The blind alleys of fear
Both Abrahamic religions and Freudianism accept that sexuality is originally wild and evil. They indoctrinate that cultivating human naturerequires restricting the animalistic sexual drive. Like an animal sexuality must be curbed, they insinuate. Either its teeth must be extracted or it must be castrated. For humans the restrictive measures must be milder because their reproductive ability is valuable. So their erogenous sensitivity may be trimmed by circumcision and their erotic fancies must be repressed by fear and redirected towards god.
Both doctrines inculcate that the normal sexuality is the supressed one and that the developed, i.e., refined or matured personality is nearly asexual. The difference in the attitudes of religion and Freudianism towards the suppression of sexuality is mainly in the terminology: the holy sources reveal that reducing sex-lust refines human nature and makes men docile and godly while psychoanalysis preaches that normal sexual development and socialization necessitate repressing libidinal desires. Unquestionably, psychoanalysis adds a new scientific dimension to the ancient fear of sexuality.
The religious anti-sex programme has proved to be a hypocritical propaganda as it has been valid only to the laymen. By supressing pleasure and sexuality religion shapes the free will and directs believers’ political activity. It attempts to control and channel the sexual impulses of the masses for the benefit of priesthood and the church. Freudian psychology does not interfere in religion on that issue. Its modern variants label sexuality as the main criminogenic factor. This infers that sexual repression is beneficial.
The primal goal of psychoanalysis is social integration which includes docility and obedience. In practice psychoanalytic theory helps religion and politics usurp the social resources that sexual dissatisfaction generates.
Suppression is the cheapest method for establishing law and order but at the expense of personal irresponsibility. Ban is the easiest way to administer moral and obedience but its results are only simulative. Suppression and prohibition leave sensitivity, cognitive abilities undeveloped at the expense of fear, moral and conscience. Bans tend to replace personal with group responsibility and to direct mental faculties toward unrepresentative thinking. Suppression encourages reliance on authority and emotional dependence.
Although in a few cases of pathological sex offenders the physical suppression of sexuality by castration has been helpful in subduing dangerous uncontrollable emotions,[i] we doubt that the ubiquitous preventive suppression of sexuality or desensitising of genitalia positively affects emotionality. Pedocircumcision favours the development of religiousness for which it is valued by religion. But we doubt that such a change of mentality and emotions is adequate and beneficial to individuals.
A paraphrase of Albert Einstein
The religious anti-sex morals incriminated homosexuality long ago, as early as Old Testament times. Approaching the issue from the same standpoint Freudian psychologyconsideredhomosexuality a mental disorder. Only 50 years ago homosexuality was still outlawed in UK and homosexuals were imprisoned or subjected to chemical castration. Now we consider these coercive methods outdated and inhumane because homosexuality has lost its status of a mental illness. Western civilization, however, still tolerates antique methods of suppression of the normal human sexuality such as pedocircumcision and anti-sex morality.
Or it may be that the circumcision-induced morals still tolerate the loose-living of westerners in the way parents sometimes bear the disobedience of their children? Does the modern democratic world behave as a careless child that does not suspect his parents are already seriously considering punishment?
Repressive ethics facilitates crime
Moralizing is a type of idealization and idolization. Moral encourages certain traits and inhibits others so it inevitably contains repressive elements. Ethics readily sacrifices everything for the sake of its ideal. We have seen how authoritarian principles legalize crime in totalitarian regimes. Likewise, anti-sex moral decriminalizes sex discrimination in religious societies. It authorizes male chauvinism in Islamic countries and sexual offense in democratic states. Religious pedocircumcision, for instance, infringes the right of body integrity and freedom of psychological self-determination. Even the institution of marriage in Christian democracies that is advertised as a triumph of personal choice actually outlaws emotional freedom and backs sex slavery.
Both Abrahamic religions and Freudian psychology regard restriction of the sexual drive as a requirement for socialization. They omit the possibility that the suppression of instincts is a powerful criminogenic factor in itself. But like fear generates hate, suppression facilitates violence.
The overdeveloped all-year-round sexuality and language are the main biological traits that differentiate humans from animals. The negative attitude toward sexuality impedes its proper understanding as well as the utilization of its huge potential. It also draws the attention away from the possible role of sexually-repressive moral in corruption. The sexually-repressive religious moral is the regular accomplice to sexually-motivated crimes.
Tyrannical moralities of religion
The essence of the religious moral may have some positive social effects in primitive people as it gives them a simple program. However, its simplified back-and-white ethics artificially opposes body and mind, splits personality and alienates people from nature. Its easy answers suppress curiosity and learning. A simplified moral platform does not help developing powers of judgment but encourages reliance on authorities.
The main gizmos for evolving reasoning and conscience are sensitivity and empathy. Fear, suppression of desires as well as reduction of erogenous sensitivity produce hunger, decrease sensitivity and empathy, and debilitate mental faculties. They also create psychological tensions, impel to alternative gratifications and produce uncontrollable urges.
With the development of theology its notions have become increasingly abstract. Thus with time the line that divides good and evil in the religious moral has become quite blurred. Good and Bad became flexible notions which corrupted ethics and made it impracticable.
The religious association of good with an abstract ideal not only allowed religion to be used as a political implement of suppression. Plasticity of the abstract good also supported the justifying of all sorts of creeds which have become a source of discord and irreconcilable disagreement in opinion. As long as ethics is dogmatic it is repressive. Authoritarian morality corrupts.