Origin of Sex in Religion

Before the dawn of civilization, man was little more than an animal, and he naturally had not even the tiniest part of a fraction of the knowledge which we moderns possess. But he did have a vast capacity for wonder—a capacity which, unfortunately, has drastically declined today. Early man was incessantly mystified, and given to pondering the mysteries. Things which are commonplace and explicable enough to us of today were uncomprehended, mysterious, and beyond exploration to him. All apparently complex phenomena filled our primitives with a kind of holy dread; and it was reasonable for them, in their ignorance, to ascribe all strange manifestations to supernatural forces. Sex was not immune to these superstitious beliefs. The origin of religion is uniquely linked to the sexuality of the culture it is attached to.

The Creation of God in Man’s Image

For primitive man, the onset of the sexual impulse during the years of puberty constituted one of these overwhelming phenomena, as did the menstrual period in women, and nocturnal seminal emissions in men. Nothing is so terrifying as the unknown—nor more awe-inspiring. Early men, then, feeling this mixture of fear and respect in the face of the sexual impulse, would ascribe its appearance to some omnipotent influence, just as they explained the wind, the rain, thunder, the hours of daylight and darkness. In this way they built up the foundations of a crude religious system.

Men felt dependent on the good graces of those higher powers able to send rain or sunshine, and to command or withhold fruitfulness and plenty. Thus, they came to worship gods of their own creation—though they were not conscious of having created them in their own image and according to their own understanding. The supernatural powers were classified and divided into two divisions, one benevolent, and one evil. Personification as gods was the next step.

Religion, Sexuality, and Love

I cannot do better than make a quotation from Bloch, who elucidates the problem as follows: "Religion and sexuality come into the most intimate association in this perception of the metaphysical, and in this feeling of dependence; hence arise the remarkable relations between the two, and that easy transition of religious feeling into sexual feeling which is manifest in all the relations of life."

There is certainly a striking similarity between the manifestations of the religious impulse and those of love (though the manifestations of love are not necessarily physical manifestations or acts). Both of them are usually marked by a striving towards the highest, the best, the purest, and most truly desirable—though each, to simplify the explanation, try to attain their objects by journeying along the pathway of the divine, and both try to attain the ideal.

All of the ancient peoples faced the fact of sexuality naively; they recognized it as part of the natural functions of life, and made no attempt to shroud it in a veil of mystery. The possibility of indecency, of course, never entered their minds. On the other hand, they paid it religious homage, because they realized that it was to sex they owed their very existence on his earth. It is the preliminary condition of all sentient existence, whether plant or animal.

Religious and Sexual Superstitions

Some of the superstitions of the ancient Greeks are interesting in their sexual and religious connotation. The Greeks and Italians, not to mention other races, feared the evil eye (i.e. jettatura). This was particularly dreaded, because everyone was supposed to be exposed to its influence. Besides, its power was believed to be eminently active even without any intention of evil on the part of the possessor of such an eye. There were many methods of protection against this evil, but the innate potency of all these methods lay in their capability of distracting the dreaded glance by means of surprise or sudden fright. For some reason this was frequently managed by arranging for the evil eye to be confronted with models or even paintings of the sexual organs—especially the male organ in erection, because the Greeks ascribed more power to the virile member than to the female organs.

Never for a moment was it thought that the evil eye would be shocked by such a sight. The position was the reverse; it would be fascinated, delighted, and in gazing on such an amulet would be unable to pay attention to anything else.

Worshiping the Phallus

Because of the longevity of this belief, phallic amulets still enjoy a vogue in certain parts of the world—and, of course, for quite other reasons (mainly connected with Calvinistic and Puritan Christianity) enjoy a roaring sale near the sights of the ruins of Herculaneum and Pompeii. The orthodox Christian belonging to the organized Church would most likely be disgusted were he to see such objects being openly offered for sale. Yet there is no logical reason why he should be shocked, once the implications have been explained to him. Ancient peoples always and mostly with profound reason attributed honor and power to the parts genital. The amulets mentioned were worn as bracelets on the wrist on chains round the neck, fashioned in the shape of lamps (i.e., with the wick emerging from the end of a pierced bronze, gold, or pottery penis), and painted, as an element of interior decoration, on walls.

The worship of the male organ has, of course, never left us. It has simply undergone more or less subtle transformations, being divorced (in the popular imagination) from any direct—or even any—connection with religion. Witness the codpiece of the Renaissance, that bulging bag in the crotch of the male hose outlining and exaggerating the size and shape of the penis and its appendages. The mysterious attractions of this portion of the virile anatomy have been revived by fashion in our own time. I am speaking, but without any critical end in view, of the vogue in jeans (blue, or otherwise), and of well-cut casuals and hipsters. Chaucer wrote of the codpiece as follows: "We may speak of the horrible and unseemly scantiness of clothing, such as loose garments and short jackets, that on account of their shortness do not cover the shameful members of men, and with a wicked purpose. Alas! Some of them show the curves of their shape and their horrible swollen members, that have the appearance of hernia, in the wrapping of their hose. And also their buttocks look like the hind-part of a she-ape in the full of the moon. And moreover, the wretched, swollen members that show through the elaborate ornamentation, where their stockings are separated in white and red, make it seem that half their secret organs are exposed..." (The Parson's Tale). These sentiments follow the dictates of ecclesiastical authority. Montaigne, however, wrote with more enlightenment of phallic worship:

"In many parts of the world this portion of the body was deified... and in some ceremonies it was carried about in effigy, in honor of various deities. At the Egyptian bacchanals, ladies would wear it about their necks, in wooden effigies, exquisitely carved, large, and heavy, according to their ability comfortably to tolerate such heaviness. Besides which, the statue of their god also exhibited one, which exceeded in measure the rest of his body."

"Moreover, near where I now live, the married women twist their kerchiefs into the form of one projecting from their foreheads, thereby boasting of the enjoyment they receive from the genuine article. When they become widows they turn it round to the back, hiding it under their coif."

"The wisest and most respectable matrons in ancient Rome felt it honorable to offer flowers and garlands to the god, Priapus. And, at the time of their nuptials, young virgins were made to sit on his more unseemly parts. Nor am I sure but that in my own time I have not seen glimpses of a like devotion."

"And what meant that laughter-moving codpiece which our fathers wore, and which so attracted the eyes of young girls—which is worn to this day, in fact, by our Swiss mercenaries? What is the aim of our own fashion, in showing our formal pieces under our Gascoine hose—and, what is even worse, frequently by falsehood and imposture, in sizes larger than life?"

"It seems to me that such garments were invented in the wisest and most conscientious ages, so that the world might not be deceived, and that every man might unashamedly render a public account of his genital sufficiency. The simplest nations have it yet, somewhat resembling the true form. And workmen used to be taught the art, much as the tailor takes the measure of an arm or a foot..." (Essays, Book III, Chap. V).

All of which (though Montaigne elsewhere strongly advises us to follow the dictates of fashion) is nothing less than a somewhat debased form of phallic worship.

The Origins of Phallic Worship

Let us take a further look at some of the origins of phallicism (which, for present purposes, includes the worship of the female organ). I quote from Dulaure's Divinités Génératrices (Paris, Bibliothéque des Curieux, 1924):

"It would seem that, the union of the sexes being sufficiently recommended by nature and provoked by the attraction of pleasure, it would not be necessary for civil and religious laws to intervene to compel the practice. And yet that is what happened in some nations of antiquity, and is held even now in some modern states..."

"If the savage state is not contrary to this union, why have such laws ever existed? Were they dictated by the women, always eager for homage and pleasure? Scarcely, for in early times women were slaves, subject to the law, and not law-makers."

"To find the cause we must go right back to the beginning of human society, and study the needs of the people. We must figure to ourselves isolated families, separated by wide distances, living on the products of the chase and the meagre results of their agriculture, fighting against all manner of enemies, both human and animal, and the elements."

"In such a society population would be a genuine problem. A large family would stand a chance of survival, and every effort would be made to increase it—not to mention the tribe. What more natural than that phallic custom and practice should spring up and be fostered; that the organs of generation should be regarded with a special reverence, which would ultimately emerge as a form of religion, and that sacred prostitution should constitute a series of acts of true devotion?"

"Various obstacles militated against the increase of population: the absence of menfolk for hunting and war, and the frequency of death in these occupations, as well as in famines, floods, and epidemics. Depopulation had to be met, and even in these primitive times religion lent itself to politics. It may have been that weak and sparse peoples were the first to institute solemnities where girls were obliged to give themselves to foreigners. The motive would be political, the explanation religious. And such ceremonies would develop, would become elaborated and gain in attraction, thus serving their end—with the result that other nations would absorb similar ideas into their systems of worship. Then, by simple extension, phallic symbols would be used for a number of purposes, for protection, for meditation, and ultimately for veneration. But always at the back of priapic worship would be the primitive need for increased population."

Even among those who decry the phallicism of Hinduism, all are agreed that there is nothing intentionally depraved or obscene in the rites (such as Maithuna, a ritual form of prolonged copulation) peculiar to this religion. This applies also to the phallic elements in the religions of other times and places. The motive of obscenity was read into such rites and customs many hundreds of years later, and always by prejudiced observers—such as the Christian missionaries of the 19th century (and earlier).

The Decay of Phallicism

As a final comment on this once much debated subject we cannot do better than take a look at some observations made by G. R. Scott: "The genuflection to science, which is so outstanding a phenomenon in European and American ultra-modern civilization as to amount to what is virtually a religious faith, has robbed the generative and reproductive forces of their one-time mystery, and so contributed to the decay of phallicism. The fact that much of the mystery which phallicism purported to explain, remains today, so far as concerns the fundamental mystery of life, as unexplainable in terms of modern science as in the cosmogony of Genesis, detracts nothing from the faith of the people and the promulgations of today's hierarchy..." (G. R. Scott: Phallic Worship).

It should be noted that prostitution had its origin in an act of sacrifice to the deity, and is still considered in this light in sections of some eastern countries.

Modern Religion’s War on Sexuality

In Christianity the Pauline ethic eventually resulted in strict taboos on bathing. As one authority has put it: "The history of bathing is a chronicle of changes in the customs and habits of the nations."

The sexual function, and all that appertains thereto, was one of the vital strong points in the civilization of the pagan world; and Christianity (as banefully interpreted by St. Paul and some of the early Fathers) became a revolt against pagan conceptions, philosophy, manners, morals, and modes of life. Nevertheless, certain elements of pagan symbolism and custom were, when apparently harmless, incorporated into the Christian system, as formulated by not altogether infallible Church councils. But whenever pagan sexuality even flickered an eyelash, it seemed to the members of these councils that this aspect of sex must be condemned as the work of the devil. Hence the proscription of the bath.

Religion and Hygiene

With the Romans, as with the Islamic peoples, the cult of personal hygiene was developed in a high degree. It seems that the Greeks were probably the first to realize the value of bathing to health, as opposed to bathing as a religious rite; and the bath was also the principal means of hygiene among the Romans and Orientals—who fully realized its value in therapeutics. But after the advent of Christianity cleanliness of the skin began to fall into disrepute; and it might be said that the Church was responsible for obstructing the use of the bath (together with the maintenance of full personal hygiene) over a period of several centuries. There were even times when filth and morality were supposed to go together. Never have there lived men and women who went about in a dirtier state than some of the saints whose names have—in other respects rightly—been reverenced down the centuries. Saint Jerome lavished praise on those nuns who never let water touch their bodies, and who were crawling with lice.

The skin is an erogenous zone; and nudity excites the sexual appetites of many people. Such reactions led to acts entirely disapproved by the Church—and so the bath was condemned. Examples of late medieval art depict groups of as many as a dozen men and women taking a bath together. Some interior paintings reveal lords and ladies seated in giant baths, fitted with tables, dining and wining with the hot water up to their middles, and servants coming and going with platters and bowls of fruit. This sort of thing naturally led to licentiousness, and the same sort of behavior was common in the public baths or "stews," which were little more than thriving brothels.

The bath, as a matter of fact, was reintroduced into Europe from the East in about the 12th century and by 1292 Paris could boast 26 special bathing establishments. The light-hearted cavorting in such places can well be imagined. And so, after a period of enormous popularity and equally enormous sexual license, the Paris baths were officially closed Thus the hygiene of Greece, Rome, and the Orient, gave way to the unbelievable personal filth so common even during the reigns of Henri IV of France, and Elizabeth I of England. This was a period when gorgeously attired courtiers and their ladies were obliged to mask revolting body odors with the liberal use of strong perfumes, and when crab lice were not infrequent even on the most aristocratic bodies.

Nevertheless, it must be admitted that with regard to indoor, and especially hot-water bathing, moralizing authority had some reason on its side, as venereal disease was spreading rapidly. Besides, the ban on the bath never reigned entirely and absolutely. There were periods and places when common-sense has prevailed. Sometimes even nuns were allowed to wash; though the general attitude about this process occasionally led to amusing results. For example, even during the present century, the nuns of Galicia forbade their pupils to wash the parts genital. And in some parts of Austria the holy sisters cover the crucifix in their bedrooms, when in a state of undress, so that Christ shall not be insulted by the sight of their nakedness (at least this was so in the years preceding the 1939 war).

But at long last we have emerged triumphant from the long struggle between personal hygiene and religious prejudice. And the odd thing is that, despite the sophistication of our age, hygienic privacy, under all ordinary conditions, is far more rigidly observed today—and by a far larger percentage of the population—than ever before in the history of civilization. One may wonder how many people, washing their bodies in solitude, ever think of the religious associations of their ablutions—or consider that what they are washing is the source of so much in religion itself.