Can anybody tell me why it’s a thing to sexualize Christian iconography and write sex songs based around the euphemistic use of Church terminology?
I mean, I think I know why, but I don’t want to say it.
Advertisements
January 20, 2015
January 20th, 2015 at 8:38 pm
maybe because everytime a god is involved, someone is getting fscked?
January 20th, 2015 at 8:46 pm
Can you elaborate on that?
January 20th, 2015 at 9:33 pm
I was just joking, but I think that the mix of morality icons with the taboo heightens the effect of the taboo not to mention the number of people that went through puberty in the shadows of religious icons.
January 20th, 2015 at 9:38 pm
“The mix of morality icons with the taboo”? You’re not being very specific.
January 20th, 2015 at 9:44 pm
The question was not specific. Euphemisms are common place, it’s not odd to find that they include religious speak. When the hormones hit young people, anything and everything gets included. Mixing religious icons heightens the effect. It might be odd if only religious icons were done this way, but such is merely a blip on the list of things which are done this way. There’s nothing particularly special about it.
What in the world kind of answer were you looking for?
January 20th, 2015 at 10:22 pm
So, no particular examples came to mind? Odd.
How does “mixing religious icons” “heighten the effect”? You’re not using “Christianity” and “religion” interchangeably, are you?
January 20th, 2015 at 10:35 pm
Christianity is the one that I know best, so it’s the one that comes to mind. At this point I have no idea what you’re on about.
January 20th, 2015 at 10:50 pm
I’m just trying to figure out what you’re on about.
January 20th, 2015 at 11:28 pm
There’s probably been a half million dissertations written about it. Everything from nun’s habit kinks to Virgin/Madonna sexy “taboo” tropes. I know some kinky atheists who particularly hate Xtianity that are nearly triggered by religious play. Shrug. It seems so obvious, and yet a clear explanation eludes me.
January 21st, 2015 at 10:29 am
Not something I’ve thought about or looked into, but a few likely factors that come to mind:
* Christian symbolism has (obvious) connotations of worship, veneration, rapture, divine inspiration, etc. Sex is considered by many to be a transcendent or rapturous experience, due to the intensity of the emotions and sensations involved. It’s similar to how I occasionally co-opt Christian or otherwise “Religious” terminology to express the intensity of my feelings about writing and art (mostly talk of soul-longing and such, in my case).
* The Forbidden Fruit principle. Things that seem taboo thereby also seem exciting or tempting. Traditional stereotypes would say that bringing together “holy, virginal, pure” Christianity and “dirty, kinky, carnal” sex is enough of a juxtaposition to seem like a taboo.
* A slightly more worrying form of the same Forbidden Fruit principle states that the less sexually available a group of people is, the more likely they are to become fetishised. This applies to religiously-celibate Christians (or at least to nuns, priests and the like) the same as it applies to schoolgirls (yes, I’m afraid that’s also a thing). Combine the two, of course, and you get Catholic schoolgirls, a group so heavily fetishised the concept gets its own Tvtropes page with about 90 examples currently listed.
* It pisses off hypereligious, conservative, white Evangelicals even more than either openly talking about sex or disrespecting Christian symbols would on their own, and there are a lot of people who enjoy very little more than baiting the likes of Pat Robinson or Al Mohler and then watching them explode.
* Most of the western world is steeped in Christian history whether they like it or not. Christian symbolism floats constantly in the western zeitgeist and tends to be immediately recognisable. Certain people seem to have a drive to sexualise pretty-much everything they can think of, or tie pretty-much everything they can think of to sex, and those of such people who live in the western world probably find Christian symbolism to be among the proverbial low-hanging fruit when it comes to recognised cultural markers.
January 21st, 2015 at 3:46 pm
“A slightly more worrying form of the same Forbidden Fruit principle states that the less sexually available a group of people is, the more likely they are to become fetishised.”
This is… among the things I was thinking of.
January 21st, 2015 at 7:24 pm
Yup. In addition to religious officials and schoolgirls, you can also see this contributing to the fetishisation of married people, virgins (at least female ones), lesbians (among heterosexual men)… I would not be at all surprised if, somewhere in those dark corners of the internet that know we exist at all, there are people with a fetish for asexuality.
I try not to think about it too hard too often. Thinking about it is not good for the soul.