Why do Puritans hate sex toys?

[Darth Wong]

I can understand why Puritans have certain views on sex even if I disagree with them. But in the case of sex toys, the sale or marketing of sex toys is banned in several states. Off the top of my head, I believe Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas have banned either the sale or possession of sex toys (or both). And now, we have Tennessee, where a bill to criminalize the marketing and sale of sex toys has passed first reading on Monday Feb 27 2006 after being put forth by Sen. Charlotte Burks and Rep. Eric Swafford. Even if it doesn't eventually pass, the fact that it made it past first reading already says a lot.

So what's the deal? What is the moral objection that puritans have to sex toys? It's not adultery; it's a piece of rubber or silicone, not a person. It doesn't harm anyone. Even the Bible has nothing to say on the matter, as there was no such thing as a sex toy at the time. So what's the deal? Is there anyone here who agrees with these kinds of regulations? If so, what is your reasoning?

[Farnan]

Well since Puritans lived in the 1600s, sex toys at that time might have been dangerous. Also, at that time in history that sort of stuff was pretty much unknown, so it would have been considered very weird...

[Habelo]

Dude its america... Christians everywhere! And they got... speciall views of things.
I as an normal person dont see why this is:S
Shouldnt sex toys DECREASE rapes and stuff? People aint as horny if they do it itself?:S

[rez]

Actually the ancient greeks made sex toys out of stuffed animal skin. Aristophanes refers to it in "Lysistrata" when the women are discussing what they will ever do without sex. "You can always fall back on a dead dog"

But i find it highly disturbing that an enlightened and civilised country can prohibit sex toys as illegal. It does no one any harm and even if the bible was against it i was under the impression that America was NOT a theocracy

[Ahlerich]

I can understand why Puritans have certain views on sex even if I disagree with them. But in the case of sex toys, the sale or marketing of sex toys is banned in several states. Off the top of my head, I believe Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas have banned either the sale or possession of sex toys (or both). And now, we have Tennessee, where a bill to criminalize the marketing and sale of sex toys has passed first reading on Monday Feb 27 2006 after being put forth by Sen. Charlotte Burks and Rep. Eric Swafford. Even if it doesn't eventually pass, the fact that it made it past first reading already says a lot.

thats great. i just imagine a guy walking through texas with an assault rifle through texas and at the same time a lady is arrested for carrying a dildo in her pocket. drop the dildo lady, you have no chance to escape, dont make things worse, i repeat drop the dildo (warning shot) drop it slowly

[Pallida Mors]

thats great. i just imagine a guy walking through texas with an assault rifle through texas and at the same time a lady is arrested for carrying a dildo in her pocket. drop the dildo lady, you have no chance to escape, dont make things worse, i repeat drop the dildo (warning shot) drop it slowly

LOL! But seriously. IMO it had more to do with that overtly religious folk have a tendancy to project thier beliefs, regardless of what they are, on the rest of society. But by doing so the ultra-conserviative and religious invalidate thier other arguments on anything that they perceive as an assualt on thier rights, like firearm managment. I dont know if I'm bridging too far a gap or not, but it seems logical to me?

[Skyhigh]

puritans hate sex toys because they hate sex
simple enough

[Sétanta]

puritans are whackos

[Yorkshireman]

Sorry but you've just got to laugh at some of the thread titles here. Imagine if you'd just registered on this site logged on and the first few titles you saw were,

Why do puritans hate sex toys?

Is it wrong to have sex with animals ?

Or the one about masterbation lessons at school, you'd think it was a site dedicated to sexual perversions!

[.Socrates]

Sorry but you've just got to laugh at some of the thread titles here. Imagine if you'd just registered on this site logged on and the first few titles you saw were,
Or the one about masterbation lessons at school, you'd think it was a site dedicated to sexual perversions!

Hooray that was mine!

[Lee1026]

Well, you must understand most of the so-called christans in the nation have never actually bothered to read the bible. They think that everything that have to do with sex is not allowed by the bible.

[Turbo]

I can understand why Puritans have certain views on sex even if I disagree with them. But in the case of sex toys, the sale or marketing of sex toys is banned in several states. Off the top of my head, I believe Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas have banned either the sale or possession of sex toys (or both). And now, we have Tennessee, where a bill to criminalize the marketing and sale of sex toys has passed first reading on Monday Feb 27 2006 after being put forth by Sen. Charlotte Burks and Rep. Eric Swafford. Even if it doesn't eventually pass, the fact that it made it past first reading already says a lot.

So what's the deal? What is the moral objection that puritans have to sex toys? It's not adultery; it's a piece of rubber or silicone, not a person. It doesn't harm anyone. Even the Bible has nothing to say on the matter, as there was no such thing as a sex toy at the time. So what's the deal? Is there anyone here who agrees with these kinds of regulations? If so, what is your reasoning?

I suppose the purpose of the term "Puritan" is to associate the Puritans who perceived as severe and legalistic with any Christian who supports this. Anyway, regarding sex toys, the act is :wub: which liberals justify as ok in the bible in that the bible does not specifically stated a prohibition (This ofcourse ignores a plentitude of verses such as 1Th 4:2-8 which are clear in their meaning). There isn't specifically a prohibition against watching kiddie porn either, so I guess that is fine too in some people's eyes.

Under the definition of "sex toys" there are also S&M, sodomy, bondage, and torture "toys" which I consider to be absolutely disgusting and perverted. I guess I don't understand why anyone feels a need to use such things and why anyone would be opposed to taking this type of filth off the market. This stuff will ofcourse find its way into the black market but I will be happy knowing that at least its use is not being publicly condoned through lack of legislation.

[mischief]

is the part of the bible you refer to the sin of onan? Because i think most bible scholars don't see this as anything like :wub:...

It's depriving his wifes right to have a legal son under tribal law.

[Turbo]

is the part of the bible you refer to the sin of onan? Because i think most bible scholars don't see this as anything like :wub:...

It's depriving his wifes right to have a legal son under tribal law.

Below is the passage regarding Onan's sin:

Gen. 38: 7-10

(7) And Her, the firstborn of Juda, was wicked in the sight of the Lord: and was slain by him.

(8) Juda therefore said to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother's wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother.

(9) He, knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother's wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother's name.

(10) And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.



In the case of Onan - Judæo-Christian tradition has always insisted, "wasting the seed" violates that natural law to which all men, have always had access by virtue of their very humanness, (cf. Rom. 1: 26-27; 2: 14). Viewed this way will explain perfectly why Onan's sexual action in itself would be presented in the bible deserved a most severe divine judgment: it was a perverted act - one of life-suppressing lust. Beyond its prohibition by natural law, it violates God's teaching against "Increase and multiply" (Gen. 1: 27-28; 9). This is the traditional belief of the Church and of the Church fathers.

The modern theory is that this violated the so-called levirate marriage custom endorsed by the law of Moses at a time when polygamy was not forbidden. Their interpretation of Genesis 38, Onan's sin consisted only in his selfish intent to deny offspring to his brother's widow Tamar. This makes absolutely no sense particularly when you look at the term "detestable" and the fact that Onan's act is clearly described. Further, the act itself resulted in the denial of offspring to Tamar.

So, if he had sex but was unable to release because he mentally wanted to deny Tamar offspring, this also would constitute a violation of the levirate marriage custom. Talk about performing under pressure...

[mongoose]

Under the definition of "sex toys" there are also S&M, sodomy, bondage, and torture "toys" which I consider to be absolutely disgusting and perverted. I guess I don't understand why anyone feels a need to use such things and why anyone would be opposed to taking this type of filth off the market. This stuff will ofcourse find its way into the black market but I will be happy knowing that at least its use is not being publicly condoned through lack of legislation.

But no one is actually being harmed...except maybe in the case of the torture ones. The torture stuff aside, is there any non-religious reason why they should be banned?

[Harlanite]

But no one is actually being harmed...except maybe in the case of the torture ones. The torture stuff aside, is there any non-religious reason why they should be banned?

There clearly isn't any. Christian fascism its seems is becoming a serious threat to the free and tolerant way of life in the US .

[mischief]

this wasn't :wub: though.

that passage makes pretty clear he has intercourse... but leaves before coming. I don't think it's absolutely clear either way... you may feel differently, of course.

[Darth Wong]

I suppose the purpose of the term "Puritan" is to associate the Puritans who perceived as severe and legalistic with any Christian who supports this. Anyway, regarding sex toys, the act is :wub: which liberals justify as ok in the bible in that the bible does not specifically stated a prohibition (This ofcourse ignores a plentitude of verses such as 1Th 4:2-8 which are clear in their meaning). There isn't specifically a prohibition against watching kiddie porn either, so I guess that is fine too in some people's eyes.

I'm sorry, I was trying to compose a reply and then I realized that I couldn't, because I'm still in shock that there are still people in America today who honestly believe :wub: is evil.

Besides, it is quite possible to use a sex toy while having sex with your wife or girlfriend.

Under the definition of "sex toys" there are also S&M, sodomy, bondage, and torture "toys" which I consider to be absolutely disgusting and perverted.

It looks to me like you're trying to change the subject by taking advantage of my failure to be sufficiently explicit earlier. Fine, if you force me to be specific, the proposed Tennessee law specifically criminalizes DILDOS: three-dimensional representations of penises which are used for female pleasure. Is that clear enough for you?

Consumers of sex toys do not consider implements of torture to be sex toys; you certainly cannot find implements of torture in a typical sex toy shop. So please don't try to change the subject.

Finally: do you support laws like this?

[glorfindel87]

Wong, I must say again, why is every thread you start almost viciously anti-religion, specifically anti-Christian? You say you don't hate it, but, heh, the proof is in the puddin'.
As for the thread, hrrmmm, don't know. I don't see anything in the Bible forbidding it. My rule is, if it isn't metioned as being wrong, it's probably ok. The Bible doesn't waste space telling you everything that is ok.
As for the Onan, thing, that should be clear to anyone who realy reads it. His sin was not the spilling on the ground, the sin was in keeping his brother's wife from having children.

[Darth Wong]

Wong, I must say again, why is every thread you start almost viciously anti-religion, specifically anti-Christian? You say you don't hate it, but, heh, the proof is in the puddin'.

So it's "viciously anti-religion" to point out news items or facts like this? Perhaps it's the facts which are anti-religion in this case.

As for the thread, hrrmmm, don't know. I don't see anything in the Bible forbidding it. My rule is, if it isn't metioned as being wrong, it's probably ok. The Bible doesn't waste space telling you everything that is ok.

As for the Onan, thing, that should be clear to anyone who realy reads it. His sin was not the spilling on the ground, the sin was in keeping his brother's wife from having children.

Which begs the question again, why do so many Bible Belt states frown on sex toys? Is Turbo's mentality common down there? Did you notice how he tried to tie sex toys in with child porn? Is that the way people think in that part of the world? Give your own sexual desires an inch, and they'll take a mile?