I'm curious why almost every religious or spiritual cult (and in some cases, mainstream religions) ultimately end up controlling the sex lives of their believers? Has there been research on this? Is it an asymmetrical power dynamic that's exploited because of outsized ego of its leadership? I'm genuinely curious to understand why this is such a common occurrence.
Judging the ethics and morality if historical figures, or for that matter present day members of other cultures, is a difficult issue. If you don’t do it, one can appear to be ignoring or condoning terrible things. But if you do do it, one can appear naive and perhaps the kind of person who unrealistically expects the universe to conform to their own expectations of behavior.
I was more disturbed by the “commanding” part than the “rapist” part. I’ve always said, just because it’s a “cultural” (or traditional or historical) practice, doesn’t make it a good practice.
Yes, in New Brunswick a hundred years ago, it was common for poor 14 year old girls to marry older men, usually 23. It doesn't happen nowadays because we have Healthcare (and contraception).
Well stated. There is a position between uncritically accepting the deeds of the past and imposing our modern standards on them. Those things may have been acceptable in the old days, yes, but as Sam Harris might say "The moral arc has moved on."
And your parallel with slavery is spot on. Those girls were basically sex slaves.
But, Brian, presumably you don’t believe the priesthood has any value.
This is like the people who whine “TheCatholicChurch has no purpose except to control people! And even worse, they won’t let women in on the oppressing!”
I'm curious why almost every religious or spiritual cult (and in some cases, mainstream religions) ultimately end up controlling the sex lives of their believers? Has there been research on this? Is it an asymmetrical power dynamic that's exploited because of outsized ego of its leadership? I'm genuinely curious to understand why this is such a common occurrence.
It’s an interesting question. People are drawn to these groups even knowing that going in. The power of religious conviction???
Judging the ethics and morality if historical figures, or for that matter present day members of other cultures, is a difficult issue. If you don’t do it, one can appear to be ignoring or condoning terrible things. But if you do do it, one can appear naive and perhaps the kind of person who unrealistically expects the universe to conform to their own expectations of behavior.
“…their church has made great strides in women’s rights.”
So either the moral constitution of the church is developed and influenced by people or else god is slow to catch up with modern concepts of morality.
Bravo Brian. Especially for this line: “We’re less misogynistic than we used to be” doesn’t cut it.
I don't care how old or venerated anyone's faith is, if it's not starting from this, then get it out of here.
I was more disturbed by the “commanding” part than the “rapist” part. I’ve always said, just because it’s a “cultural” (or traditional or historical) practice, doesn’t make it a good practice.
Yes, in New Brunswick a hundred years ago, it was common for poor 14 year old girls to marry older men, usually 23. It doesn't happen nowadays because we have Healthcare (and contraception).
Well stated. There is a position between uncritically accepting the deeds of the past and imposing our modern standards on them. Those things may have been acceptable in the old days, yes, but as Sam Harris might say "The moral arc has moved on."
And your parallel with slavery is spot on. Those girls were basically sex slaves.
But, Brian, presumably you don’t believe the priesthood has any value.
This is like the people who whine “TheCatholicChurch has no purpose except to control people! And even worse, they won’t let women in on the oppressing!”