The necessary evil necessitates sin
Abrahamic religions equalize sexual desire with wickedness, animalism, uncontrolled lewdness and pleasure-seeking with greediness and voracity. Since long ago has religion opposed carnality to spirituality and Freudian psychology inherited that antagonism. Religion indoctrinated with sexual guilt and fertilized the soil for the teachings of Freud.
Religion divided man into good and evil parts, attached sexuality to the latter and so did Freud. He theoretically split the personality into bright conscious and dark unconscious minds and crowded the latter with animalistic lustful desires. As a result nowadays many of us take it for granted that our subconsciousness teems with primitive animalistic cravings and resembles the Abrahamics’ hell.
Both Abrahamics’ religions and Freudianism hold that restricting sexuality improves man. There is no need to support carnality, they suggest, because it is too powerful as it is. Desires must be restrained and temptation must be removed as far as possible in order to render passions safe. Religion has enjoyed any suppression of sexuality including castration and circumcision while Freud whose erogenous sensitivity was reduced during unconscious infancy and had no awareness of the loss fetishized the psychological repression in a compensatory manner.
Both ideologies regard the sexual drive as an animalistic hence egocentric and antisocial force that can only lead to anarchy, chaos and disaster. Despite this they also admit that sexuality is indispensable for the survival of society. Sexual desire is a necessary evil, they insinuate; it is the dark side of personality, the sin nature, the ancestral sin or the obscene unconsciousness that tends to obsess us. The measures they propose are restriction, ban, abstinence, suppression or psychological repression. Better suppression of primitive animal pleasures than anarchy, lawlessness and degradation, they advise. Meanwhile, these views have imprinted the Abrahamics with sexual guilt from birth and the viciousness of sexuality has become the subjective truth.
The doctrine of the Original sin has outlawed the non-reproductive sexual desires without annulling or satisfying them. But an essential need cannot be removed or reduced by decree. It can only be transformed into dissatisfaction.
That which disregards natural desires unduly empowers them. Suppression makes desires uncontrollable and dangerous. Ban renders unnatural that which is natural. Depression enrages. Victimization compels sin. Anti-sex moral and pedocircumcision authorize sinfulness.
Satisfaction, happiness and pleasure are felt as rewarding because nature administers so. They are perceived as precious and are normally pursued. States of happiness are emotional attractors and motivators of behaviour. Like any other natural process happiness is a cyclic process. Normally intense pleasure experiences do not last long therefore satisfaction is an unstable temporary stage that is usually followed by a period of dissatisfaction. And there is nothing wrong in dissatisfaction as long as it is a phase of the happiness cycle.
A moderate temporary dissatisfaction is normal. It motivates the seeking of pleasure, invigorates the mind and spiritualizes. Severe or chronic dissatisfaction is insatiable and obsessive. It intensifies with time and burns the souls with irresistible desire; it is explosive and destructive and compels people to crime.
Constant pleasure is unrealistic because of the nervous system’s habituation to repeated stimuli and because of the depletion due to great energy consumption accompanying pleasure activities. The idea of eternal happiness can be attractive only to those who suffer chronic displeasure. Eternal pleasure is unrealistic and even repulsive to normal people. Constant erection seems like a punishment to men who have normal unsuppressed sexuality and erogenous sensitivity. To most of thenatural men Islamic paradise must be some of a hellish place to be in.
Both satisfaction and dissatisfaction may lead to pleasure obsessions and can be destructive. Normally about 5% of people (apes and other animals as well) tend to become addicts to pleasures or drugs. Addictiveness seems genetically determined. Is it wise to facilitate the development of sexual obsessions in 95% of men in order to free the other 5% from temptation? Is it worth it to make all men unable to experience full gratification in order to reduce the formation of pleasure addictions in a small fraction of them? Is it humane? And is it at allpossible to refine man by starvation?
Freudian criminalization of sexuality
Identifying Eros with evil charges it with negativism and wastes its creative potential in defence. Tabooing sexuality creates a chronic dissatisfaction and renders its cultivation impossible. Perhaps, religion’s suppression of sexuality has significantly contributed to its criminogenic potential which psychoanalysis observed and in turn overstated. The possibility that illegalizing sexuality has forced it to produce crime has been left out the agenda.
Holy writs suggest that circumcision changes the nature of sexual desires: it reduces sex-lust and helps its transformation into god-loving. This compulsory sublimation is referred to as refinement of human nature. The asexual and socially acceptable activities, towards which sexuality is redirected, however, are unable to fully satisfy it. Thus pedocircumcision creates an insatiable hunger and inappeasable mentality. The artificial sublimation brings about uneasiness and needs perpetual channelling. Pedocircumcised seek peace of mind and may find comfort in religion.
The suppression of sexuality creates chronic dissatisfaction. It hasa criminogenic potential which may be utilized by religion or may scatter into a wider range of seemingly unrelated activities. The criminalization of a vital emotion inevitably tends to produce crime. The banned pleasure compels to sin. Outlawing the feeling of happiness or removing pleasure sensitivity is a crime in itself. It tends to instigate a chain reaction of unnecessary and inadequate self-governing actions.
Fear cultivates irresponsibility, dissatisfaction fosters crime. Suppression is a dead-end street because it requires further suppression in order to keep the status quo. Beyond a given point, however, any frustration becomes unbearable and turns into aggression.
It is only fear that prevents the dissatisfied from revolt. Suppression produces radicals and fanatics who readily resort to violence. In a vicious circle of logic the violent outcome of sexual suppressions seemingly justifies them. When considered out of context sexuality seems dangerous and its suppression seems justifiable. But continuing suppression escalates social tensions. Today a coercive change in mentality such as that caused by pedocircumcision is as morally objectionable like electroshock therapy.[i]
Suppression prevents anarchy in the way beating prevents madness or ignorance prevents confusion. It may actually cause it.[ii] Crashing of an uprising may lead to a civil war; causing dissatisfaction may lead to antagonism of ethnics or an ethnoreligious Cold War.
A century ago and earlier lunatics were preventively beaten in asylums prior lunar phases that are known to cause unrest. Pedocircumcision is like a preventive beating that helps putting the fear of God into men.