Melvin Hurst

Dr. Mallea
U.S. History to 1877
Final Paper (12/8)
The Repressive Nature of Religious Extremism in 19th Century America
In Attitudes Toward Sex in Antebellum America, Horowitz provides a compelling
depiction of history as she provides a variety of primary sources on sexual attitudes in 19th
century America as well as context to parse through the myriad of sources. The sources
themselves are often wrought with conflict and hypocrisy, as social attitudes seem based
predominantly in religious fervor, an erratic bellwether to be sure. Beginning with the cover of
the book (two repulsive men gleefully eyeing a scantily clad young woman who is dancing for
their enjoyment), sex is treated as something to be ashamed of and looked down upon by most in
society. Desire is viewed as unnatural by many, which is a concept arguably developed through
the puritanical origins of the countrys foundation. The primary texts that relate to sex as
something other than a reproductive necessity provide welcome relief to readers, but do not seem
to be the central narrative of the time: instead Horowitz notes how revolutionary their writings
were because of their progressive views which contradicted the churchs teachings. However, the
undercurrent of misplaced piety that implicitly resounds throughout leads to the notion of
religion as the driving force behind law (a concept that is not as historically dated as one would
hope) and prevailing societal norms and attitudes. As such, Attitudes Toward Sex is the perfect
illustration of how religion can be used to justify the repression of societal progress.
This framework of religious zeal masquerading as morality begins early on in Attitudes as
the writings of Lyman Beecher exemplify the tone of the seemingly dominant attitude of the

time. He argues that without religion pervading all parts of daily life, anarchy will quickly ensue
(p. 44). Furthermore, he believes that the questioning of religious thinking (by Unitarians, god
forbid) as well as the increased influence of Catholicism within the states will lead to a
revolution not unlike Frances (p. 46-47). Certainly within Attitudes, there are more sensible
people (such as Thomas Nichols and post-Graham Mary Gove) represented within the
conceptualized frame works, but this is not the dominant view at the time (p. 82,121). Instead,
we have works that read as proselytization to the masses. This is illustrated in works like
Sylvester Grahams On the Science of Human Life, which is religion pretending to be biology.
Graham argues that sexual desire is a dangerous notion indeed, as overindulgence can lead to
some of the most loathsome, and horrible, and calamitous disease that human nature is capable
of suffering (p. 71). Grahams concerns then evolve into predominantly masturbatory
discontent as he rages against self-pleasuring, arguing it corrupts the intellectual and moral
faculties and debases the mind (p. 74).
This kind of evangelizing is of the most dangerous because it is told from a perspective of
being based in science, which leads to people often believing, or at the very least questioning
their own practices. Religion is impeding progress by promoting fear as a way to control
peoples bodies, an antebellum philosophy to be sure. The most alarming part of this however is
that this philosophy, at least in spirit, extends to today in the form of abortion as misinformation
in the name of religion is still all too prevalent within the cultural zeitgeist. This sort of fact vs.
faith-based dichotomy could also be aptly compared to the evolutionary argument within todays
society between science and the Christian Right, although that is less of a physiologically
controlling conundrum and more of a curricular quandary. In this particular situation however,
the real danger of misinformation is in individuals being ashamed of their bodies and by

extension their very beings as they begin to view themselves as unclean or dirty or sinful for
performing a natural act in an unnatural time.
The crusade against masturbation continued as Dr. Luther Bell expounded upon
Grahams initial concerns by addressing whom was most likely to be afflicted by these evil
urges, deciding that young men who lived lives of leisure as opposed to those who worked with
their hands on a daily basis were more likely to succumb to this foul temptation (p. 74-75, 7678). One could argue that these findings, from a doctor nonetheless, could simply illustrate the
shortcomings of medical knowledge at the time, which led to medical professionals believing
masturbation was dangerous. But to argue or believe this would be embracing the height of
naivety as these beliefs arent rooted in science, but in the powerful influence of the church upon
the masses, including the medical community. Fear is a powerful tool, and has seldom been
wielded more effectively than when exploited under the guise of religiosity.
This attempt to control the body extended far beyond self-pleasuring however as
Christian writers sought to ensure that sex was kept within the confines of marriage and only
practiced for the purposes of bearing children (p. 92). Sex was not to be a pleasurable
occurrence, only a biological necessity, because God demanded it. As William Alcott writes,
Every man knowsthat the great objective of sexual function is the reproduction of the
species, perpetuating the notion that sex itself is a necessary evil, nothing more, nothing less (p.
92).
But how do these misconceptions impede societal progress? Although people are
misinformed by Christian philosophy masquerading as biology, is there any real harm to this
deceit? Yes, because it is a way for religion to control others through its unique ability to label
something as sinful or evil and therefore compel people to live a certain way, a repressive

way. And if one does not conform to these perverse standards, they are labeled as deviants, who
are either incurable or need to seek Gods forgiveness to continue to live unimpeded, un-cursed
lives. Religion in particular has a moral obligation to not misinform its followers but instead
empower them through providing truth with a lowercase t instead of a convoluted, fallacious,
self-serving Truth purported to be in the name of God. However, this has been a rarity
throughout history, as religiosity is used as a tool to gain power, in this case, power over peoples
bodies. However, within this senselessness is hope, as Mary Gove artfully makes a compelling
case arguing that the rigid moralistis therefore the most immoral of beingshe lives in a
continued violation of the laws of God by going against the laws of nature by compelling
people to act in unnatural ways (p. 123). But, Mary Gove was a societal deviant by 19th century
cultural measures, due to her open marriage to Thomas Nichols (p. 121).
As the 19th century continued, practices such as the consumption of pornography began to
increase in popularity as the writing and consumption romantic literature became a titillating and
profitable enterprise as illustrated by P.F. Harris weekly list of racy books; however they were
still considered deviant endeavors by many, as passing of the Comstock Law of 1873 illustrated
(p. 142-143, 158-159). The Comstock Law in many ways is a perfect illustration of the
consequences of the attempt to mainstream sexual culture. It was a pushback from the
government (and implicitly religious leaders) that banned all forms of obscene literature (p.
158-159). The law came at a time where erotic literature and brothels were flourishing as people
had begun to err in their piety and embrace sexual autonomy as illustrated by George
Wooldridge, William Joseph Snelling, and George Wilkes publications (p. 130-138). But these
reprehensible actions pitted morality against sexual independence, and of course morality
would win the day, thus the Comstock Law. In a sense, this law depicted all that is contrary to

perceived American ideals, implicitly arguing that citizens need to be protected from their own
deviant impulses.
Once again, the invisible hand behind the law is this idea that citizens need to act in a
moral (a la religiously appropriate) way and deviating from that leads to the revocation of basic
rights. Religion can and has empowered people throughout history and is not a bad entity.
However, when contorted to exclude instead of include, subjugate instead of empower, and
chastise instead of love, religion can repress society through fallacious proselytization and
institutional discrimination as it does in this case. Religion stunts social progress and it is a
pitiable offense as the people of 19th century America had to live in fear and shame of their sins
instead of embracing the joys of unrestrained sexuality and the love a man and woman can share
together. Instead, repression won the day, and one cant help but wonder in our current fractious
society if we are still paying for the sins of our authoritarian, sexually demonizing past.

Works Cited
Horowitz, Helen L. (2006) Attitudes Toward Sex in Antebellum America: A Brief History
with Documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins.