Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Essay on Church's Sexuality Stance
Der Liberasche Teufel.
That's German for "The Liberal Devil." A title that has been bestowed upon me by two very conservative immigrants in my highschool German class. I am not particularly fond of the title as I don't consider myself a mainstream liberal or a Democrat for that matter. I always prefer Libertarian over Liberal.
Regardless of the semantics involved, I was sure to take plenty of heat from the far right leaning Christian value musketeers.
In my Morality Class, we are learning about the sinfulness of contraception and how it is destroying marriages across the culture of America. I hope to make a lengthy post this weekend on all the notes I have taken, but this following essay of mine is a response to a book chapter we read. "The Good News about Sex and Marriage" and "The Great Mystery"
In short, the book stated the complementarity of man and woman and how it all fit into God's all loving web of eternal love for his flock. Marriage is a sacred thing and sex is somehow a mystery.
Contraception = evil. Pleasure = Bad. God = Way too interested in your sex life. Bias intended. But please read...
I turned this in today to my theology teacher. I rarely participate in class, so undoubtedly my tone in this will come as a bit of a surprise to the teacher. I mentioned to him once that I was non-religious and was a secular progressive (I might have used individual progressivist at the time)
Anyway, my dad, who basically holds all the same views on religion as I do, but still calls himself Catholic, lauded my essay as inspiring. And on his week down South to our more 'traditional' relatives, he is taking the essay along with him to show them what an astute, intellectual, Godchild my Aunt has.
I can't wait for my teacher's and relatives' responses to this. And yours as well. :winkc:
That's German for "The Liberal Devil." A title that has been bestowed upon me by two very conservative immigrants in my highschool German class. I am not particularly fond of the title as I don't consider myself a mainstream liberal or a Democrat for that matter. I always prefer Libertarian over Liberal.
Regardless of the semantics involved, I was sure to take plenty of heat from the far right leaning Christian value musketeers.
In my Morality Class, we are learning about the sinfulness of contraception and how it is destroying marriages across the culture of America. I hope to make a lengthy post this weekend on all the notes I have taken, but this following essay of mine is a response to a book chapter we read. "The Good News about Sex and Marriage" and "The Great Mystery"
In short, the book stated the complementarity of man and woman and how it all fit into God's all loving web of eternal love for his flock. Marriage is a sacred thing and sex is somehow a mystery.
Contraception = evil. Pleasure = Bad. God = Way too interested in your sex life. Bias intended. But please read...
The Great Mystery Response
By: Knight of Buddha
Upon reading The Great Mystery by Christopher West, I found myself objecting to the content rather frequently. My first objection is to the insinuation in the first several pages stating that this news merits for a description of 'good.' As far as I'm concerned, using ancient scriptures to discern our modern, sexual ethics is somewhat silly in nature to say the least. I get the impression that the Church regards anything fun and enjoyable to humans as sinful. Or at the very least deserving of an extremely long, wordy book which fails to make any rational points outside the scope of antiquated, faith based Scripture.
Another qualm I have with the excerpt is that it continuously references the creation story of Genesis as some kind of foundation for sexual ethics. Firstly, this seems counterproductive in making a case for this particular, unpopular brand of sexual ethics. Why use irrelevant mythology to guide the actions of sexual partners in a modern soceity? And why blame a snake for mankind's baser natures and the corruption of an entire race? This just seems like scapegoating.
I take a rather Libertarian approach to the whole issue of sexual ethics. If the sex is consensual and responsible (contraception perhaps?), then it fails to be a matter of morality, but instead simply one of personal responsibility. There is no good reason to apply terms such as 'sinful' and 'immoral' to what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. The way I see it, we should stay out of the private business of what others do in their own homes and focus instead on the affairs of our own life.
Perhaps my strongest objection to this excerpt is that marriage should be strictly defined between a man and woman. This clearly is opposed to any type of homosexual relationshiop or marriage. And my defense of a gay lifestyle is founded on the same aforementioned principles as above. I propoe that the question should not be Is it moral? as our class suggests. But rather Who is hurt by the action? And that is precisely the question that anti-homosexual proponents fail to answer. Why should marriage be strictly between a man and a woman? Are we supposed to be lead to believe that heterosexuals are somehow more capable of marriage stablitity? The divorce rates would certainly indicate otherwise.
I believe that the underlying problem with the taboo against sexual behavior, sexual orientation, and theological ethics is that it fails to concern itself with questions of genuine, human suffering. Everyday, thousands in the world die from horrible disease, starvation, crime, poverty, and plain, human negligence. Some of the worst suffering imaginable is inflicted on people all over the world, and yet we are lead to believe by conservatives that one of the greatest soceital challenges and threats to moral order is the actions of consenting, homosexual couples. This truly is horrbile negligence on behalf of society in regards to the true suffering in the world.
However, such defenders of decency will maintain that God is in fact on their side. If we use archaic books as guides, we will be lead to believe as such. But if God is indeed concerend so much with the affairs of private, consenting individuals instead of the horrors afflicted daily on the rest of his flock, his is surely malevolent. Or at best, incompetent.
I turned this in today to my theology teacher. I rarely participate in class, so undoubtedly my tone in this will come as a bit of a surprise to the teacher. I mentioned to him once that I was non-religious and was a secular progressive (I might have used individual progressivist at the time)
Anyway, my dad, who basically holds all the same views on religion as I do, but still calls himself Catholic, lauded my essay as inspiring. And on his week down South to our more 'traditional' relatives, he is taking the essay along with him to show them what an astute, intellectual, Godchild my Aunt has.
I can't wait for my teacher's and relatives' responses to this. And yours as well. :winkc:
0
Comments
I went to school back east .. in the mid seventies to early 80's .. we did not have such religous overtones in the classroom back then .. now I live in the west .. my ten year old needs parental conscent to attend human sexuality education. I wonder if they will ask for my conscent when they cover nuclear weapons ?
Yes .. sexuality is one topic that most religions drop the ball on ... and yet it is the very essence of being human. Perhaps our "abnormal " acceptance of sexuality has caused an equal abnormal human sexuality. Maybe it's the moral right that has produced much of the violence and suffering we see in the world.
In any event when you get your essay back .. you have my support. I'll burn incense for you when they throw you on the fire. :crazy:
Good Day ...
In fact, the only place I've ever been where people have a fairly enlightened attitude towards sex is the Netherlands, where people are very liberal and know how to mind their own business. I'm surprised they've been allowed to survive this long!
Just venting...
Palzang
And I get to go to Amsterdam in another month. Just for a day though.
Palzang
Living in Vegas .. I have found it to be quite square. The glitter might be liberal but the reality is somewhat conservative.
Good Day ...
1.) I am not a native English speaker, so I reduce my critique of the spelling on the German part. It is "Der liberale Teufel"
2.) Contraception = evil. Pleasure = Bad. God = Way too interested in your sex life. Bias intended. But please read...
This of course reads absurd. What most Xtians do not get is that their Religion is pessimistic or life denying. It sees Life as something evil, born with original sin. The only consistent interpretation of christianity imho you can read in schopenhauer and some mystics like Eckhart. Pleasure is bad, because it binds to existence, or samsara in Buddhist terms. Such is the root of all 7 deadly sins, not only sex, but also greed, eating too much etc. Only if you abandon the pleasures, you escape suffering, because the pleasures are the root of wanting more, not getting it, i.e. dying at the end makes you suffer. I would recommend you to read Meister Eckhart "Von der Armut" in order to face fundamental christian trolls in their own language. Sorry if my post is not very clear or strange, it is late but I thought I could contribute some info that might interest you.
Metta
I am using 'liberal' as an adjective here. Liberale would be a noun I think.
I can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. The latter I take it?
Enjoying the pleasures of life should not be looked down upon. If the pursuit of such pleasures do not lead to the suffering of others, they should be removed from the sphere of ethics or morality.
Only if written in capital letters, then it is the Liberale. If written "liberale", then it is an adjective.
Well, I apologize for expressing myself badly. In essence, what I meant is that the position of being hostile towards pleasure does not make any sense if you do not take a life denying position, in fact, it is the direct opposite to hedonism, pursiut of happyness etc.
Of course, christianity is bigger than that and especially with the reformation, we had a movement that brought liberalization and opossed the ascetic tendencies in catholicism, as we know, celibacy for instance was removed there. I think Simon can respond better to your essay, since I have a very limited understanding of christianity.
Metta
I can't quite believe that you have a class called Morality Class. It is Orwellian. Anyway, here is and admittedly quite long collection of my thoughts n your essay. I hope they may be of some use:
I think that there is a very valid point here in respect of how we approach matters of personal and sexual development within schools and colleges. The teaching authorities need to understand that they have, themselves, ruled out the use of scripture as a teaching tool, other than for its mythic value. This is a process that began some 500 years ago but gathered real momentum with Darwin and his fellows when they realised that the Bible and similar ancient texts did not adequately describe the processes by which life appeared on earth. Medicine, physics and geology had already begun this process. Instead of a world which was bounded in both space and time, we now perceive a universe that is vaster than imagination and far older than ever we thought. Within this enormous scope, the sciences are constantly uncovering new and astonishing facts whereas the Ancient World, portrayed in most scriptures of most faiths, appears small, limited and ignorant.
Additionally, our media, both professional and popular, are constantly announcing that this or that theory has now been superceded something quite different. New palaeantological and archaeological discoveries push back the beginnings of human history; physics reveals new understandings about how the world works; medecine develops new and improved techniques and drugs which make classical herbalism and the butchery that passed for surgery outdated. The world is awash with newness and a science book that is more than ten years old is likely to contain statements that we now consider completely erroneous.
When it comes to linking personal and sexual development with an ethic that depends on old texts, it is not surprising that people ask "Why believe this? It's old!"
I think you missed a trick here, KoB, if you don't mind my saying so. The Garden story, in Genesis, can be read in a number of ways but the one which is most distressing to us should surely be the sexist one rather than the sexual (which is not really there at all). Few things distort the original meaning of the Garden myth more than the view that "the woman is to blame". Not the 'snake' you notice. The story of the snake losing its legs (it must have had them because it is condemned to "crawl on its belly in the dust" must rank with a lot of nature myths across the world. You can find similar tales in Native American, African and other mythologies. Rudyard Kipling wrote a whole book of them and called it Just So Stories. As a child, I loved "How the Camel Got Its Hump" and "The Elephant's Child" but I never confused them with reality. If we want to understand the reason for the Garden myth, we need to look much further back than Saint Augustine and his notion of 'original sin'. We need to grasp that the myth arises to explain one puzzling fact: most animals give birth quite easily but human women suffer and, often, die in childbirth. Why is this so? A story is told to explain it: it must be something that we, as humans, have done. Indeed, modern thought would suggest that this is indeed true. Not eating a fruit, of course, but standing upright! Understanding how myth arises is crucial to help us understand that we are still telling ourselves stories. What a wasted opportunity! Here is a mythic story that everyone in a classroom will know. Showing them how it works is a perfect way of liberating them from some of the "lies to children" that are still fed to us by the media and the politicians. It is also a chance to challenge the underlying sexism of much current discourse.It could opening up the way to understanding how a story to explain has been perverted into a story to blame - and blame women.
Finally, of course, it is a poor show if the teacher does not point out that Eve is given a new title: "mother of all living", which a class might be surprised to learn was one of the titles of the Mother Goddess of Sumerian myth and very honourable. Not so much a punishment, more a coronation.
I would argue that 'personal responsibility' is precisely what morality is all about, thus sexual activity falls under this heading too. The "consenting adults in private" argument falls, unfortunately, at the hurdle of public good. A couple of currency forgers or crack addicts can be seen as private, in their own homes. I have not read Mr West's book, although I stifled my nausea and read some of his web postings. He fails to underline that the egulation of sexual behaviour has a social dimension and that it is only very recently hat the religious have made it a matter of church disciplne for the laity. The regulation of sexual behaviour is vital within a small community under siege as the Israelites were. We have no difficulty in viewing the dietary regulations of Mosaic law as having good historical food hygiene reasons, but we ignore the social control function of sexual rules. The question, therefore, must be asked: "Are these rules still applicable in the world today?"
Were you told that it was not until the 20th century that the Church started to move towards an outright ban on contraception? Were you told about Pope Pius's letter to nurses? Were you told about the long arguments that preceded the encyclical Humanae Vitae? Was it even explained that Pope Paul refused to issue a Papal Bull or other 'infallible' document but restricted himself to an encyclical and what that means? Were you given an insight into the social change that was brought about in the 1960s by the introduction of the contraceptive pill? Did anyone ask why Catholic families are no longer awash with children?
Precisely! Once again, we are looking at a completely changed social structure which demands a new approach to both sexuality and committed relationships. In France, for example, marriage in church is an add-on: marriage only exists, in law, if registered at the Mairie, an entirely secular institution. Similar rules exist even in our own countries: marriage must be witnessed by a person accredited by the state. When my late half-broher marrtied his boss's pregnant mistress to avoid her shame (he got well paid), he did so in Malta, in a Muslim ceremon, which meant that it was not recorded by bthe Maltese state. On their return to the UK, they wehnt before an imam and were divorced in five minutes. A good trick. Marriage is a social institution and a political one. Religious arguments about same-sex unions or polygamy are in the realm of the state and not of the churches. They are matters for Caesar and not for God, as Jesus points out when he says that, in the basileia there is neither marriage nor giving in marriage.
I believe that the underlying problem with the taboo against sexual behavior, sexual orientation, and theological ethics is that it fails to concern itself with questions of genuine, human suffering. Everyday, thousands in the world die from horrible disease, starvation, crime, poverty, and plain, human negligence. Some of the worst suffering imaginable is inflicted on people all over the world, and yet we are lead to believe by conservatives that one of the greatest soceital challenges and threats to moral order is the actions of consenting, homosexual couples. This truly is horrbile negligence on behalf of society in regards to the true suffering in the world.
I would not, personally, have used the word 'taboo'. Sex is far from a taboo in our society. Where I would agree with Mr West, in one of his vomit-making posts, is that emphasis on sex has removed our attention from the far more important instruction that Jesus gave to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and house the homeless. Can you imagine what the response would be in your classromm if the teacher accused each one of you and your families of 'mortal sin' because you have more than you need to survive? What if it was said that it is more important to look after the weak that to worry what you do with your genitalia? What if the whole discussion on personal development had turned on the Genesis question put by Cain: "Am I my brother's keeper?"
Just a little tip. Your argument loses its strength when you slip from an entirely justified attack on Puritan morality to an attack on God. More persuasive would be reference, for example, to the book of Hosea or to the conversation between Jesus and the unnamed woman at the Samaritan well. By majoring on sexual behaviour and marriage, as i say, the churches are removing attention from the fundamental message of the gospels, the 'Good News': that compassion rules, OK? And that compassion is to be manifested in the world through our actions towards each other.
Years ago, I taught at a Catholic boarding school. Coming as I did from a secular, scientific household, I thought that the strictures on masturbation had gone out with gaslight but no! Here were a few hundred adolescent boys who were being taught to feel guilty every day because their bodies were preparing for the adventure of sexual encounter. I even heard old, long-discredited arguments against masturbation still being used. The teaching on sexuality was at about the same standard of puerility. Sexual health, both physical and psychological, is too important to be addressed by mediaeval nostrums. If we send our children into the world without the information which will protect them from an avoidable disease like AIDS, we, as a generation, will be guilty of a huge crime against humanity.
Where I think you could have gone further with your argument, dear friend, would have been to show that neither the Jesus message nor the Christian attitude to sex can be limited to some local stereotype. Revisit the attitude of such misogynists as Calvin or Luther or John Knox and you can demonstrate that the post-Reformation disgust at sex was imported into the north of the Americas by extremist fanatics. They were, in so many respects, the ancestors of the Islamists of today, except that they used the Tanakh (Old Testament) instead of the Q'ran but were just as women-hating. This attitude, which, as Fofoo pointed out, Schopenhauer called "anti-life", has even permeated American Catholicism. Compare it with the attitude of Catholic Europe or South America, and you see a complete contrast, if mainly among heterosexuals. You might also have liked to look at the words of our current Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, who criticises the churches for their emphasis on sexuality at the expense of the evangelical commission to justice, peace and a 'preferential option for the poor'.
I could go on and on about the dire results of the churches' approach to sex and sex education but I would suggest that the most positive way to end a critique of it is to propose a new way of approaching the whole subject which is authentic and, incidentally, Christian. First order of business would be accurate and complete information on the process, physical and emotional, together with clear teaching on safe sex. Next, the whole question of relationships, both sexual and non-sexual, needs to be addressed. Here, the matter of treating others as valuable, the sexualisation of intimacy, the pornography of violence and the objectification of the other could be introduced, and challenged. Here, the teachings of Jesus on how we are to behave towards one another would make useful reading. Thus, from criticising a facile and tendentious load of nonsense you would move to positive suggestions which would enable young and old alike to form truly valuable and satisfying relationships. Sex would then take its proper place within the relationship dynamic.
Finally, I would stress the sleight of hand that makes private sexual behaviour more visible than public oppression of the poor. Once again, the churches are attempting to divert us from what really matters. I am grateful that there are people such as yourself to refuse to be taken in by it.
cheers
You're right. I should have made it more clear. My point was that private, consensual acts, be they sexual or otherwise really do not belong in the battleground of morality.
My concern with Morality is in how it affects other people. Forging currency can be damaging to other people as well as doing the more dangerous drugs or halluinigens. Having sex with a partner in your home is not.
No to all of those except the last one. My teacher believes that the Sexual Revolution is far and away the greatest atrocity ever to fall onto mankind. It lead to the disollution of marriages and the social acceptance of abortion (dead baby stats) as well as a contraceptive mentality in the culture.
Although the class itself has avoided much theological talk, this portion of the course seemed to be permeated with it. Our teacher's take on this as well as Mr. West's is that God takes great interest in human affairs. Sexual business as well. By using Scripture as a guide as well as the Church's teaching on 'Natural Law,' we can discern what God's well thought out purpose is to sex. (Pleasure not included)
I felt obligated to raise my objection to this. I am afraid I can't put it any more eloquently than Sam Harris did....
I have heard the arguments about the so-called "Sexual Revolution". Most of them are historically inaccurate and depend far more on nostalgia for a "golden age" that never existed. Perhaps your teacher needs to look at, for example, the sexual mores of 18th century England and France, the sexual behaviour of slave-owners in the 19th and the explosion of illegitimate births during the Second World War, particularly after the arrival of US troops.
How many children does this teacher have? Does he use any form of birth control? Does he leave it to his wife?
The discovery of a safe method of regulating fertility is the single greatest liberating event for women in centuries, freeing them from the shackles of unwanted pregnancy. It is also clear, if you want to use an economic argument, that areas of the world where women are put in charge of their own fertility become more prosperous more quickly than elsewhere. A clear sign, don't you think, that your teacher's God favours such people.
The "sexual revolution" was no such thing. It was simply part of a liberation movement (to which many fundamentalists object) which demanded equality and equity for different races, women, and people of different sexualities. From the p.o.v. of the Catholic Church, it is also integral to the movement that brought about the calling of the Second Vatican Council, which upsets 'traditionalist' Catholics. Of course, the 'tradition' to which they appeal is no more than 400 years old and has little gospel validity but there you are.
What really annoys me is that this sort of 'teaching' is based, not on rue readings of the scriptures, but has a cultural sbtext. All the teaching is based on translations into English of earlier texts in three or four different languages, none of which is now taught as standard in schools. A teacher or a student with no understanding of Hebrew will read the word "abomination" in Leviticus and it will be freighted with meanings of horror, whereas the Hebrew is only speaking about ritual uncleanness. Without Greek, how do you understand the English "Word" to describe the Son of God, whereas the Greek word logos has its own baggage. You are being asked to believe that your teacher's translation (or, at least, the one used because i imagine your teacher does not read Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Koine and Latin) is accurate.
You are being sold the Brooklyn Bridge. This is not teaching, nor is it it good storytelling, it is a sad and bad attempt at social control through pseudo-religious propaganda.
5 kids actually. Natural Family Planning to boot. Which of course I have no problem with. I think it is very noble of people both willing to commit to such a thing. But to expect it of an entire population is just ridiculous as is expecting abstinence from all teens.
Going back to Sam again and basically the point of my whole arguement....
Old story:
A young couple get married in their strict Kirk and are about to set off on honeymoon. Very worried, they go to their minister.
"Minister," they say, "We're off on honeymoon but we're worried. Will it be sinful to make love on the Sabbath?"
The Minister consults the Elders and they pray the question. The Minister returns to he couple as says:
"You may make love on the Sabbath, just so long as you don't enjoy it!"
**********
Perhaps our 'religious/moral education' teachers, who use Genesis as their ethical pattern, should reflect that the earlier story of the creation of humanity suggests that companionship is the reason given for gender diversity. Also, the story in Gen. 34 must make one wonder whether this book was ever intended as a guide to morality and ethical behaviour.
On the topic of "natural" control of fertility, I have always been struck by the fact that use of a vaginal thermometer is permitted. Not very natural. Unless, of course, procreation is regulated by total abstinence from intercourse unless aiming at pregnancy - rather fun-denying.
Of course, it is worth recalling that the Catholic Church has changed its mind on medical matters in the past. At the start of the 20th century, it was deemed sinful for women to use pain control during childbirth. This was based on the Eden story! Such inhumane attitudes arise and pass.
Simon:
I am a casualty of that kind of Catholicism.
But what would happen if your same critical eye of examination were to be applied to Buddhism? One of my own biggest resistances to Buddhism is that at times it seems to be, in its traditional doctrines and paractices, even more anti-body, anti-sex and anti-woman than "orthodox" Christianity has ever been. I can`t really get my head around such Buddhist notions as the "impurity" of the body.
In spite of teachings about the non-duality of purity and impurity, the teaching and meditating upon the "impurity" of the body remains a practice in many schools of Buddhism, and not excluding the Vajrayana. Alexander Berzin, a westerner teaching Vajrayana, says our inability to accept such teachings as the "impurity" of the body amounts to "Dharma Lite". Such things confuse me. It makes me feel like I am a Buddhist "heretic".
I agree. i impurity is a social/ religious construct. dont have anything against christians, but alot of there views on things r very negative, especially when it comes to the concept of "purity" i dislike there teachings on that particular subject because it kinda makes u go into a guilt trip. in my health class at my school the subject of purity is strongly emphasized. humans will always make mistakes i mean what the teacher teaches is basically this in a nutshell: " Hey guys im teaching u not 2 lust even though its impossible not 2 because humans make mistakes"
I have edited/revised my previous post in order to make it clearer.
Might I make the sugestion that you have possibly mistaken the purpose and context of such practices and teachings rather than such practices and teachings actually being anti-body, anti-sex, and anti-women? For example, one purpose for viewing the body as loathsome is to combat lust, particularly for monastics who practice celibacy (SN 35.127). Another purpose of this practice is to become disenchanted with the body in order to incline one's mind towards the Deathless (AN 7.46).
In essence, the Buddha is simply pointing out what is in the body — hair of the head, hair of the body, nails, teeth, skin, muscle, tendons, bones, bone marrow, spleen, heart, liver, membranes, kidneys, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, gorge, feces, gall, phlegm, lymph, blood, sweat, fat, tears, oil, saliva, mucus, oil in the joints, urine — and asking us to take a good, long look at those things. Contemplating the loathsomeness of the body is merely a technique to be used skillfully.
Jason
Palzang
Well, I know I wouldn't take some shit and place it on my coffee table for people to admire.
Jason
It could be one who's daily schedule is just to hectic ... or one with too many philosopheies in their mind for their own good or one with to much buddhism and .. yes .. the young guy or gal on spring break with lots of mostly naked guys or gals on the beach. What days those were ... amazing I survived.
The concept is one thing but the experience of a busy mind and what impurities are involved is the goal. Being aware of what is entering the mind. Nothing is lost .. nothing denied.
Good Day ...
Actually, I do think I understood, more or less, the purpose of such meditations on the body, and was careful to say only that it sometimes seems to me so ( "anti" this or that).
But does that mean that it is only a "skillful means" or else some sort of spiritual convention which isn`t absolutely "true" from the point of view of enlightenment?
Anyway, I was responding to Simon`s revision of Christianity, and I was wondering if any such revision is possible within Buddhism.
But to me Christianity doesn`t really seem so anti-body as some people make it out to be. However, I don`t think Christianity can be easily absolved from having been anti-gay. And that is another thing that I am curious about. I mean, historically speaking, hasn`t Buddhism had prohibitions against sex concerning "inappropriate orifices"? I find that kind of talk troubling and I read it in an article about Buddhist sexual ethics.
It is also important to point out that many of the sexual proscriptions found in various schools of Buddhism were promulgated for monastic communities only, not the general public.
What KoB says about the body being wondrous I also agree with. If everyone could understand what a marvelous piece of work the body is, from the macro - the wondrous engineering of the hand, for example - to the micro - the workings of the cell, for example - no one would ever even consider taking the life of another being, human or otherwise. At the same time, looking at it from a practice point of view, the body can be viewed as repugnant and repulsive because it is just a bag of skin full of all kinds of vile things, and someday it will be dead and rotting. Thinking of it in that regard helps one cut attachment to the body, which is necessary if one is to attain liberation. So both are true.
Palzang
Just for reference, that prohibition can be found in Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosabhasyam as well as a few other Sarvastivadin texts, but there is no such prohibition found in any Theravadin source.
Jason
Issues in Buddhist Sexual Ethics