Sex Under Siege E-Book

Henning Schmidt

• Herausgeber: novum publishing
• Kategorie: Gesellschafts- und Liebesromane
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 166

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2025

Beschreibung

In addition to well-known diseases, there are deeply rooted sexual "cultural diseases" that have shaped our lives for centuries. Depending on the era, place, and society, these diseases appear as either a disease, a functional disorder, a special form of sexuality, a religious peculiarity, or a cultural norm. This book sheds light on the historical, social, and psychological origins of certain sexual norms and practices, taking a critical look at a topic that has always influenced our thoughts and actions. It is a provocative and insightful statement about a part of our lives that we generally take for granted.

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Sex Under Siege

Foreword

Introduction

1 Sin

2 Filth

3 Discreet parts

4 Will

5 Problem areas

6 Domination

7 Relationships

Afterword

Literature

IMPRINT

Sex Under Siege

How Culture Denatures Our Sexuality

Foreword

Why would someone like me, who is neither a doctor nor a psychologist nor a therapist, write a book about sexuality? Well, the answer is that it is not really about sexuality at all, but rather about the forces of our thinking that influence our sexuality and thereby change it. And why choose the forces that affect sexuality? Because a comprehensive overview of all forces would be a multi-volume life's work. In the process, the topic that most people are most interested in and concerned about would easily be overlooked in the broad flow of facts.

The changes brought about by cultural forces become so ingrained in our consciousness that we often do not even know or have forgotten the original state, i.e., the original concept of sexuality. For example, certain processes are used to make shirts out of cotton. A child who only ever wears cotton shirts may have no idea about cotton plants and how they are grown.

Returning to the question posed above, why a non-expert writes about sexuality, let us think again about cotton: I don't have to be a botanist who studies cotton to recognize that a loom processes cotton. And so I don't have to be a sex expert to recognize what influences change our sexuality.

The "changed" consciousness is of great importance for the topic dealt with in this book because it can hardly be overcome or reversed. In our comparison, this would mean that the child would always associate "cotton" with shirts, despite all the insights it may have gained.

When an adult sees the difficulties caused by their changed consciousness, they usually believe that these difficulties are the result of "incorrect" upbringing, and when they consider everything that was done wrong in their upbringing, they want to blame someone. This is an experience that we are all familiar with. In most cases, it is the parents, especially the mother, who are blamed for the failed upbringing.

I believe that anyone who behaves in this way has not yet truly grown up, because they are actually making the accusation from a child's perspective. Another important insight is missing, namely that the parents did not raise their children "wrongly" out of negligence or even malice. They themselves were merely victims of cultural or educational forces that influenced them and from which they did not or could not free themselves. This continues further into the past, so that in the end no one can be held personally liable.

Who or what, then, is the enemy that must be held responsible? It is tradition, culture, or the spirit that rules over us. All the "wrong" content is conveyed to us alongside the "right" content, so to speak, atmospherically, not necessarily through words or educational "measures." It is our task to use our reason and rational thinking to identify the wrong content and then sort it out, because very often it even contradicts reason and all human logic.

To give just one example of this illogicality, consider the statement that God is the creator and sustainer  of all living beings, including humans and animals. It should be obvious that while he condemns the human sin of fornication, he apparently accepts or even welcomes the same "sin" in animals.

As long as it is not possible to convey the absurdity of such absurdities with the hope of gaining insight, I believe there is no hope for an improvement in our sad situation.

Introduction

When reading sex therapy literature, sexual disorders largely appear to be an individual problem that the patient has. A wide variety of psychotherapy methods are used to remedy this, always with a view to helping the patient out of his misery. This may or may not be successful, or may be only partially successful. Some therapies involve the patient's environment, their family, their profession, and their lifestyle. This approach could be described as "inductive," starting with the individual patient and his symptoms in order to arrive at typical statements about the clinical picture, which should make it possible to either find a cause of the illness, which is then treated, or to train away the symptom, so to speak, through a process of relearning. Naturally, the descriptions in the medical records and later in the resulting literature are very broad, as the individual case studies are endlessly diverse.

In this book, the approach does not start with the patient—that is the job of the responsible therapists—but rather leads to the patient. In other words, the unhealthy environment, the overarching context, takes precedence in the broadest sense. And somewhere in this broad field lies the problem, the disease, the symptom, and ultimately the patient. This would be the "deductive" approach. The patient is then less the pitiful victim who needs to be helped out of his difficult fate, but rather the expression of all the adverse forces, influences, and whisperings that have affected him. These disease-causing influences have the most lasting effect when the patient is still a child, when he or she does not yet have the independent orientation that would allow him or her to defend against certain influences.

In the presentation chosen here, the scope of the entire problem can be limited by assuming only a few central, influential categories and by not going into too many individual details. This provides an approximate idea of completeness in abstracto, but not necessarily a reference point for one's own individual symptoms.

Before we open the book on cultural influences on our sexuality, there is one point that needs to be clarified, which is not obvious to everyone. Since sexuality has both a physical and a psychological side, one can fundamentally ask whether culture therefore has a physical and psychological effect. Physical influences on physicality could include medical procedures, tattoos, corporal punishment, the use of perfume and deodorants, fashion, drugs, diets, and sex toys. Their influence on physical sexuality can certainly occur, but even if it does, it is of little interest to us here because of its secondary importance. Far more remarkable is the non-physical, psychological, or mental influence.

Following the same logical pattern as just shown, we know that there is a mental influence on our psyche. This could be, for example, a call for chastity, which leads to sexual abstinence or exciting fantasies. Or a suggestion promising men powerful masculinity through excessive consumption of women, which then produces Don Juans or, on the contrary, intimidated shirkers. Or, for example, the instruction that a woman should enter marriage as a virgin leads to romantic abstinence or an appointment with a gynecologist who inserts an artificial hymen. The psychological disposition toward rape, child abuse, sadomasochism, exhibitionism, and other special forms usually stems from a cultural rather than a natural dictate.

But what about the psychological influence on the body, the physical, in general terms? There are very different opinions on this in medicine, in jurisprudence, and in general consciousness. The classic, former standard opinion is that a physical symptom always has a physical cause, i.e., it is always subject to a physical influence. In addition, the view has gained acceptance that some or many physical symptoms can also have non-physical causes, such as stomach ulcers, diarrhea, high blood pressure, and sweaty hands. When it comes to sexual disorders, opinions differ again. With regard to impotence, a prominent symptom, it is said that while urologists today increasingly see physical causes for impotence and attach less importance to psychological factors—it is estimated that approximately 80% of cases have organic causes (cf. Bähren 3)—sex therapists take the opposite view and assume that the causes are predominantly psychological or mental. For example, Dudley S. Danoff, an American urologist (!) with many years of therapeutic experience, says: "I tell my patients that penis power is 1% between the legs and 99% between the ears. [...] The majority of men are completely normally equipped. Physically and anatomically, everything is fine with their penis. All the problems they have – or  think they have – originate in their head" (Danoff 34). Of course, he is also aware of purely organic causes. He mainly distinguishes between neurological, vascular, and hormonal disorders, most of which are based on pre-existing conditions; he mentions multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, tumors and injuries to the spinal cord, alcoholism, and diabetes mellitus, among others (cf. Danoff 89 ff).

Such a huge divergence of opinions on the causes of sexual disorders is extremely irritating. How is this possible? Do scientists from different disciplines only see what they want to see according to their field of expertise ? To be honest, one really cannot assume that they are simply short-sighted or unreasonable. Or is there an ill-considered view that has not been explicitly clarified and therefore leads to an apparent contradiction? There are very accurate observations on this in the literature, namely the finding that psychological causes influence the physical body, but also vice versa, the body influences the psyche. This interaction naturally obscures a precise classification. But I believe there is another ill-considered view:

A physical symptom that is visible and needs to be treated does not suddenly appear in isolation on the surface; it has developed over time and is the final stage of various preliminary stages. It is now a legitimate matter of debate whether one of the preliminary stages should be regarded as the cause, or whether all the preliminary stages should be understood as a package of symptoms, so to speak, and only the initial trigger should be declared the cause. If one takes one of the preliminary stages, then the cause is naturally somatic; if one takes the first trigger, then the cause is very often non-physical, i.e., mental or psychological. The following example of a heart attack illustrates this mechanism:

1. The heart receives too little oxygen through the blood and cannot do its job (vascular). 2. The coronary artery is blocked by plaque deposits (vascular). 3. High blood pressure leads to such deposits (vascular). 4. The high blood pressure is due to the permanent innervation of the sympathetic nervous system (neurological). 5. The innervation is triggered by the brain (cerebral). 6. The brain perceives occupational stress through the sensory organs (mental). In this situation, therapy can take place at any of the stages (not all of which are equally useful), from oxygen supply through a nasal tube, to a stent, medication for arteriosclerosis, lowering high blood pressure, calming the sympathetic nervous system with sedatives, and finally by changing the work situation. Of course, treatments can also be combined at several stages.

Looking at these treatment options, it is not surprising that an emergency doctor tends to take different measures than a cardiologist, angiologist, hypertensiologist, neurologist, or psychotherapist. In any case, successful treatment of the primary cause is most thorough, as it prevents the development of subsequent causes, whereas later intervention can lead to repeated relapses. All forms of therapy have their justification somewhere, and perhaps the hatchet between somatic doctors and psychologists should be buried, at least halfway, by taking an open-minded look at our therapeutic neighbors.

Perhaps another example from our topic area: 1. No erection occurs. 2. The erectile tissue does not fill with blood. 3. Due to the lack of so-called venous restriction, the inflowing blood immediately flows out again. 4. The parasympathetic nervous system, which constricts the veins, is not working; instead, its counterpart, the sympathetic nervous system, is working. 5. It governs organic processes because 6. the brain recognizes a frightening situation. Here, too, a wide variety of measures are conceivable. Generally speaking, as already noted, the therapeutic method that combats the primary cause will be the most sustainable, even if it does not produce immediate results, while the subsequent methods intervene more directly and the final stage can change the condition rather abruptly.

1 Sin

Sexual restrictions have probably existed in all cultures and tribes, e.g., with whom one is not allowed to have intercourse (virgins, other people's wives, women of high rank). However, these regulations only refer to the sexual practice itself, i.e., they are specific rules of conduct; Sexual desire itself and the fundamental freedom to practice sexuality have never been restricted, denigrated, condemned, or declared a sin anywhere. This has only existed in the Christian church since Paul. In our legal system, for example, theft or murder is prohibited if attempted or carried out, but the thought of it is not punishable (because then probably the whole world would be in prison). It is different in the Christian church, especially the Catholic Church. There, even the thought of sex is a sin that must be confessed. If people believe this practice to be true, then it is immediately understandable that there must be far-reaching consequences for character, coexistence, and politics.

Karlheinz Deschner sees the origin of the church's hostility towards sexuality (a morality that still seems to be in effect, "even though Christianity today is almost spiritually bankrupt" (Deschner 17)). For example, girls were sacramentally deflowered before their marriage and were only then allowed to marry. In the Babylonian temple district, every girl had to obey the command of any man and be at his disposal. Everyone, young, old, ugly, beautiful, sick people copulated with humans and animals, fathers, mothers, and siblings "together in front of everyone" (Deschner 40).

Deschner suspects that the motive for the new Christian doctrine of sin was that through renunciation, i.e., through sacrifice, one would gain more divine praise and happiness: success, health, eternal life (cf. 42). Regardless of Deschner's assumption, both extremes, the almost violent permissiveness in the ancient Orient and the hostility towards sexuality in Christianity, definitely have religious roots and did not arise through biological evolution.

When you think about it, it would be inconceivable that natural ways of life that have existed since time immemorial should suddenly transform themselves into unnatural extremes without external intervention, so to speak. Religion must have been the driving force.

The broad ecclesiastical pronouncements on whether and when sex is a sin give our biological urges a moral quality for the first time. Marriage as the only ultimately permitted field of activity (Paul) excludes other forms of sexuality.

Marriage I

The restriction of sexuality to marriage—preached until the 1960s and sometimes even today—could be a sensible rule if it had been established for social, educational, financial, or professional reasons. But this is not always the argument: sex before and outside of marriage is declared a sin that God does not want. Yet biology shows that men's greatest potency is between the ages of 17 and 21. That is how nature has arranged it. Our culture, on the other hand, blocks this period sexually because marriage is usually entered into later, if at all. This casts premarital and extramarital intercourse in a dubious light and makes it almost inevitable. It necessarily labels young people as sinners. This creates vast numbers of sinners, and marriage, for its part, becomes a "sacred" institution.

In order to help sinners (through confession) and preserve marriage, the church is needed, which then insists on compliance with divine precepts. If you believe in this construct, if you are convinced that God has "joined" you and your wife together and wants you to remain united until death, and that he will look upon you with disapproval if you do not abide by this, then you can get into enormous troubles. The worldly, i.e., material, emotional, and family difficulties that arise from adultery and separation are difficult enough, but for the believer, there is also a sense of sin artificially added, possibly fear of punishment in hell, or at least a severe divine thunderstorm. This naturally complicates the situation and sometimes makes it hopeless. It would be more honest to use reason to convey why a legally favored institution of marriage is desired and therefore promoted by the state. This would preserve freedom of choice and eliminate the problematic interference of the church.

This is not to say that the declaration of extramarital sexuality as a sin has always been nothing more than an arbitrary, malicious rule imposed by a religious institution. There are anthropological theories that see a rational meaning in the original emergence of this declaration. For example, in their book Das Tagebuch der Menschheit. Was die Bibel über unsere Evolution verrät [The Diary of Humanity. What the Bible Reveals About Our Evolution], Schaik & Michel say the following about the prevention of divine collective punishments caused by individual misconduct: "Because diseases were more prevalent in the context of sexuality, hygiene, or eating habits, practices in these areas were particularly at risk of being declared sinful" (Schaik 120). But even if this can be deduced in this way or another, it is not clear why we still follow such rules today. Nevertheless, certain restrictions on sexuality surely make sense when—as is of high risk today—HIV threatens entire population groups. But such restrictions are rationally understandable and therefore justify their application, and—above all—they do not cause damage in the depths of our psyche.

Consciousness of sin I

Why organized religion, i.e., the Church, imposes such anti-biological rules by equating sexuality with sin can be easily justified "within the Church" or even religiously by invoking the corresponding image of God as hostile to pleasure, which not to believe in is the greatest sin of all. So it is preferable to believe in God and thus in the less terrible sin of sexuality. To deal with this, the institution of confession developed over the centuries, together with absolution by the priest. Thus, through absolution, the danger of hell was postponed as often as desired.

If one views this institution not as religious, but as secular, i.e., profane, a different perspective emerges, which Deschner sums up succinctly: The sin of sex is the church's favorite child, because sex, or the thought of sex, cannot be eradicated. The sinful character of human beings is therefore guaranteed, and the Church knows this, of course, and uses it for its own purposes. "And even if it [the Church] strives for anything other than the eradication of sexual sin, the education of the masses to become saints – it must be interested in keeping the awareness of sin alive and in creating conflicts of conscience. For only in this way does it get the contrite human being, the penitent, who needs its comfort, its absolution, i.e., servants whose consciences it has not sharpened but bent to its purposes. From an early age, sexuality is therefore suppressed, the child is raised to be hostile to its instincts, and the delusion of sin is suggested to it" (Deschner 382). And: "But a morality that teaches love and at the  same time restricts, distorts, and falsifies its essence, that violates the fundamental values of nature and life, such a morality can only produce that murky haze of depression and violence, of dogmatism and fanaticism, that is typical of our history. Such morality must make people tormented, discontented, unhappy, prone to resentment, hatred, and war" (388). And, of course, obedient, incapable of rebellion, manipulable for the goals of church officials.

Here is a philosophical voice of some renown. Bertrand Russell in Warum ich kein Christ bin: "I say with full consideration that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and is the chief enemy of moral progress in the world" (Russell 32). "I regard it [religion] as a disease born of fear and a source of untold misery to the human race" (35). Before we discuss the "desecration" of sexuality in more detail later, let us first consider some obvious theological implications.

Physiology