If Sex Is A Drug, What Isn't?

kellym78's picture

I've been too busy lately to post on topics when they might actually be fresh (novel concept, I know), but I really wanted to touch on the Pope Benedict soliloquy on sex. Having read Humanae Vitae myself, I am quite familiar with the subject at hand. The Catholic Church, while progressive in some areas, most notably science, still clings to these archaic beliefs about sex and birth control. I guess that's not surprising considering that sins "of the flesh" are considered to be more grave than others, but even within the bounds of marriage, birth control of any sort other than Natural Family Planning (which differs from the commonly known Rhythm Method and is more effective, but not by much).  The HV also addresses euthanasia and abortion, rules for fair and justified war, and other issues that pertain to the creation or destruction of life.

Most interesting, though, was Pope Benedict's comment about sex "becoming like a drug" (link). There are people who deal with sex addiction, just as there are those with gambling or shopping addictions. What needs to be addressed here, though, is firstly, can a biological function become an addiction and should it be labeled as such, and secondly, the behavior of an addict is most often just the overt manifestation of a deeper issue. Often this may be a chemical imbalance in the brain, or it could also be a learned behavior primarily driven by the adrenaline rush. At any rate, if sex is a drug, then we have all the more reason to label religion as a drug as well.

Excluding those with eating disorders, which are problematic but not necessarily the result of our biological urge to eat as opposed to the ability to control oneself or self-esteem issues, is eating three meals a day a food addiction?  Even compulsive overeaters can't necessarily be labeled as addicts because their issues are often much more complex as well. 

Sex is a biological urge--something that we are literally driven to do, with a few rare exceptions. So, assuming that your sex life is normal and not problematic (ie not uncontrollable nymphomaniacs who can't stop themselves from having sex), how can we compare a normal bodily function to a drug to which we can become addicted? Is this just another scare tactic? The DARE program of sex ed? I guess the entire human race is addicted to shitting and sleeping as well.

Everything that a person experiences is the direct result of the release and uptake of neurotransmitters and neuronal impulses. A malfunction in that system, which is intricate and not well understood, could cause a cacophony of seemingly dysfunctional behaviors. The act of sex, or any physical contact, and orgasm in particular causes the release of oxytocin, which is a neurotransmitter that causes feelings of attachment and what we would call love. Childbirth and breastfeeding do as well. This is to facilitate the preservation of the family unit. Sex also causes serotonin and dopamine to be released in the brain, causing feelings of well-being and relaxation. In high concentrations, such as with the use of cocaine or amphetamines, it is dopamine that elicits the euphoric high. This cocktail of neurotransmitters is powerful--and necessary. Without it, who would really want to procreate? The fact that this has been selected for over millenia of evolution coupled with the success of the human race is an indicator of just how vital the pleasure associated with sex is.

A normal, healthy sex drive is not an addiction. One of the greatest sins of christianity, in my opinion, is the suppression of normal sexual behavior, which ironically tends to cause much more serious psychological problems than just admitting that human beings want to have sex.

Considering that the development of these responses is completely necessary for the propagation of the species, if Benedict considers sex a drug based on the neurochemical response, then he must also admit that religion is a drug. Religious practices cause stimulation of various parts of the brain, most notably the temporal lobes, and through repeated usage of those pathways, they become strengthened and the brain soon restructures itself to accomodate these neuronal connections, leaving one in a state in which they either cannot leave religion or just don't want to give it up. Going to church, reading the bible, and prayer could all be considered the "fix" craved by addicts of all sorts.

One of the most common excuses for the tolerance of religion in society is that it makes people happy or gives them comfort. Well, so does heroin, coke, or pot. As a matter of fact, if one takes it to that extreme, everything is a drug and we are all addicts. We're addicted to food, breathing, the beauty of nice spring days. The affection we have for our families is equally an addiction. Pope Ratzi can't just pick and choose activities of which he disapproves and label them as addictive drugs--to maintain his position, he must admit that everything is a drug, including his religion, and therefore the term drug is meaningless and obsolete.

Thanks for coming back

Thanks for coming back planetoftheatheists.  Maybe I was a bit strong, but prudes really tic me off. Girls strippers are a blessing in any setting !

I adore girls, and I see girls getting free as serious important progress. Prudes are a problem. Even the girls strippers for god (or christianity) is progress. We need more sexually free spirited girls and especially vocal atheist ones.

 Google "stripper for god" .... etc ... the definition of God varies ... ask a buddhist!

Some interesting articles etc here,

http://www.womanthouartgod.com/main.php

http://www.kinky-kellie.com/

Funny, girl naked preacher, ( I'd say she's actually basically atheist )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGzMAc46wiY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90dwvQrCO5U&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6hubbiT6Gk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adyhvp-8pk0&NR=1

     see the others .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fifPGODUcbY&feature=related

Need atheist strippers, to combat theist strippers

   http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Heather+Veitch%2C&btnG=Search

Heather Veitch is the Pussycat Preacher

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04gvBg4HGZE&feature=related

        GO GO RRS KELLY, and all you girls !

We are free, we are GAWED      No more Prudes .....

 

 

 

    

    

"seen one boob, you've seen 'em both"

you completely misunderstood my critique. It's not an 'attitude' i am espousing, sex is good, boobs are great, and religious suppression of the sex drive is another one of their wicked tactics of control (not to mention unhealthy). Attractive women showing cleavage attracts attention, you openly admit that, and is that a good incentive to bring people to this page? Why not show dead kittens, or become a "rate my poop" site? Those are attention grabbers .What you are doing smacks of Fox news, or Heraldo Rivera, luring (by your own admission, not my accusation) men to this site, and expecting them to take atheism seriously. If the threat of religious fanaticism and intolerance isnt enough to attract people to this site, then i doubt your breasts will...or maybe it will....at least long enough for them to get their jollies and move on. Thanks for the link though

But it is an "attitude" ....

But it is an "attitude" .... And yes, girls of all kinds and with all methods ... Boobs, Brains, Art ....  are great and needed attention grabbers to the message of freedom   

        Go "Girl Power" .... use ALL methods !

kellym78's picture

planetoftheatheists

planetoftheatheists wrote:

you completely misunderstood my critique. It's not an 'attitude' i am espousing, sex is good, boobs are great, and religious suppression of the sex drive is another one of their wicked tactics of control (not to mention unhealthy). Attractive women showing cleavage attracts attention, you openly admit that, and is that a good incentive to bring people to this page? Why not show dead kittens, or become a "rate my poop" site? Those are attention grabbers .What you are doing smacks of Fox news, or Heraldo Rivera, luring (by your own admission, not my accusation) men to this site, and expecting them to take atheism seriously. If the threat of religious fanaticism and intolerance isnt enough to attract people to this site, then i doubt your breasts will...or maybe it will....at least long enough for them to get their jollies and move on. Thanks for the link though

So in order for people to "take atheism seriously" I must wear turtlenecks all the time? What's your point? I dress the way I want to dress, and if people notice my boobs, oh well. Your depiction of me as a "closet exhibitionist" is so far off it's laughable. First of all, I have no issue whatsoever with taking off my clothes--it has made me lots of money over the past 10 years or so. Secondly, I have never made it a point to dress provocatively for attention--rather I just wear what I want. The point about the boobs bringing people to the site is valid, though. And some of them actually have become productive members. After the Nightline debate, we got countless letters from men who said that they were flipping through the channels and happened upon a big-breasted redhead and stopped. They wrote mostly to say that the subject matter was of interest to them; that they appreciated what we were doing in trying to make "popularize" atheism.

Furthermore, this site isn't solely dedicated to religion. There are many other irrational beliefs out there, and your belief that sex appeal is damaging our message is one of them. The average person doesn't even realize that religious fanaticism, intolerance, or its interference in education and government IS a threat. How do you plan to convince them? First, you have to get them interested. If that takes tits, so be it. You should read my myspace messages sometime. I get more messages from on-the-fence people who write to me because of the fact that they think I'm "hot" than any other person here. Shit, I got one the other day from Acharya S' cousin. Her cousin is undecided on god-belief, and instead of consulting her--he writes to me. Why? Because I'm hot.

Your opinion on this issue is not only baseless--it's just incorrect. If that's your attitude, though, don't let the URL hit you on the ass on the way out.

Extradicting the Pope

Well, back in 1860 Italians managed to force Ratzi's predecessor to retreat in the Holy See (previously they OWNED and RULED over one third of Italy...) and Vatican city.

'been trying to evict them (the Priests) ever since, but haven't managed so far... and John Paul II was no better....

Kay Cat's picture

Good posting, however...

I would have started more with what drugs are and then gone on to show where sex couldn't be a drug, then where it could be one before going on to the religious "take" on drugs and sex.  That's just me, and how I would write it.

 

Oh, I'm new and this is my first post here. I'm an agnostic atheist by the accepted definition here.

Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back

FindTruth's picture

planetoftheatheists

planetoftheatheists wrote:

but seriously Kelly, why are you using RR as your own personal pornsite? I really dont get it!! I think you're fine, the guys attracted to your post think you are fine...and you KNOW you are fine...but why this distraction? its creepy, and makes it impossible to take the Rational Response team seriously. If you want to exhibit yourself, get a porn page....featuring YOU and your boobs that you are so damn proud of. As for me, i never thought i'd hear myself saying this, but i have seen enough of them. This just isnt the place for it, and i am logging off this site until i can return to it (or your Youtube posts) and not be given a woodie on a site that is supposed to be a " rational response" to religious fascism...would we take, say, Sam Harris seriously if he lectured in Speedo's?

 

What's the big deal?? Like Kelly said, this is HER personal sight! And besides, it's not a "porn" picture, much classier Smiling