laws existed in the first place: would Stoic-Christian morality do?

Well, yes, monotheism came out with it, but, as an atheist, I wonder what made born these religious (and non religious when it hadn't been tied with religion) laws, what led the human specie to set such rules up. A believer would answer "because God wanted it", but a non believer can't deal with that. What pushed the human specie to often see it as bad, and not only the homosexual part of it.

[John Dibble]

As to why some would ever feel the need to condemn it, I would say just because it's queer. Pun intended. But seriously, that's the case. Most people are attracted primarily to the opposite sex - a supermajority are in fact. Something that deviates so greatly from the norm is bound to provoke some kind of reaction. However, over time if it's out in the open enough and doesn't cause any apparent harm, people gradually begin to accept it as part of the norm so negative reactions decrease.

About what is underlined, if your first proposition is effectively right, we could question why it hasn't been in the norm. And here seems you focus your answer on sodomy in homosexual context, I asked for sodomy generally speaking, given it seems to me to have been as much banned between Man-Man than between Man-Woman.

I was speaking in the context of homosexual relations - I thought that was what you were referring to.

Actions that might constitute sodomy in a heterosexual context to my knowledge has not actually been banned in most cultures in history to my knowledge. In fact it seems to have been quite common. There have been varying cultural attitudes to it though. For instance, as I recall in Rome it was not considered proper for a classy lady to perform fellatio on her man, yet it was perfectly acceptable for a prostitute or a slave to do it.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any real answer that I could give to that would just be pure psychobabble.

However, I will note that I wasn't claiming that religion was responsible. The word "stoic" appeared there for a reason - most of these ideas and morals pre-existed Christianity and its spread throughout the Roman Empire did not change moral actions, mostly as by the 4th Century AD they had changed already. Somewhat.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any real answer that I could give to that would just be pure psychobabble.

However, I will note that I wasn't claiming that religion was responsible. The word "stoic" appeared there for a reason - most of these ideas and morals pre-existed Christianity and its spread throughout the Roman Empire did not change moral actions, mostly as by the 4th Century AD they had changed already. Somewhat.

Yes, I wondered why "stoic" was here, you may have exactly meant that Christianity has been stoic by the fact it bought what already existed in that realm.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I asked for ideas of people.

I also can't say if sodomy has really been as much banned in heterosexual contexts than in homosexual ones. I can just come with an impress I had. The only concrete examples that come to my mind right now is the fact that some US states had banned it in every context as far as I can remember, I even don't know if Saudi Arabia bans it. I'll look forward.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Having looked a bit forward on the French Wikipedia, I first understood why Dibble spoke fellatio, it seems that in English "sodomy" refers also to fellatio and cunnilingus, in French sodomy ("sodomie") just concerns anal sex.

So, yes, according to what I've read, it seems that it hasn't been so clear in history for the heterosexual context, sometimes both homosexual and heterosexual ones has been banned, sometimes just the homosexual, according to epochs.

And for the reason given to justify it, it often comes the fact to be a sexual practice that doesn't permit the reproduction, the common answer then.

For Islam, it also says that Sunnism has banned both heterosexual and homosexual sodomy (in the French sense of the word, sodomie then), while some interpretations of Shiism have allowed heterosexual one.

And for Saudi Arabia, it just says that today, sodomie is punished by stoning if it is between a Muslim and a non Muslim, though I just read things about the homosexual context here.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The simplest reason tends to be the most correct, so let me give this a shot: Because sexual pleasure resulting from anything but procreation results in a number of births less than the theoretical maximum.

Hence, the human being is caught in an evolutionary balance: Having more babies furthers the human species or subgroups therein (especially in historic days, where each new baby was war fodder), while sodomy serves the (theoretical) evolutionary benefit of reduced competition and increased socialization (which leads to advancing the species).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The simplest reason tends to be the most correct, so let me give this a shot: Because sexual pleasure resulting from anything but procreation results in a number of births less than the theoretical maximum.

Hence, the human being is caught in an evolutionary balance: Having more babies furthers the human species or subgroups therein (especially in historic days, where each new baby was war fodder), while sodomy serves the (theoretical) evolutionary benefit of reduced competition and increased socialization (which leads to advancing the species).

There's one problem with that: It's totally wrong.

Good luck trying to find anything - economic, 'evolutionary' or materialist - in common between all the individual eras sodomy has been encouraged as well as those which it hasn't. Not to mention that in different eras heterosexual anal sex and its homosexual varient have been treated very, very differently. (And again, note how much these laws were actually ever enforced - especially before the 19th Century?)

[Verily]

We also might want to think of the context of sodomy in pre-agrarian society. As much as it is said that people in the past were "more tolerant" of sodomy, this is by-and-large untrue, with only a handful of exceptions (parts of ancient Greece, some Polynesians, a few communities in South Asia, etc.) Whether sodomy was persecuted or not (and it usually was, if only haphazardly), it was viewed with negativity and disdain. The childbearing reason might be a part of that, but I think there're more to it.

In a pre-agrarian context, sodomy--indeed, all sex--probably occurred on a primarily non-consensual basis. That is, there were no real social guidelines for consent on behalf of the receiver. Receivers may have sometimes wanted to have sex as well, but that penetrating men would have initiated most sexual encounters can be accepted as given. In that context, anti-sodomy social dispositions can be seen as a form of social protection against non-consensual sex for those who are penetrated, whether male or female. While female receivers engaging in vaginal sex might well enjoy their experience, at a time when most or all sex was conducted without modern notions of lubrication, anal sex would have been quite painful for anyone involved. Stigmatizing it is therefore a defense against penetration--men who would be penetrators might be cast out.

As agrarian society developed, the stigma against sodomy would have remained. However, with increasingly available sources of lubrication, such as animal fats, as well as a stronger social consent structure for sex, meant that most receivers in sodomy (at least, outside of the context of wartime rapes) were participating in sodomy voluntarily. That made them as vulnerable to the negative stigma as the penetrators, and eventually more stigmatized in some cases.

That's just a theoretical narrative, of course, and it might have no bearing on reality whatsoever.

[opebo]

Verily, its a nice theory, but you forgot about saliva.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that there is as much consensual sex in pre-agrarian societies as in post-agrarian ones. I'm not sure what you are basing your info on.

Plus your theory is too functionalist to my liking anyway.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Hey, the climate seems to be at this (well at debates about this...) nowadays, so let's go further, why sodomy made so much problems to the human specie?

Why has it been so banned throughout the epochs? Maybe cultures were more 'open' to this but globally, it seems it had been banned of a lot of cultures (or maybe I'm too ignorant, and it hasn't been that much banned outside of West).

Some ideas?

because God forbid it

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A lot of taboos seem to relate to the idea of cleanliness, in one way or another - might be a factor in this case (and, hey, a lot of modern opposition to homosexuality seems to have a lot to do with the idea that it's "disgusting"). Or maybe just an association with rape. Though in reality there's no way of knowing for sure - it's possible that there is no one single reason for it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

A lot of taboos seem to relate to the idea of cleanliness

then why doesn't the bible forbid such activity between men and women?

[Joe Republic]

A lot of taboos seem to relate to the idea of cleanliness

then why doesn't the bible forbid such activity between men and women?

Probably because the damned thing is full of inconsistencies and arbitrary decrees, perhaps?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

A lot of taboos seem to relate to the idea of cleanliness

then why doesn't the bible forbid such activity between men and women?

Probably because the damned thing is full of inconsistencies and arbitrary decrees, perhaps?

and what may those "inconsistencies and arbitrary decrees" be?

[John Dibble]

A lot of taboos seem to relate to the idea of cleanliness

then why doesn't the bible forbid such activity between men and women?

Probably because the damned thing is full of inconsistencies and arbitrary decrees, perhaps?

and what may those "inconsistencies and arbitrary decrees" be?

Leviticus 15:19-30
    And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean. Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.

Leviticus 20:18
    And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.


How is this NOT arbitrary? I mean seriously, who decided this and with what logic brought about these decisions?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

A lot of taboos seem to relate to the idea of cleanliness

then why doesn't the bible forbid such activity between men and women?

Probably because the damned thing is full of inconsistencies and arbitrary decrees, perhaps?

and what may those "inconsistencies and arbitrary decrees" be?

Leviticus 15:19-30
    And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean. Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.

Leviticus 20:18
    And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.


How is this NOT arbitrary? I mean seriously, who decided this and with what logic brought about these decisions?

that's consistent, not inconsistent.  As to the arbitrary part - blood is a pretty big deal in the bible, from Genesis to Revelation, so it is not arbitrary at all.  Blood is treated as life and meets it's final fulfillment in the blood of Jesus Christ.