Sin and sex Study notes
Study Notes Robert Briffault’s Sin and Sex
Robert Briffault’s Sin and Sex, published in 1931 with an introduction by Bertrand Russell, is a bold attempt to dismantle inherited prejudices about sexuality and morality. Briffault, a French‑born British anthropologist and social critic, argues that ethical opinions must be grounded in reason and science, not in tradition or religious taboo. His book is both polemical and scholarly, blending anthropology with social critique to expose the contradictions of Western sexual morality.
At the heart of Briffault’s message is the claim that sexual values are distorted by coercive morality. He critiques Christian sexophobia, which equates sex with sin, and Puritanism, which represses natural instincts under the guise of virtue. For Briffault, these traditions are not eternal truths but cultural constructions that have stifled human freedom. He insists that morality should evolve with knowledge, and that science provides new evidence for understanding sexuality as a natural, positive force.
The book’s structure moves from general reflections on morals and taboos to specific critiques of marriage laws, asceticism, and the emancipation of women. Briffault exposes the injustices of patriarchal marriage, where women are bound by coercive rules, and calls for sex justice — fairness in sexual relations that respects both partners. He also predicts the collapse of rigid moral codes, envisioning a future where sexuality is liberated from prejudice and aligned with human dignity.
Briffault’s background as a surgeon and anthropologist shaped his approach. He was deeply influenced by comparative studies of societies, especially matriarchal cultures, which he explored in his earlier work The Mothers. In Sin and Sex, he applies this anthropological lens to Western society, showing that what is often considered “natural” morality is in fact historical and contingent. His critique is sharpened by Russell’s introduction, which endorses Briffault’s rationalist project as a necessary step toward freeing ethics from superstition.
Critics of the time were divided. Progressive readers praised the book’s courage and clarity, while conservative reviewers condemned it as an attack on Christian values. Yet even detractors acknowledged its intellectual force. Today, Sin and Sex stands as part of the early 20th‑century debate on sexuality, alongside the works of Havelock Ellis and Freud, marking a turning point in the history of sexual ethics.
Robert Briffault’s Sin and Sex is both a critique of repression and a vision of liberation.
It challenges readers to see sexuality not as sin but as a natural, vital part of human life. By exposing the contradictions of coercive morality and advocating for reason, science, and justice, Briffault’s book remains a landmark in the intellectual history of sex and society
Robert Briffault treats Islam and the Abrahamic religions as part of a wider tradition of coercive morality.
He argues that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all inherited taboos that equate sex with sin, suppress natural instincts, and enforce patriarchal marriage. His critique is comparative: he sees these religions as variations of the same moral system, rooted in asceticism and fear of sexuality.
Briffault on Abrahamic Religions
-Common heritage: Briffault stresses that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam share a moral framework that treats sex as dangerous and sinful. He traces this to early Hebrew taboos and ascetic ideals that later spread through Christianity and Islam.
- Sexophobia: He coins the idea of “Christian sexophobia” but applies it broadly to Abrahamic faiths. Sexual pleasure is condemned, chastity exalted, and women’s bodies treated as sources of temptation.
- Ascetic inheritance: He argues that asceticism, originally a minority practice, became institutionalized in all three religions. Monastic ideals in Christianity, strict modesty codes in Islam, and purity laws in Judaism are seen as parallel expressions of repression.
- Marriage and coercion: Briffault criticizes patriarchal marriage laws across the Abrahamic spectrum. He highlights how women are subordinated, sexuality is controlled, and legal systems enforce male authority.
- Religion vs. science: He insists that these traditions are not eternal truths but cultural constructs. Modern science and anthropology, he argues, reveal sexuality as natural and positive, undermining religious taboos.
Briffault on Islam
- Islamic morality: Briffault sees Islam as continuing the Judaic‑Christian tradition of sexual suppression. He points to strict modesty codes, segregation of sexes, and patriarchal marriage as examples of coercive morality.
- Polygamy and patriarchy: He critiques Islamic polygamy as reinforcing male dominance, though he notes it is legally regulated compared to Western hypocrisy about adultery.
- Ascetic ideals: He compares Islamic asceticism (fasting, sexual restraint, modesty) with Christian monasticism, arguing both are rooted in fear of desire.
- Continuity with Judaism and Christianity: For Briffault, Islam is not unique but part of the same Abrahamic moral system — differing in details but united in repressing sexuality.
Critical Perspective
- Briffault’s critique is historical and anthropological, not theological. He does not attack faith itself but the moral codes that restrict sexual freedom.
- His view is sympathetic to human instincts: he believes repression harms individuals and societies.
- Critics at the time accused him of oversimplifying religion and ignoring spiritual dimensions, but his work was influential in early 20th‑century debates on sex and morality.
Briffault’s Sin and Sex presents Islam, Judaism, and Christianity as branches of the same coercive moral tradition. He sees their sexual ethics as rooted in fear, asceticism, and patriarchal control, and argues that modern science should replace these beliefs.
Quote by The author
To any reader who feels inclined to indulge in indignation at any of the contents of the following pages, I would suggest that his emotion is evidence of his unreason and of the importance of attempts to teach him to view traditional tabus calmly. If two men dis- agree as to whether Egypt or India was the source of civilization, this is not taken as evidence of the depravity of either, but if they disagree as to the chastity of ancient Egyptian women, this is taken to prove that one of them is a lewd fellow.
In the same manner as savage humanity substitutes supernatural agencies for natural causes, magic procedures for intelligent provisions and devices, irrational means for rational ones, so the rules of conduct to which it attaches the greatest importance are founded upon categorical imperatives and not on justice or consideration for human welfare. Its point of view thus corresponds to that of the ancient Jews, and is, like the latter's, the opposite of the point of view of the ancient Greeks.
As the Jews attached greater importance to the observance of the Sabbath than to abstention from murder, so all savages attach greater importance to superstitious tabus than to principles of justice.
Principles of conduct that rest on superstition always go a great deal farther than is required by any rational justification in support of them. The reason is, of course, that rational justification is an afterthought and superstition the true purpose of the principle. When asked what the purpose of traditional sexual morality is, most people nowadays, instead of saying that the condemnation of unchastity depends upon the fact that our bodies are the Temple of the Holy Ghost, would say that its purpose is to safeguard the sanctity of monogamic marriage.
The tabus of sex-morality, as currently established in Western tradition, falls into two distinct classes. There are restrictions on actual sexual conduct, the prohibition of adultery, and fornication. On the other hand, there are a host of restrictions and prohibitions that have no direct reference to actual sexual conduct but are said to refer to the maintenance of decency and purity. Obviously, the scope of the two classes of restrictions differs widely
That dilemma was, as is well known, solved by the ancient Greeks by subdividing womankind into two sharply distinct classes, and by having both virtuous wives and accomplished, natural, and unvirtuous companions.It has been solved down to our time in a similiar manner by supplementing patriarchal marriage with prostitution.
But while the Greek companion was accomplished and honoured, the Christian prostitute is a miserable and debased thing which inspires a pity more incompatible with sexual fulfilment than the most accomplished pattern of patriarchal virtue.