re: #69 Obdicut

This is what I disagree with. I don’t buy into the whole control of society through controlling sexuality thing.

Got it. I understand now. Yeah, that’s a point where we disagree.

To me, it’s just too suspicious that control of sexuality (on some level, from “please don’t because God will be sad” to “here, wear this bag over your head or face execution”) is so universal across human power structures throughout time. And so I’m driven to try and explain it through generalization.

Back to my original (poorly phrased) point, I struggle to recall any major religion (again, nothing about religion itself, just religion as another kind of human power structure) that doesn’t contain some kind of directive or prohibition regarding sex and procreation. That seems vanishingly unlikely in isolation unless there was some consistent reason for it.

In the Catholic church’s case (on topic for this article), they seem to have ended up in an argument that on its surface seems logically absurd — letting a mother of two die to save a fetus who was doomed anyway — but that can be fairly easily explained once you track their conflicting directives around controlling female sexuality while still encouraging unbounded procreation.

My point is that this is a much more generalized problem throughout history than one religion or one country or one culture. It seems to be a very core human problem.