J:
Rabbi Civil War chaplains:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/rabbi-chaplains-of-the-civil-war/#
Jewish-American Parents deal with media's Christmas inundation:
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_holidays/2008/12/oy_hark.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_like_toolbar&fb_source=profile_oneline
On the values Orthodoxy should espouse:
http://morethodoxy.org/2011/12/08/no-apologies-just-true-orthodoxy-by-rabbi-asher-lopatin/
More on that topic:
http://joshyuter.com/2011/12/06/judaism/the-selective-sanctimony-of-orthodox-judaism/
S/G:
On hurtful words involving weight:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-houghton/weight-loss_b_1133729.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
The secret to marital success:
http://jezebel.com/5866475/the-secret-to-marital-success-is-not-being-a-dick?popular=true
Funny Hebrew clip about couple-dom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1ptYKQPXHQ&feature=share
A 12-14 is featured as a plus-size model, and this is news (apparently the average plus-size model is actually size 10-12, whereas the average woman in America is anywhere from size 10-14). I think 12-14 sized-women should be able to be non-plus size models, and the plus-size industry should use women who are actually plus-sized to be their models, but still think the featuring of a woman with curves in Glamour is a step in the right direction:
http://feelgoodstyle.com/2011/12/05/lizzie-miller/
JSG:
Upcoming shabbaton sponsored by Jewish Orthodox group:
http://www.eshelonline.org/shabbaton
On spilling of seed in married sexual relationship:
http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2010/11/guilt-free-marital-intimacy-spilling.html
More on the YU sex story scandal:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/nyregion/yeshiva-university-stunned-by-tale-of-a-tryst.html?_r=1&src=tp&smid=fb-share
and more:
http://topnews.ae/content/210062-yeshiva-university-s-students-cause-stir-over-premarital-sex-article
Monday, December 12, 2011
Friday, December 9, 2011
Misjudging
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203413304577086981940609346.html?mod=WSJ_NY_MIDDLETopStories
Apparently I misjudged YU: They cut funding because so many students were offended. I don't think cutting funding from a newspaper because they publish one article that upsets students is healthy though, especially since maybe part of college is having newspapers that publish controversial or upsetting articles - as long as those articles are not specifically attacking a group of people, I don't think funding should be cut. Attacking groups of people, is of course unacceptable (and by attacking I don't mean an intelligent critique of a frat party, I mean a "frat bros are stupid" type of article), and funding should be cut from said groups. Having a literary peice in which someone acts contrary to students' values however, is not reason to cut off funding - whether the peice was autobiography or fiction, people are allowed to either a) confess to acting differently than you think they should have or b) write fiction in which characters act differently than your moral code mandates.
If the student body is upset about that, its their problem, and we should ask ourselves what we are doing that an MO student body can't stomach seeing a possibly-fictive story in which someone breaks halacha.
Apparently I misjudged YU: They cut funding because so many students were offended. I don't think cutting funding from a newspaper because they publish one article that upsets students is healthy though, especially since maybe part of college is having newspapers that publish controversial or upsetting articles - as long as those articles are not specifically attacking a group of people, I don't think funding should be cut. Attacking groups of people, is of course unacceptable (and by attacking I don't mean an intelligent critique of a frat party, I mean a "frat bros are stupid" type of article), and funding should be cut from said groups. Having a literary peice in which someone acts contrary to students' values however, is not reason to cut off funding - whether the peice was autobiography or fiction, people are allowed to either a) confess to acting differently than you think they should have or b) write fiction in which characters act differently than your moral code mandates.
If the student body is upset about that, its their problem, and we should ask ourselves what we are doing that an MO student body can't stomach seeing a possibly-fictive story in which someone breaks halacha.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Judaism Post - yay!
I am currently reading "The French Revolution and Human Rights: A Documentary History", edited by Lynn Hunt*.
I saw this quote by the Abbe Reynal, which really struck a chord with me: "But in man, liberty is the principle of his vices or his virtues. None but a free man can say I will or I won't, and consequently none but a free man can be worthy of praise or be liable to censure. Without liberty or the property of one's own body, and the enjoyment of one's mind, no man can be either a husband, a father, a relation, or a friend. He has neither country, a fellow citizen, or a God."
This passage reminded me a lot of Maimonidean theology, in which the institution of positive and negative commandments, with reward and punishment, is predicated on humanity's free will: If human does not have freedom of choice, there is no point in commanding him anything, since he can not control his actions - if he is going to murder, he is going to murder, and commanding him otherwise won't change anything. Instituting punishment and reward over a person who has not control of his actions makes no sense either, and of course, in such a case, obeying the commandments could not be taken as a sign of one's obedience to God or desire to have a relationship with God, since it was not a choice. Essentially, Maimonides takes the very existence of commandments with rewards and punishments attached as proof of humanity's free will.
It is interesting the scientce zealots sometimes impute humans to not have freedom, because their actions are mostly due to biology - mostly DNA and psychological conditions - that prevent their being able to control their actions. There was recently a case where a person tried to defend themself by arguing they were on a sugar high and thus not responsible for their actions when the crime occurred. To deny a person agency, as these zealots (a very small minority) do, is to deny them freedom, according to the Abbe Reynal.
I was also struck by his comments on the slave not having a family and not having a God: Studies show that the enslavement of Africans in the New World tore apart family structures within the slave community, and I keep on thinking of Shemot, when Pharaoh tells the midwives to kill the babies, and then instructs the nation to throw them into the sea, as well as the exegesis that following decree B, the men did not want to have babies, but the women insisted on having sex with their husbands, and babies naturally followed. I wonder if these stories are all hinting at the human truth that the institution of slavery destroys the family life and natural reproduction cycles of those enslaved - In the Carribean and South America, for example, there was lack of reproduction and carrying babies to term due to hard labor conditions and malnutrition, as well as high infant mortality because mothers could not care properly for babies. Sometimes mothers or midwives also killed babies in birth, making it look like an accident, to rebel against the master and save their child from a life they viewed as unbearable. While it is impossible to extrapolate from one society to another, since Egypt of the Exodus is described as a slave society, it is possible to speculate that family life was disrupted in ways similiar to the slave society of the Carribean and parts of Latin America, which is a more modern and better documented example of a slave society.
I was also struck by the slave-not-having-a-God line, because in the Exodus, God frees the Israelites from slavery so that they may serve him, recognizing that they can not do so when they are enslaved, since their bodies and time belong to human masters. The emphasis in the Passover seder is not just on physical freedom, but on that freedom being a means that enables one to worship God properly, and without which one could not worship Him.**
I find it fascinating when modern (and yes, the French Revolution is usually used to denote the start of modernity, though this document does slightly proceed the revolution itself) philosophy intersects so nicely with Jewish theology.
Related Links:
Here is the Raynal writing: http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/278/
Here is a short article on medieval Jewish theology: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Theology/Free_Will/Responses/Medieval.shtml
* This does not help my attempts to disprove those who label me a nerdette.
** Used because English has no gender neutral pronoun. I do use Her sometimes, as well. I used to use HimHer, but it reminded me too much of Siva statues that engender both sexes, so I stopped. This Siva is called the Ardhanarishvara. Here is the brittanica definition: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/33339/Ardhanarishvara
and an image from the Met: http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/60006130
I saw this quote by the Abbe Reynal, which really struck a chord with me: "But in man, liberty is the principle of his vices or his virtues. None but a free man can say I will or I won't, and consequently none but a free man can be worthy of praise or be liable to censure. Without liberty or the property of one's own body, and the enjoyment of one's mind, no man can be either a husband, a father, a relation, or a friend. He has neither country, a fellow citizen, or a God."
This passage reminded me a lot of Maimonidean theology, in which the institution of positive and negative commandments, with reward and punishment, is predicated on humanity's free will: If human does not have freedom of choice, there is no point in commanding him anything, since he can not control his actions - if he is going to murder, he is going to murder, and commanding him otherwise won't change anything. Instituting punishment and reward over a person who has not control of his actions makes no sense either, and of course, in such a case, obeying the commandments could not be taken as a sign of one's obedience to God or desire to have a relationship with God, since it was not a choice. Essentially, Maimonides takes the very existence of commandments with rewards and punishments attached as proof of humanity's free will.
It is interesting the scientce zealots sometimes impute humans to not have freedom, because their actions are mostly due to biology - mostly DNA and psychological conditions - that prevent their being able to control their actions. There was recently a case where a person tried to defend themself by arguing they were on a sugar high and thus not responsible for their actions when the crime occurred. To deny a person agency, as these zealots (a very small minority) do, is to deny them freedom, according to the Abbe Reynal.
I was also struck by his comments on the slave not having a family and not having a God: Studies show that the enslavement of Africans in the New World tore apart family structures within the slave community, and I keep on thinking of Shemot, when Pharaoh tells the midwives to kill the babies, and then instructs the nation to throw them into the sea, as well as the exegesis that following decree B, the men did not want to have babies, but the women insisted on having sex with their husbands, and babies naturally followed. I wonder if these stories are all hinting at the human truth that the institution of slavery destroys the family life and natural reproduction cycles of those enslaved - In the Carribean and South America, for example, there was lack of reproduction and carrying babies to term due to hard labor conditions and malnutrition, as well as high infant mortality because mothers could not care properly for babies. Sometimes mothers or midwives also killed babies in birth, making it look like an accident, to rebel against the master and save their child from a life they viewed as unbearable. While it is impossible to extrapolate from one society to another, since Egypt of the Exodus is described as a slave society, it is possible to speculate that family life was disrupted in ways similiar to the slave society of the Carribean and parts of Latin America, which is a more modern and better documented example of a slave society.
I was also struck by the slave-not-having-a-God line, because in the Exodus, God frees the Israelites from slavery so that they may serve him, recognizing that they can not do so when they are enslaved, since their bodies and time belong to human masters. The emphasis in the Passover seder is not just on physical freedom, but on that freedom being a means that enables one to worship God properly, and without which one could not worship Him.**
I find it fascinating when modern (and yes, the French Revolution is usually used to denote the start of modernity, though this document does slightly proceed the revolution itself) philosophy intersects so nicely with Jewish theology.
Related Links:
Here is the Raynal writing: http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/278/
Here is a short article on medieval Jewish theology: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Theology/Free_Will/Responses/Medieval.shtml
* This does not help my attempts to disprove those who label me a nerdette.
** Used because English has no gender neutral pronoun. I do use Her sometimes, as well. I used to use HimHer, but it reminded me too much of Siva statues that engender both sexes, so I stopped. This Siva is called the Ardhanarishvara. Here is the brittanica definition: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/33339/Ardhanarishvara
and an image from the Met: http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/60006130
PS To Esther Post
Rape within marriage is another concept recognized by Jewish law that the modern world is still coming to terms to. Summed up beautifully in a paragraph lifted from this article: http://www.yuobserver.com/features/the-jewish-perspective-on-sexuality-1.2470356#.TuFGjF3XI24
"What exactly is part of the man's mitzva of onah? He must begin by conversing with his wife, utilizing light, easy, loving words, of praise or otherwise (Brachot 62a notes that Rav chatted lightly and joked with his wife before having intimacy) (Friedman 90). He should hug and kiss her and otherwise "please his wife and arouse love between the" per R' Yaakov Emden (Friedman 92), be physically close to her while unclothed and even after intercourse, he should "continue to chat lightly and lovingly with her in order that she not think that his whole intent in speaking this way earlier was for the sake of his own pleasure" per the Damesek Eliezer (Friedman 83). It goes without saying that a man should not force his wife to be intimate with him if she does not wish it; indeed, "[e]ven if she is unwilling to have intimacy simply because she is temporarily angry with him or she happens not to be inclined at the time to have intimacy, he must not force her and have intercourse with her against her will while she fears him.And even if, after having just had intercourse, he wants to have intercourse again and she is not agreeable to it, it is forbidden (see Eruvin 100b)," per R. Yeshaya A. Z. Margaliot (Friedman 60). The same concept is reiterated by the Magen Avraham, Ravad, Rami b. Chami and Meiri."
"What exactly is part of the man's mitzva of onah? He must begin by conversing with his wife, utilizing light, easy, loving words, of praise or otherwise (Brachot 62a notes that Rav chatted lightly and joked with his wife before having intimacy) (Friedman 90). He should hug and kiss her and otherwise "please his wife and arouse love between the" per R' Yaakov Emden (Friedman 92), be physically close to her while unclothed and even after intercourse, he should "continue to chat lightly and lovingly with her in order that she not think that his whole intent in speaking this way earlier was for the sake of his own pleasure" per the Damesek Eliezer (Friedman 83). It goes without saying that a man should not force his wife to be intimate with him if she does not wish it; indeed, "[e]ven if she is unwilling to have intimacy simply because she is temporarily angry with him or she happens not to be inclined at the time to have intimacy, he must not force her and have intercourse with her against her will while she fears him.And even if, after having just had intercourse, he wants to have intercourse again and she is not agreeable to it, it is forbidden (see Eruvin 100b)," per R. Yeshaya A. Z. Margaliot (Friedman 60). The same concept is reiterated by the Magen Avraham, Ravad, Rami b. Chami and Meiri."
Beacon scandal
Apparently there is a mini-scandal at YU: http://blog.newvoices.org/?p=10070
A story about a girl meeting a man at a hotel for sex in a YU-sponsored student site has been removed, and the site might lose YU funding. The story appears in a section of the site reserved for literay expression, whether fictional or otherwise. I don't know if its true, but if YU is removing it because it assumes that this is a true story or will be perceived as such, then I am truly troubled, because I think the assumption that personal life info can be gleaned from fiction stories can inhibit Orthodox writers. On the other hand, I understand YU's thinking: They don't want a reputation where Stern girls are presumed to be sexually active - both because that would mean admitting that segments of the student body do not conform to the school's ideology, which can be seen as a failure on the school's part, and because YU already has to face a right-wing critique of their institutional frumkeit, and this adds fuel to the fire. Still, I think having a frank discussion about sexuality at YU might be the healthiest reaction, because censoring this article (apparently the site self-censored) won't make the reality that some Stern girls spend nights with guys - a reality this story speaks to, even if it is fictional - go away. I also do think if the story were pornographic, YU would be within its rights to pull funding - any university has the right to choose not to fund literary porn.
YU has had articles about sex in Kol Hamevaser and the Observer (I don't read the Commentator) and it did have the panel on homosexuality in the Orthodox world - but it also had major backlash from within the YU establishment about that panel.
I found this intelligent Obsrver article on sex: http://www.yuobserver.com/science-health/this-too-is-torah-and-i-must-learn-1.2470380#.TuFu7EpqM4Z
and am linking to the author's blog, with her take on the current scandal and more of her sex-related-articles: http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2011/12/yu-beacon-piece-on-sexuality.html
Here is the full scandal-causing story: http://yubeacon.com/2011/12/the__written_word/how-do-i-even-begin-to-explain-this/
A story about a girl meeting a man at a hotel for sex in a YU-sponsored student site has been removed, and the site might lose YU funding. The story appears in a section of the site reserved for literay expression, whether fictional or otherwise. I don't know if its true, but if YU is removing it because it assumes that this is a true story or will be perceived as such, then I am truly troubled, because I think the assumption that personal life info can be gleaned from fiction stories can inhibit Orthodox writers. On the other hand, I understand YU's thinking: They don't want a reputation where Stern girls are presumed to be sexually active - both because that would mean admitting that segments of the student body do not conform to the school's ideology, which can be seen as a failure on the school's part, and because YU already has to face a right-wing critique of their institutional frumkeit, and this adds fuel to the fire. Still, I think having a frank discussion about sexuality at YU might be the healthiest reaction, because censoring this article (apparently the site self-censored) won't make the reality that some Stern girls spend nights with guys - a reality this story speaks to, even if it is fictional - go away. I also do think if the story were pornographic, YU would be within its rights to pull funding - any university has the right to choose not to fund literary porn.
YU has had articles about sex in Kol Hamevaser and the Observer (I don't read the Commentator) and it did have the panel on homosexuality in the Orthodox world - but it also had major backlash from within the YU establishment about that panel.
I found this intelligent Obsrver article on sex: http://www.yuobserver.com/science-health/this-too-is-torah-and-i-must-learn-1.2470380#.TuFu7EpqM4Z
and am linking to the author's blog, with her take on the current scandal and more of her sex-related-articles: http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2011/12/yu-beacon-piece-on-sexuality.html
Here is the full scandal-causing story: http://yubeacon.com/2011/12/the__written_word/how-do-i-even-begin-to-explain-this/
If you're wondering what to buy me for Chanukah...
Books on S&G: http://www.amazon.com/registry/wishlist/TCRX2L2UE52G/ref=cm_sw_r_fa_ws_Kah4ob0F2A97F
Books on J: http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5783162298825007520
Also, some cut gender articles - nothing too serious:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-pearce-rotondi/flexible-work-schedules_b_1134259.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/02/new_york_by_the_numbers_the_de.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/04/ivy_league_students_want_to_ha.html
This one's a bit more serious - trends on shemirat negiah at YU - an unscientific poll and an intelligent opinion: http://blog.newvoices.org/?p=9595
Books on J: http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5783162298825007520
Also, some cut gender articles - nothing too serious:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-pearce-rotondi/flexible-work-schedules_b_1134259.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/02/new_york_by_the_numbers_the_de.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/04/ivy_league_students_want_to_ha.html
This one's a bit more serious - trends on shemirat negiah at YU - an unscientific poll and an intelligent opinion: http://blog.newvoices.org/?p=9595
Esther
I was recently thinking about the midrash that Esther lay "still as the ground", which is the reason she was not responsible for committing adultery by sleeping with Achashveirosh (according to this midrash, Esther was married to Mordechai).
I find this fascinating on a few levels:
1. The midrash is assuming if a woman lies still and expresses passive resistance, she is not responsible for the sex that occurs, because she was forced into it - ie raped. The idea that rape victims who do not physically fight back against their agressors are still rape victims and their lack of physically attacking the rapis is not evidence they subconsciously wanted the sex, is one that modern society is still coming to terms with.
2. No mention is made of nidah - does this mean that when the rabbis say "giluy arayot", sexual impropriety, is one of the three negative commandments one must die for if given an ultimatum (the other two are idol worship and murder)* they only mean adultery, and that violating nidah to save one's life, despite its deoraita status, would be ok?
That is an interesting question, because I know many Orthodox people who beleive that since shemirat negiah today involves women not going to mikvah, one would hypothetically have to die rather than violate shomer laws, since violating them would involve intimate physical contact with the opposite sex while the woman is in nidah. (These people beleive it is a deoraita law that there be no sexual touching or foreplay between two members of the opposite sex while the woman is in nidah - the deoraita-ness of the anti-foreplay-in-nidah laws are a machloket Rambam-Ramban - Rambam beleives they are deoraita.)
* I love the equality of rabbinic reasoning: You can't kill an innocent person to avoid being killed, because who are you to say you deserve life more than they do? We're all equal. You can kill someone in self-defense though - so if someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night, you can kill them, because you can assume they might be willing to kill you in order to rob you, and are entitled to kill them before they get the chance to kill you. The person gives up their right to immunity when they choose to engage in the harmful action - thus, your right to kill them is a direct result of their choices - this is a system based on personal responsibility.
I find this fascinating on a few levels:
1. The midrash is assuming if a woman lies still and expresses passive resistance, she is not responsible for the sex that occurs, because she was forced into it - ie raped. The idea that rape victims who do not physically fight back against their agressors are still rape victims and their lack of physically attacking the rapis is not evidence they subconsciously wanted the sex, is one that modern society is still coming to terms with.
2. No mention is made of nidah - does this mean that when the rabbis say "giluy arayot", sexual impropriety, is one of the three negative commandments one must die for if given an ultimatum (the other two are idol worship and murder)* they only mean adultery, and that violating nidah to save one's life, despite its deoraita status, would be ok?
That is an interesting question, because I know many Orthodox people who beleive that since shemirat negiah today involves women not going to mikvah, one would hypothetically have to die rather than violate shomer laws, since violating them would involve intimate physical contact with the opposite sex while the woman is in nidah. (These people beleive it is a deoraita law that there be no sexual touching or foreplay between two members of the opposite sex while the woman is in nidah - the deoraita-ness of the anti-foreplay-in-nidah laws are a machloket Rambam-Ramban - Rambam beleives they are deoraita.)
* I love the equality of rabbinic reasoning: You can't kill an innocent person to avoid being killed, because who are you to say you deserve life more than they do? We're all equal. You can kill someone in self-defense though - so if someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night, you can kill them, because you can assume they might be willing to kill you in order to rob you, and are entitled to kill them before they get the chance to kill you. The person gives up their right to immunity when they choose to engage in the harmful action - thus, your right to kill them is a direct result of their choices - this is a system based on personal responsibility.
Monday, December 5, 2011
On a roll...a procrastination roll, that is
Apparently H&M uses computer-images as bodies and pastes on heads. At least it fessed up. If more people were aware of the extent to which these 'perfect' model bodies are actually computer modified or even computer generated, there'd be less pressure to have such a body - but what does it say about the industry that real women's bodies aren't "good" enough to use as models?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/05/hm-fake-model-bodies_n_1129864.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
On Ortho fashion:
http://www.frumsatire.net/2011/11/30/orthodox-dress-gets-sexy/
why feminists need to support men:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-reynolds/why-we-need-to-support-me_b_1127886.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
Judaism and Tgiving:
http://www.jewcy.com/religion-and-beliefs/the-craigslist-mitzvah-of-thanksgiving\
a frida painting for ur enjoyment:
http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=78333
ridiculousness:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/05/mark-curran-7-year-old-un_n_1130001.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/05/hm-fake-model-bodies_n_1129864.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
On Ortho fashion:
http://www.frumsatire.net/2011/11/30/orthodox-dress-gets-sexy/
why feminists need to support men:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-reynolds/why-we-need-to-support-me_b_1127886.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
Judaism and Tgiving:
http://www.jewcy.com/religion-and-beliefs/the-craigslist-mitzvah-of-thanksgiving\
a frida painting for ur enjoyment:
http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=78333
ridiculousness:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/05/mark-curran-7-year-old-un_n_1130001.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
Jerry Sandusky
There is currently a big deal being made of Jerry Sandusky's having admitted he was attracted to young boys for a minute, before his lawyer made him correct himself.
The ruckus surrounding this admission completely misses the point: It is irrelevant whether or not Sandusky was or is attracted to young boys. People are entitled to feel whatever they want; it is their actions that must be regulated. It does not matter whether or not Sandusky was attracted to young boys - it matters whether or not he acted on his attractions. The "being attracted to young people = molesting them" assumption implicit in this scandal over the sexual-attraction statement is dangerous, in that it assumes people are unable to control their sexual urges and thus deprives them of agency, while providing a potential excuse for rapists in the future - one could claim his sexual attraction is only to people he (or she) coerces, and that because it is impossible not to act on one's sexual desires, s/he just couldn't help her or himself.
As a matter of fact, studies show biology may play a role in attraction to young people - the extent to which this attraction is nature vs nurture is up for debate, but some studies do put pedophilia as a biologically pre-determined sexuality. I would urge anyone with such an attraction to seek therapy. There are two routes this could take: one is to try to change one's attraction patterns, though I believe that is generally hard to do, and the guilt involved might drive one to unethical acts. The second is to learn how to healthfully control those urges and not act on them, an ability that, paradoxically, might be based on a self-acceptance that accepts one's sexual attractions. I believe the second type of therapy should be available to anyone who does not wish to act on their sexual attractions due to ethical or religious reasons (as opposed to, say, having a psychological issue that prevents one from acting on one's desires, which requires a different type of therapy), such as monks/nuns or homosexual people who do not wish to be sexually active for religious reasons. But in the case of a pedophile, I would argue such therapy is necessary, as opposed to optional, lest children be hurt - only, it will never be legally mandatory because for that to happen, the government would have to invade people's brains to find out their sexual identities, like in some sort of zombie version of 1984.
As an aside, I know most therapies as of now are unsuccessful with pedophiles, but most focus on changing a pedophile's attraction habits (as in aversion therapy) and/or encouraging them to pursue adult relationships, as opposed to urging them to accept themselves, including their attraction, but merely learn how to manage said attraction.
The ruckus surrounding this admission completely misses the point: It is irrelevant whether or not Sandusky was or is attracted to young boys. People are entitled to feel whatever they want; it is their actions that must be regulated. It does not matter whether or not Sandusky was attracted to young boys - it matters whether or not he acted on his attractions. The "being attracted to young people = molesting them" assumption implicit in this scandal over the sexual-attraction statement is dangerous, in that it assumes people are unable to control their sexual urges and thus deprives them of agency, while providing a potential excuse for rapists in the future - one could claim his sexual attraction is only to people he (or she) coerces, and that because it is impossible not to act on one's sexual desires, s/he just couldn't help her or himself.
As a matter of fact, studies show biology may play a role in attraction to young people - the extent to which this attraction is nature vs nurture is up for debate, but some studies do put pedophilia as a biologically pre-determined sexuality. I would urge anyone with such an attraction to seek therapy. There are two routes this could take: one is to try to change one's attraction patterns, though I believe that is generally hard to do, and the guilt involved might drive one to unethical acts. The second is to learn how to healthfully control those urges and not act on them, an ability that, paradoxically, might be based on a self-acceptance that accepts one's sexual attractions. I believe the second type of therapy should be available to anyone who does not wish to act on their sexual attractions due to ethical or religious reasons (as opposed to, say, having a psychological issue that prevents one from acting on one's desires, which requires a different type of therapy), such as monks/nuns or homosexual people who do not wish to be sexually active for religious reasons. But in the case of a pedophile, I would argue such therapy is necessary, as opposed to optional, lest children be hurt - only, it will never be legally mandatory because for that to happen, the government would have to invade people's brains to find out their sexual identities, like in some sort of zombie version of 1984.
As an aside, I know most therapies as of now are unsuccessful with pedophiles, but most focus on changing a pedophile's attraction habits (as in aversion therapy) and/or encouraging them to pursue adult relationships, as opposed to urging them to accept themselves, including their attraction, but merely learn how to manage said attraction.
On Herman Cain
Unless you've been sheltered in an internet-less caccoon for the past month (which is not a bad idea), you've probably heard that Herman Cain was accused of harassing women, using his position of power to try to get women to perform sexual acts for promotions (an embodiment of the cliched line: "I'll give you a raise if you give me one"), and finally, was accused of having a 13-year-consensual affair, while being married to Mrs. Cain.
It is the last accusation that did him in, even though his numbers had been going down ever since the sexual harrasment allegations came out. Does this say something about American society's attitude towards sex: Namely, that sexual harrasment is tolerated in a candidate, but infidelity is not? Does it say that we still disbeleive women who claim to have been harrassed, whereas when a woman claims a consensual affair, we trust her, and finally get it through our heads that this man's been involved in sexual misconduct? Or does it say nothing - was it merely the cummulative effect of these allegations that punctured the balloon, and the consensual scandal happens to be the last domino to have fallen - had the affair come out, followed by the harrasment allegations, the same thing would have happened - namely, that he would have needed both types of allegations to destroy the campaign? But what does it say about our society that he needed both types of allegations, that the alleged sexual harrasment scandal wasn't enough to force him to quit, that he could still have a campaign for his ex-mistress to destroy?
Moral of the story: Don't have affairs or harrass people if you want to run for president. Actually, just don't have affairs or harrass people, period.
It is the last accusation that did him in, even though his numbers had been going down ever since the sexual harrasment allegations came out. Does this say something about American society's attitude towards sex: Namely, that sexual harrasment is tolerated in a candidate, but infidelity is not? Does it say that we still disbeleive women who claim to have been harrassed, whereas when a woman claims a consensual affair, we trust her, and finally get it through our heads that this man's been involved in sexual misconduct? Or does it say nothing - was it merely the cummulative effect of these allegations that punctured the balloon, and the consensual scandal happens to be the last domino to have fallen - had the affair come out, followed by the harrasment allegations, the same thing would have happened - namely, that he would have needed both types of allegations to destroy the campaign? But what does it say about our society that he needed both types of allegations, that the alleged sexual harrasment scandal wasn't enough to force him to quit, that he could still have a campaign for his ex-mistress to destroy?
Moral of the story: Don't have affairs or harrass people if you want to run for president. Actually, just don't have affairs or harrass people, period.
Niddah and Agency
I see the rabbi's ban on single women immersing in mikvah as a way to deprive them of sexual agency. As if I needed further proof, here is a quote from Rabbi Yehuda Henkin, who discusses whether or not a single woman may go to mikvah before Yom Kippur : 'Sdey Chemed, maarechet Yom Hakiporim (No. 1, 6), prohibited unmarried women from immersing before YK lest this lead to sexual license: Having been purified from the status of niddah, and with the threat of karet removed, they would be more likely to sin". (Responsa on Contemporay Jewish issues, p. 82)Rabbi Henkin concludes a single woman may immerse before YK,
Of course, if the rabbis don't trust women, why do they trust married women to count days, to ceck themselves and to immerse - as the Talmud clearly does, as evident from its discussion about hefsek taharot? I am not sure.
Thinking further however, I realized that the Biblical prohibitions on sex during Nidah are all framed in ways that give men the sexual agency:
Vayikra 18:19 says:
19 And thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is in the tumah of nidah
Vayikra 20:18 says:
18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness--he hath made naked her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood--both of them shall be cut off from among their people...
In the first case, the agency is the man's alone - he is prohibited from sleeping with the woman when she is in nidah. In the second case, both the man and the woman have agency, and both are punished.
It is interesting then, that rabbinic literature focuses on women's agency in the practice of nidah; They are the ones charged with counting, checking, etc., and it is considered one of the "women's mitzvot'. Similarly, halachik literature seems to focus more on women being punished for transgressing nidah than it does on men transgressing by sleeping with said women.
This agency within the realm of nidah however, is Talmudic in nature. The disempowering elements regarding these halachot - both the negative rhetoric about women's bodies and the prohibition on single women immersing, which disempowers women by circumscribing the times in their lives they can practice hilchot nidah, and the sexual freedom that comes from such practice - are post-Talmudic, reflecting a trend in which earlier proto-feminist voices are subsumed by the patriarchy - a trend examined by Daniel Boyarin in his book "Carnal Israel".
The question for us as modern Jews then becomes: How do we empower women in a way that is still respectful of our tradition - including the patriarchal voices within that tradition, which, whether we like it or not, are a part of our nation's intellectual history, and as such, part of its legal tradition as well?
Words
So as you may know, I am a big believer in the power of words - which is why it bothers me we still use the word "hysteria", based on the Greek word for womb, and based on the concept that wombs cause women to be crazy, ie, hysterical. (Was this man's ancient identification for PMS?)
Recently, I had a discussion about "grabbing life by the balls". This is typical of our male, phallocentric society, so I tried to say "grabbing life by the cunt", but my friend pointed out that that's harder to do, from an anatomical viewpoint. I came up with licking life by the cunt, but then a different friend pointed out that that implies one is giving life sexual pleasure, whereas grabbing life by the balls hurts and does not give sexual pleasure, and then we got into an argument on how hard one is presumed to be grabbing when one uses that metaphor. This led into "copping a feel on life" (which a friend came up with) and "teabagging life" (which I came up with) - which, while still male-centered, is focused on a sexual move that can give both men and women pleasure.
Of course, the entire "life has balls" metaphor is problematic, since we all know life is a bitch - our patriarchal society must define anything chaotic as a woman, since woman is untamable, and it scares them. Then again, there is the possibility that the bitch of life is just a drag queen with really good makeup, so (s)he could have balls after all.
Happy World AIDS Day
Ok, so technically it was December 1st. The best way to celebrate is, of course, to go out and have protected sex.
Also, what is up with the bullying of gay teens in America? The case of Tyler Sclementi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Tyler_Clementi) shocked America, but in fact, there are hundreds of cases each year of LGBTQ teens committing suicide due to bullying - a bullying that occurs specifically because of their sexual or gender identities.
Here is a response to a video by Jonah, a bullied gay teen who made a youtube video:
It's Been A While
Let's start with some shomer negiah satires:
Move on to parenting advice (Of course, not being shomer leads to one's needing parenting advice - if you give a guy a handshake, it's like giving a mouse a cookie. Also, "If you give a mouse a cookie" is a great children's book.)
which leads us to AIDS education in the holy land:
A time when fat was cool:
On mikvah:
To me, this video proves that making people afraid of STDs is a good way to enforce shomer behavior: http://www.slatev.com/video/dear-prudence-help-im-scared-getting-herpes/
This article makes me enraged - a man was deported from Qatar for having HIV:
Movies:
On Sexism and Siri:
Two links courtesy of a friend:
Monday, November 28, 2011
Links Again Again
Here is the official rabbinate response to some of the articles I've posted: http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/israel-s-chief-rabbi-responds-to-haaretz-s-without-the-rabbinate-series-on-orthodox-jews-1.397633
Busting the myth that men think about sex much more than women: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2011/11/28/do_men_really_think_about_sex_more_often_than_women_.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_like_chunky&fb_source=profile_oneline
Distressing news from Israel: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/ngo-says-teenage-prostitution-worsening-in-israel-1.398125#.TtO2_WK71Jo.facebook
More on non-traditional marriages: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-marquardt/get-ready-for-group-marri_b_1064115.html?ref=weddings
Busting the myth that men think about sex much more than women: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2011/11/28/do_men_really_think_about_sex_more_often_than_women_.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_like_chunky&fb_source=profile_oneline
Distressing news from Israel: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/ngo-says-teenage-prostitution-worsening-in-israel-1.398125#.TtO2_WK71Jo.facebook
More on non-traditional marriages: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-marquardt/get-ready-for-group-marri_b_1064115.html?ref=weddings
Books Inspire Blog-posts, I suppose
I've recently been reading "Case Studies in Couple and Family Therapy", edited by Frank M. Dattilio.
I've noticed a pattern: Often, a major source of tension is that different spouses approach the relationship with different expecations, which remain uncommunicated. Thus, spouse A dissapoints spouse B without realizing it, and then can't understand why Spouse B is so upset, since spouse B never made it clear to Spouse A what was expected of him/her in the relationship.
This is one positive aspect of shidduch dating: Ideally, it forces couples to discuss relationship expectations before they commit to marrying each other. Realizing the extent to which expectations remain unverbalized in couples who are already married helped me appreciate why the Catholic Church encourages couples to go to pre-marriage counseling. I wonderf if the OJ model of chatan/kallah classes could be expanded to involve some sort of general class on communication within a marriage/relationship skills, or even have pre-couples counseling with a therapist thought of as an extension of such classes - since after all, a happy marriage is considered important in the Jewish religion, which has many sayings on the importance of "shalom bayit", a healthy family life.
There is this relationship questionnare that some of the couples in therapy filled out: http://psych.fullerton.edu/jstokes/relationships/isrs.htm
I think it would be a great idea when things start getting serious for each person to fill this out, and then compare answers, so you know each other's expectations. I also think the "how satisfied are you this need is being met" part is the least important, since that answer can easily be improved, and part of the reason for a negative answer might be that your partner doesn't realize that you have that need - which will change once you express that need by comparing survey answers. I suppose the thing about this survey, like all serious conversations in a relationship, is when to bring them up - you don't want to go too long without discussing certain things, lest you find yourself in a serious relationship without having discussed them, but at the same time, you don't want to bring things up too early, because a) it can freak the person out b) you are labeling the relationship as something that could be serious - and sometimes labels can choke romance. On the other hand, sometimes they help it grow.
Anyhow, another thing I found interesting is that touching that a man beleives to be affectionate or both affectionate and sexual, is sometimes interpreted by the woman as being purely sexual, which makes her feel used. This makes sense given the different ways that men and women are socialized to think about sex and the opposite gender, but it is still distressing to read.
Just food for thought.
I've noticed a pattern: Often, a major source of tension is that different spouses approach the relationship with different expecations, which remain uncommunicated. Thus, spouse A dissapoints spouse B without realizing it, and then can't understand why Spouse B is so upset, since spouse B never made it clear to Spouse A what was expected of him/her in the relationship.
This is one positive aspect of shidduch dating: Ideally, it forces couples to discuss relationship expectations before they commit to marrying each other. Realizing the extent to which expectations remain unverbalized in couples who are already married helped me appreciate why the Catholic Church encourages couples to go to pre-marriage counseling. I wonderf if the OJ model of chatan/kallah classes could be expanded to involve some sort of general class on communication within a marriage/relationship skills, or even have pre-couples counseling with a therapist thought of as an extension of such classes - since after all, a happy marriage is considered important in the Jewish religion, which has many sayings on the importance of "shalom bayit", a healthy family life.
There is this relationship questionnare that some of the couples in therapy filled out: http://psych.fullerton.edu/jstokes/relationships/isrs.htm
I think it would be a great idea when things start getting serious for each person to fill this out, and then compare answers, so you know each other's expectations. I also think the "how satisfied are you this need is being met" part is the least important, since that answer can easily be improved, and part of the reason for a negative answer might be that your partner doesn't realize that you have that need - which will change once you express that need by comparing survey answers. I suppose the thing about this survey, like all serious conversations in a relationship, is when to bring them up - you don't want to go too long without discussing certain things, lest you find yourself in a serious relationship without having discussed them, but at the same time, you don't want to bring things up too early, because a) it can freak the person out b) you are labeling the relationship as something that could be serious - and sometimes labels can choke romance. On the other hand, sometimes they help it grow.
Anyhow, another thing I found interesting is that touching that a man beleives to be affectionate or both affectionate and sexual, is sometimes interpreted by the woman as being purely sexual, which makes her feel used. This makes sense given the different ways that men and women are socialized to think about sex and the opposite gender, but it is still distressing to read.
Just food for thought.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Links
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-knight/creation-and-evolution_b_1087392.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/parker-j-palmer/america-not-christian-nation_b_1102094.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/25/clergy-battle-porn-addiction_n_1110981.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/satpal-singh/martyrdom-guru-tegh-bahadur-sikh-thanksgiving_b_1109270.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
http://lightsindarkness.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/thanksgiving-with-israelis-and-some-thoughts-on-loving-the-charedi-world/
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_undercover_economist/2006/02/i_do_i_do_i_do_i_do.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/parker-j-palmer/america-not-christian-nation_b_1102094.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/25/clergy-battle-porn-addiction_n_1110981.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/satpal-singh/martyrdom-guru-tegh-bahadur-sikh-thanksgiving_b_1109270.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
http://lightsindarkness.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/thanksgiving-with-israelis-and-some-thoughts-on-loving-the-charedi-world/
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_undercover_economist/2006/02/i_do_i_do_i_do_i_do.html
Semantics Matter
With the Penn State Scandal, there's been a debate in the NY Times about phraseology for describing statutory rape and child molestation: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/opinion/sunday/the-language-of-sexual-assault.html?_r=1&src=tp&smid=fb-share
This has caused me to clarify my postion:
1. I do think there is a difference between molestation and rape.
2. I think there need to be clear definitions of what constitutes rape (as opposed to molestation) - at what physical point of sexual intimacy does something become rape? The definition for this must not be penetration - and hence phallic - based, and must take into account rape where females are the perpetrators, as well as the victims.
3. There should be different words for different types of rape, because if not, it obscures factual differences. Rape measures the magnitude of a sexual crime, but it does not describe exactly what happened.
4. There is a difference between different types of rape: For example, in sex where one doesn't force oneself on a the child physically and where one does, in the first case of child sex, one type of rape occurs, where in the second, two types of rape occur - statutory and physical. This difference also exists with raping adults (ie, getting someone wasted out of their mind is rape, but it is a different type of rape than when they are in their mind and you physically force them, which is different than other types of coercion that can be used to the point where your action is called "rape") I think not having these differences actually prevents people from understanding that there are different types of rape, and its not all the "he forced himself on her while she was walking home" type of story - so then when a situation doesn't fit that story, they assume it cant "really" be rape.
I know that feminists tend to be against labeling different types of rape differently, because "rape is rape", and once you start giving different definitions, society might start classifying some of those definitions as not "real" rape. But the truth is, definining statutory rape, getting a girl roofied, and forcing yourself upon someone all as "rape", without any modifiers, does not prevent society from drawing distinctions and minimizing the first two categories - if anything, society feels the feminists have gone "too far" in equating the three scenarios, which makes them generally resistant to expanding definitions of rape and fighting for victims' rights.
The truth is, that I do beleive in degrees: Murder is a horrible crime, but our society recognizes the difference between first and second-degree murder. This does not mean that our society considers second degree murder acceptable or not "real" murder - if anything, having clear categories helps society to understand different types of murder and how they are all murder. The same can be said of rape: Having one's consciousness taken away and waking up having been slept with is experientally different from the semi-consious state of drunkeness in which you are too weak to resist, which is different from being fully awake, physically resisting, and being physically compelled. I think that the first case is hard to quantify, but the third case is worse than the second, and recognizing that while both are rape, they are different types and degrees of rape, would actually cause more people to accept the second case as rape. It is when you try saying the second case is "as bad" as the third that people intuitely sense that it's not, and then resist calling the second case rape all together - since after all, it's different from the third case. If you called the second case "second-degree rape", people might be more willing to accept the fact that it is really rape, and to treat it as such.
No matter how our society and legal system choose to define and label rape however, it is important to understand that semantics matter, and the time has come for our sociolegal system to have this discussion and take a deeper look at how we define such things.
This has caused me to clarify my postion:
1. I do think there is a difference between molestation and rape.
2. I think there need to be clear definitions of what constitutes rape (as opposed to molestation) - at what physical point of sexual intimacy does something become rape? The definition for this must not be penetration - and hence phallic - based, and must take into account rape where females are the perpetrators, as well as the victims.
3. There should be different words for different types of rape, because if not, it obscures factual differences. Rape measures the magnitude of a sexual crime, but it does not describe exactly what happened.
4. There is a difference between different types of rape: For example, in sex where one doesn't force oneself on a the child physically and where one does, in the first case of child sex, one type of rape occurs, where in the second, two types of rape occur - statutory and physical. This difference also exists with raping adults (ie, getting someone wasted out of their mind is rape, but it is a different type of rape than when they are in their mind and you physically force them, which is different than other types of coercion that can be used to the point where your action is called "rape") I think not having these differences actually prevents people from understanding that there are different types of rape, and its not all the "he forced himself on her while she was walking home" type of story - so then when a situation doesn't fit that story, they assume it cant "really" be rape.
I know that feminists tend to be against labeling different types of rape differently, because "rape is rape", and once you start giving different definitions, society might start classifying some of those definitions as not "real" rape. But the truth is, definining statutory rape, getting a girl roofied, and forcing yourself upon someone all as "rape", without any modifiers, does not prevent society from drawing distinctions and minimizing the first two categories - if anything, society feels the feminists have gone "too far" in equating the three scenarios, which makes them generally resistant to expanding definitions of rape and fighting for victims' rights.
The truth is, that I do beleive in degrees: Murder is a horrible crime, but our society recognizes the difference between first and second-degree murder. This does not mean that our society considers second degree murder acceptable or not "real" murder - if anything, having clear categories helps society to understand different types of murder and how they are all murder. The same can be said of rape: Having one's consciousness taken away and waking up having been slept with is experientally different from the semi-consious state of drunkeness in which you are too weak to resist, which is different from being fully awake, physically resisting, and being physically compelled. I think that the first case is hard to quantify, but the third case is worse than the second, and recognizing that while both are rape, they are different types and degrees of rape, would actually cause more people to accept the second case as rape. It is when you try saying the second case is "as bad" as the third that people intuitely sense that it's not, and then resist calling the second case rape all together - since after all, it's different from the third case. If you called the second case "second-degree rape", people might be more willing to accept the fact that it is really rape, and to treat it as such.
No matter how our society and legal system choose to define and label rape however, it is important to understand that semantics matter, and the time has come for our sociolegal system to have this discussion and take a deeper look at how we define such things.
links again
1. On puritans and sex:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/22/my-take-on-thanksgiving-puritans-gave-thanks-for-sex-and-booze/
2. on Christians and premarital sex:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/27/why-young-christians-arent-waiting-anymore/
3. On gender difference and psychology:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2011/11/boys_brains_girls_brains_how_to_think_about_sex_differences_in_psychology_.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_like_toolbar&fb_source=profile_oneline
4. Friends of mine dispute this article by pointing out that there are plenty of movies that focus on male mental illness as well: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/movies/a-dangerous-method-and-mental-illness-in-movies.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all%3Fsrc%3Dtp&smid=fb-share
5. An Ortho gay wedding:
http://972mag.com/orthodox-rabbi-marries-gay-couple-in-washington-dc/27424/
6. A love story: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/fashion/weddings/sunny-jacobs-and-peter-pringle-vows.html?pagewanted=all%3Fsrc%3Dtp&smid=fb-share
7. philosophy links: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/stone-links-9/
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/22/my-take-on-thanksgiving-puritans-gave-thanks-for-sex-and-booze/
2. on Christians and premarital sex:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/27/why-young-christians-arent-waiting-anymore/
3. On gender difference and psychology:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2011/11/boys_brains_girls_brains_how_to_think_about_sex_differences_in_psychology_.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_like_toolbar&fb_source=profile_oneline
4. Friends of mine dispute this article by pointing out that there are plenty of movies that focus on male mental illness as well: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/movies/a-dangerous-method-and-mental-illness-in-movies.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all%3Fsrc%3Dtp&smid=fb-share
5. An Ortho gay wedding:
http://972mag.com/orthodox-rabbi-marries-gay-couple-in-washington-dc/27424/
6. A love story: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/fashion/weddings/sunny-jacobs-and-peter-pringle-vows.html?pagewanted=all%3Fsrc%3Dtp&smid=fb-share
7. philosophy links: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/stone-links-9/
Problems with this article
1. Assumption women are looking for committed relationships, whereas men are not
2. Assumptions men prefer casual sex, whereas women do not
3. not backing up said assumptions with data
4. Assumption men want sex more than women, based on an outdated study (going up to strangers and asking if they want sex with you - some men said yes, no women did), that has since been complicated by conflicting data from different studies
5. failure to explore how much of the "truth" in assumptions 1 and 2 is due to socialization, which can be changed if society teaches women to approach sex and relationships differently. Thus, even if 1 and 2 are true, its not that things today inherently favor men, but rather, that things favor men because men are socialized to take advantage of things in a way women are not - this article makes it seem like men are biologically relationship-averse, while for women its the opposite, therefore a relationship-averse society by nature favors men
6. this article assumes starting sex at a later point in relationships and not having kids outside of marriage are things women want more than men, and therefore signs of womens power
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/02/sex_is_cheap.2.html
2. Assumptions men prefer casual sex, whereas women do not
3. not backing up said assumptions with data
4. Assumption men want sex more than women, based on an outdated study (going up to strangers and asking if they want sex with you - some men said yes, no women did), that has since been complicated by conflicting data from different studies
5. failure to explore how much of the "truth" in assumptions 1 and 2 is due to socialization, which can be changed if society teaches women to approach sex and relationships differently. Thus, even if 1 and 2 are true, its not that things today inherently favor men, but rather, that things favor men because men are socialized to take advantage of things in a way women are not - this article makes it seem like men are biologically relationship-averse, while for women its the opposite, therefore a relationship-averse society by nature favors men
6. this article assumes starting sex at a later point in relationships and not having kids outside of marriage are things women want more than men, and therefore signs of womens power
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/02/sex_is_cheap.2.html
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Epiphany
I told this to my mom, and she agrees:
WASP women are afraid of being inadequate in the bedroom. Jewish women are afraid of being inadequate in the kitchen.
Note to readers: This is a joke. Please do not use it to start stereotyping anyone.
WASP women are afraid of being inadequate in the bedroom. Jewish women are afraid of being inadequate in the kitchen.
Note to readers: This is a joke. Please do not use it to start stereotyping anyone.
Snow White
Today I saw Snow White with my mom. I notice that the movie is a lot about woman-to-woman competition: Snow White and her stepmom are competing for who is the most beautiful. Of course, the whole mother-daughter competition Electra thing would probably make Freud happy.
Then, we have Snow White living with 7 dwarfs, who she performs stereotypical household chores for, such as cleaning and cooking. She also has an oddly asexual relationship with them: There is no kissing etc., - how could there be, when it would recognize a woman's right to polyamory? At the same time, there is dancing and flirtation, and Doc blushes when Snow White kisses him, so there are definitely some erotic undertones.
Of course, Snow White needs these male dwarves to protect her, and then needs a male prince to rescue her - enough said. Snow White only gets into trouble when she disobeys the dwarves by talking to the old lady witch who entices her to eat the apple, while the dwarves are away - much as Eve only gets into trouble by talking to the snake while Adam is away, and eating from the fruit as a result of the snake's words. It is when women trespass the rules men make in order to protect them that they are harmed.
It is interesting that this theme, of women eating fruit - symbols of female fertility - and getting into trouble as a result, appears in Snow White and in the Bible, though since Snow White post-dates the Bible, those two facts might not be unrelated. What I find more fascinating is that in Greek Mythology, it is because Persephone ate from a tree of the underworld that she is bound to Hades for six months - thus exiled from earth just as Eve is exiled from the garden, only here the fruit binds her to her husband, whereas with Eve, the fruit caused a fight (Adam seems resentful when he tattle on her to God) - yet on the other hand, were they not bound together in exile, which is shown by their having a child immediately after? (Of course, Rashi puts Cain and Hevel's birth as pre-exile from the garden, because it says "And Adam had known his wife", implying it had happened in the remote past.)
Persephone's eating from the fruit of Hades results in winter, since the earth is barren when she is underground. Eve's eating from the fruit results in a world in which the earth is hard to work. In both stories, a woman's eating from a symbol of agriculture, results in agricultural hardships.
I don't know what to make of all this, but the coincidences hardly seem coincidental - which maybe means I should start seriously reading up on the whole Greek-Jewish intellectual history relationship.
Then, we have Snow White living with 7 dwarfs, who she performs stereotypical household chores for, such as cleaning and cooking. She also has an oddly asexual relationship with them: There is no kissing etc., - how could there be, when it would recognize a woman's right to polyamory? At the same time, there is dancing and flirtation, and Doc blushes when Snow White kisses him, so there are definitely some erotic undertones.
Of course, Snow White needs these male dwarves to protect her, and then needs a male prince to rescue her - enough said. Snow White only gets into trouble when she disobeys the dwarves by talking to the old lady witch who entices her to eat the apple, while the dwarves are away - much as Eve only gets into trouble by talking to the snake while Adam is away, and eating from the fruit as a result of the snake's words. It is when women trespass the rules men make in order to protect them that they are harmed.
It is interesting that this theme, of women eating fruit - symbols of female fertility - and getting into trouble as a result, appears in Snow White and in the Bible, though since Snow White post-dates the Bible, those two facts might not be unrelated. What I find more fascinating is that in Greek Mythology, it is because Persephone ate from a tree of the underworld that she is bound to Hades for six months - thus exiled from earth just as Eve is exiled from the garden, only here the fruit binds her to her husband, whereas with Eve, the fruit caused a fight (Adam seems resentful when he tattle on her to God) - yet on the other hand, were they not bound together in exile, which is shown by their having a child immediately after? (Of course, Rashi puts Cain and Hevel's birth as pre-exile from the garden, because it says "And Adam had known his wife", implying it had happened in the remote past.)
Persephone's eating from the fruit of Hades results in winter, since the earth is barren when she is underground. Eve's eating from the fruit results in a world in which the earth is hard to work. In both stories, a woman's eating from a symbol of agriculture, results in agricultural hardships.
I don't know what to make of all this, but the coincidences hardly seem coincidental - which maybe means I should start seriously reading up on the whole Greek-Jewish intellectual history relationship.
Personal is Political - Right?
Every time I come to a family event or a social affair, I know my weight will be commented upon. It is usually in a positive way, but it still bothers me: The minute you tell me "You lost weight. You look good", you make me afraid to eat that second slice of turkey. I don't think this pressure is unique to me - most women I know tell me their weight is frequently a topic of discussion - even a three-pound loss or gain is cause for compliment or censure.
I confess - at this point in my life, if I entered a room without getting compliments on my weight, it would make me really nervous and unconfident - the way I once used to take it as a sign of something being wrong with me if I didn't get catcalls when I walked down the street.
But I mean, how screwed up is that? Yeah, it's partially me giving into society - but how screwed up is our society?
I think measuring a woman's worth by her weight is related to our society's general lack of recognition of a person's unique worth qua human being - instead, we judge people by two numbers: Their weight and their bank account. Say what you want about Judaism, but at least it judges people by their words and their actions, which are much more important - and that standard is much less objectifying both of men and of women.
I recently saw a Dolce Gabbana ad featuring a (very hot) nude man. The ad was for a clothing brand, yet it did not bother to clothe its model - it was selling the concept that if you buy Dolce Gabbana society will perceive you like this hot presumably rich guy, and repsect you the way it does him, and then you will get laid and get your next promotion - because in our society, we are told looks and money are the key to happiness, and this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy - studies show that there is discrimination against people perceived to be overweight or "ugly", that does indeed make it slightly harder to get that promotion, and they must compensate with other qualities. I think it is terrible that this discrimination is not being actively fought, the way that other types of discrimination are - then again, the entire concept of "beautiful" is essentially a social norm- in the times of Rubens, being slightly zaftig was considered pretty. So I think there are two tasks ahead of us: 1. To form a societal definition of "beautiful' that accomodates more women (and men) and more types of bodies 2. To fight discrimination against people who don't fit that definition.
I'd say let's do away with a definition of beauty alltogether, but given that texts defining beauty have been around since ancient times, I find that goal very unrealistic.
I confess - at this point in my life, if I entered a room without getting compliments on my weight, it would make me really nervous and unconfident - the way I once used to take it as a sign of something being wrong with me if I didn't get catcalls when I walked down the street.
But I mean, how screwed up is that? Yeah, it's partially me giving into society - but how screwed up is our society?
I think measuring a woman's worth by her weight is related to our society's general lack of recognition of a person's unique worth qua human being - instead, we judge people by two numbers: Their weight and their bank account. Say what you want about Judaism, but at least it judges people by their words and their actions, which are much more important - and that standard is much less objectifying both of men and of women.
I recently saw a Dolce Gabbana ad featuring a (very hot) nude man. The ad was for a clothing brand, yet it did not bother to clothe its model - it was selling the concept that if you buy Dolce Gabbana society will perceive you like this hot presumably rich guy, and repsect you the way it does him, and then you will get laid and get your next promotion - because in our society, we are told looks and money are the key to happiness, and this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy - studies show that there is discrimination against people perceived to be overweight or "ugly", that does indeed make it slightly harder to get that promotion, and they must compensate with other qualities. I think it is terrible that this discrimination is not being actively fought, the way that other types of discrimination are - then again, the entire concept of "beautiful" is essentially a social norm- in the times of Rubens, being slightly zaftig was considered pretty. So I think there are two tasks ahead of us: 1. To form a societal definition of "beautiful' that accomodates more women (and men) and more types of bodies 2. To fight discrimination against people who don't fit that definition.
I'd say let's do away with a definition of beauty alltogether, but given that texts defining beauty have been around since ancient times, I find that goal very unrealistic.
Monday, November 21, 2011
The Talmud and Greek Culture
In general, the question of how much the rabbis of the Talmud knew about Greek culture is a fascinating one. The Platonic myth of man and women being born one body, but separated later, which explains their sexual yearning from each other (which appears in Symposium) is also found as a midrashic interpretation on the creation of Eve: The Torah says in Genesis 1:27:
How can it be God created man -masculine singular- and humans - both genders, plural, at once? And how does this square with the story of God taking Eve out of Adam's rib? Answer: God originally created one man, who was in fact a man-woman in one body. Thus, this creature was both male and female, singular and plural, at the same time. God later separated the female element by taking her out of this hybrid human and creating woman - hence the taking Eve out of Adam's rib story.
In addition, Greek words, such as hydros, appear in the Talmud, and the presence of Greek language implies a certain knowledge of Greek concepts and Greek culture. I am sure there are scholarly articles on the issue - for tonight, I'm just throwing the question out there.
| ז וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ, בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ: זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, בָּרָא אֹתָם. | 27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them |
How can it be God created man -masculine singular- and humans - both genders, plural, at once? And how does this square with the story of God taking Eve out of Adam's rib? Answer: God originally created one man, who was in fact a man-woman in one body. Thus, this creature was both male and female, singular and plural, at the same time. God later separated the female element by taking her out of this hybrid human and creating woman - hence the taking Eve out of Adam's rib story.
In addition, Greek words, such as hydros, appear in the Talmud, and the presence of Greek language implies a certain knowledge of Greek concepts and Greek culture. I am sure there are scholarly articles on the issue - for tonight, I'm just throwing the question out there.
Women, War, and Sex
I recently read Lysistrata. It's about how women end a war by engaging in sex strike, which of course drives the men crazy. I think this play speaks to three things: 1. The power of women as peace-makers 2. The power of sex 3. The power of the female body.
The concept of women as peace-makers, those who prevent people from killing each other, makes sense, since their bodies are life-givers that produce children. It is interesting that in ancient Greece, Aphordite, the goddess of romantic love, is often paired with Ares, the god of war, for in some ways the two are opposite: female and male, love and hate, sex, which produces life, and combat, which produces death - and yet, visually, sex and hand-to-hand combat have much in common. This similarity is played upon in Greek art.
In a sense, Lysistrata is the opposite of "The Illyiad", in which a woman's body and sex cause men to go to war. No doubt, many blamed Helen, and medieval culture often used the story of Troy as an example of the sinful power of woman's body, and its ability to bring man death (as indeed, Eve was beleived to have brought man death in medieval Christian theology).
What interests me however, in addition to the power given to sex and the female body - a power that can be seen from sexual cult religious practices and the use of preistesses in temples* - is the relationship between war and a woman's body, which is often compared to earth: Like earth, it produces life, and like earth, it must be conquered. Lysistrata at one point even refers to a girl's genitalia as her "garden", and in Haiti today sometimes women will refer to their vagina as their "feild" - like a feild, it produces new life, must be tended to, and provides a sustenance (women in Haiti often have arrangements where they offer men the feild of their bodies, in exchange for which men till their plot of land and make sure they have food).
The male fear of a sex strike* is also apparent. That fear is negated by turning the entire concept of a female sex strike into something so carnivalesque that it is impossible for it to ever be true.
Reading Lysistrata, I could not help by think how in so many communities, women are on the front lines of peace and reconciliation efforts, and do all sorts of outreach into their communities, but generally are not given the credit they are due. This changed a bit this year, when the Noble Peace Prize was given to women.
One of those women, Leymah Gbowee, organized other women, and they used a sex strike as part of their peace-acheiving strategy in Sierra Leone. Also, at one point, when Gbowee was going to be arrested, she threatened to strip right there, in public, and it stopped the officers from taking her. This is an ancient African tradition - in Kenya, in the Mau-Mau uprising, elder women bared their privates to shame young men, and in the 1600s-1800s, female slaves from Africa would sometimes bear their privates in protest of their treatment, in order to shame the white men around them, who just didn't get it, because it is the phallus, not the cunt, that has power in Western society.
Of course, this is why Lysistrata does not really "work" in a post-Christian world: Women's bodies have been devalued, seen both as places devoid of sexual desire and as places full of a sexual desire that is fraught with sin, and sex in the modern world is not an act of power: It is a negotiation of two bodies in a world fraught with peril, an act of pleasure surrounded by so much nervous discourse that it has been both over-sensitized and sanitized at the same time. Until we get back to a healthier image of our bodies and their sexual nature, such comedy simply won't be as amusing. I think for men especially, the sexual mores of this world can be hard to navigate - today's young men are not being taught confidence, which not only harms them, but also harms the women who want to sleep with them. Feminism must help guide culture to develop a positive male identity that is one of equality, and not domination, if they wish to be succesful. Leopold Von Massoch said that without equality, men will dominate women or be dominated by them. I think that is true, but at the same time, without equality, women will either dominated men or be dominated by them - and that's something we as women must keep in mind. Yes, there is more work to be done on the front of women's rights - but that doesn't mean we can forget about men, who are left to negotiate a new post-feminist world in which the confident tropes of the patriarchal male identity are starting to shift beneath their feet.
Anyhow, this entire episode also reminded me of a midrash I heard that when Ahashverosh's advisors tell him he must get rid of Vashti lest the other women follow her example, they mean as follows: Vashti refused to sleep with the king. Other women might follow her example and form a sex strike. If so, this would mean the midrash-writers were familiar with the fear of a female sex strike: Was this a generalized ancient fear? Had they come into contact with the story of Lysistrata in some way - probably not by reading it, but by hearing of some random Greek tale about a woman who organized a sex strike to end a war? What did the midrash writers think about the power of the female body - a power that bears none of the negative connotations that came into being in medieval times?***
These are all questions worth pondering, just as this interview with Leymah Gbowee is worth watching: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-14-2011/leymah-gbowee?xrs=share_copy
*Their work often included sex, and temples sometimes served as glorified brothels. Milgrom posits that a major goal of Leviticus is to completely separate the sexual realm from the religious realm, as opposed to surrounding cultures that fused the two.
* Some say Lysistrata was actually written by a woman
*** Many of the medieval Ashkenazic writings that seem mysogynistic were actually taking their cue from the Catholic culture that surrounded them; pre-medieval Jewish writings are much more women friendly. For more on this see "Carnal Culture" by Daniel Boyarin.
The concept of women as peace-makers, those who prevent people from killing each other, makes sense, since their bodies are life-givers that produce children. It is interesting that in ancient Greece, Aphordite, the goddess of romantic love, is often paired with Ares, the god of war, for in some ways the two are opposite: female and male, love and hate, sex, which produces life, and combat, which produces death - and yet, visually, sex and hand-to-hand combat have much in common. This similarity is played upon in Greek art.
In a sense, Lysistrata is the opposite of "The Illyiad", in which a woman's body and sex cause men to go to war. No doubt, many blamed Helen, and medieval culture often used the story of Troy as an example of the sinful power of woman's body, and its ability to bring man death (as indeed, Eve was beleived to have brought man death in medieval Christian theology).
What interests me however, in addition to the power given to sex and the female body - a power that can be seen from sexual cult religious practices and the use of preistesses in temples* - is the relationship between war and a woman's body, which is often compared to earth: Like earth, it produces life, and like earth, it must be conquered. Lysistrata at one point even refers to a girl's genitalia as her "garden", and in Haiti today sometimes women will refer to their vagina as their "feild" - like a feild, it produces new life, must be tended to, and provides a sustenance (women in Haiti often have arrangements where they offer men the feild of their bodies, in exchange for which men till their plot of land and make sure they have food).
The male fear of a sex strike* is also apparent. That fear is negated by turning the entire concept of a female sex strike into something so carnivalesque that it is impossible for it to ever be true.
Reading Lysistrata, I could not help by think how in so many communities, women are on the front lines of peace and reconciliation efforts, and do all sorts of outreach into their communities, but generally are not given the credit they are due. This changed a bit this year, when the Noble Peace Prize was given to women.
One of those women, Leymah Gbowee, organized other women, and they used a sex strike as part of their peace-acheiving strategy in Sierra Leone. Also, at one point, when Gbowee was going to be arrested, she threatened to strip right there, in public, and it stopped the officers from taking her. This is an ancient African tradition - in Kenya, in the Mau-Mau uprising, elder women bared their privates to shame young men, and in the 1600s-1800s, female slaves from Africa would sometimes bear their privates in protest of their treatment, in order to shame the white men around them, who just didn't get it, because it is the phallus, not the cunt, that has power in Western society.
Of course, this is why Lysistrata does not really "work" in a post-Christian world: Women's bodies have been devalued, seen both as places devoid of sexual desire and as places full of a sexual desire that is fraught with sin, and sex in the modern world is not an act of power: It is a negotiation of two bodies in a world fraught with peril, an act of pleasure surrounded by so much nervous discourse that it has been both over-sensitized and sanitized at the same time. Until we get back to a healthier image of our bodies and their sexual nature, such comedy simply won't be as amusing. I think for men especially, the sexual mores of this world can be hard to navigate - today's young men are not being taught confidence, which not only harms them, but also harms the women who want to sleep with them. Feminism must help guide culture to develop a positive male identity that is one of equality, and not domination, if they wish to be succesful. Leopold Von Massoch said that without equality, men will dominate women or be dominated by them. I think that is true, but at the same time, without equality, women will either dominated men or be dominated by them - and that's something we as women must keep in mind. Yes, there is more work to be done on the front of women's rights - but that doesn't mean we can forget about men, who are left to negotiate a new post-feminist world in which the confident tropes of the patriarchal male identity are starting to shift beneath their feet.
Anyhow, this entire episode also reminded me of a midrash I heard that when Ahashverosh's advisors tell him he must get rid of Vashti lest the other women follow her example, they mean as follows: Vashti refused to sleep with the king. Other women might follow her example and form a sex strike. If so, this would mean the midrash-writers were familiar with the fear of a female sex strike: Was this a generalized ancient fear? Had they come into contact with the story of Lysistrata in some way - probably not by reading it, but by hearing of some random Greek tale about a woman who organized a sex strike to end a war? What did the midrash writers think about the power of the female body - a power that bears none of the negative connotations that came into being in medieval times?***
These are all questions worth pondering, just as this interview with Leymah Gbowee is worth watching: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-14-2011/leymah-gbowee?xrs=share_copy
*Their work often included sex, and temples sometimes served as glorified brothels. Milgrom posits that a major goal of Leviticus is to completely separate the sexual realm from the religious realm, as opposed to surrounding cultures that fused the two.
* Some say Lysistrata was actually written by a woman
*** Many of the medieval Ashkenazic writings that seem mysogynistic were actually taking their cue from the Catholic culture that surrounded them; pre-medieval Jewish writings are much more women friendly. For more on this see "Carnal Culture" by Daniel Boyarin.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Summary of "Evaluation and Treatment of Unconsommated Marriages in Orthodox Jewish Copules", by David S. Ribner and Talia Y. Rosenbaum.
Traditional Jewish attitudes towards sex dictate that within a marriage it is good, and sexual gratification is a perfectly legitimate justification for sex, in its own right, unrelated to the mitzvah of procreation. Sexual gratification is one of a woman's rights in her marriage contract. Purposeful emission of semen outside the vagina however, is forbidden*. When a couple can have sex is mandated however: Not during Nidah, not while drunk or arguing, not if sex is being used as a weapon by one spouse over the othe. Also, if one party is not consenting, sex is forbidden. When the importance of sexual gratification is combined with the importance of procreation, Judaism's attitude towards marital sex is quite positive.
In Orthodox Jewish women, ignorance of their own body due to lack of info on the female anatomy, lack of sexual experience and tampon use or exploration of their own body, purely physical factors related to their hymen or their level of lubrication, fear and anxiety about sex, or some combination thereof, are all factors in the inability to acheive penile penetration after marriage.
The self-inspections of Niddah that a woman takes on before marriage may help her to know her own body, since she must instert a bedika cloth. Often, women who report inability to consumate marriage may have had difficulties with such inspections. Vulvar vestibulitis and vaginal muscular hypertonus, as well as fear, anxiety, and lack of knowledge of one's own anatomy, all contribute to inability to consummate marriage. These symptoms do not uniquely affect Orthodox women, but treatment for such issues shoudl take the clients' cultural sensitivities into account, which in the case of Orthodox women may involve toning down the explicit language and visual aids often used in treatment.
While most Orthodox women are able to consummate marriage, for some, the modesty standards they have been raised with make them feel inhibited, or make them feel immodest and thus transgressive in their attempt at sex, especially since Jewish law expects both partners to be naked, whereas religious culture expects women until marriage to always be very clothed in front of men.
As for men, erectile disfunction and premature ejaculation are the two main factors preventing consummation. The reasons for these symptoms may be purely physical, purely psychological - or, as is most often the case, some mixture of the two. Most men have not had any physical contact with their spouse or even with women in general, especially in Haredi communities - yet at the same time, they are expected to know what to do, to be the man and take control - which leads to performance anxiety. ED or PE on a first try will further increase such anxiety, thus increasing the chance of future ED or PE.**
Jewish prohibitions on "spilling the seed" may play a role in this phenomenon in the following ways:
1. Since even masturbation is not allowed, men are used to viewing the entire concept of sexual arousal and ejaculation as negative, and are not able to suddenly start viewing it as positive the minute they are married, even though halachikly they are entitled to do so.
2. Fear of non-vaginal ejaculation causes the man to insert the penis before he is either emotionally or physically ready (or both). Things then go badly, and the dissapointment and shame means that its a while before the couple tries again.
3. This fear of non-vaginal ejaculation, even if the man inserts at the right time, causes the woman to be nervous as well, so there is a general sense of nervousness surrounding the sex.
Extreme sensisitivity/heightened excitability at the female touch can lead to PE, which can become a pattern.
Major factors in inability to consummate in Orthodox couples include: lack of information about sex/the female anatomy, so the husband does not even know where he is supposed to be penetrating, and the woman might not know or might be too modest to guide him, lack of arousal, lack of knowledge about foreplay/ways to stimulate arousal, and discomfort/awkwardness with one's own body.
When first experiencing inability to consummate, couples may turn to religious, rather than medical sources. These sources may be unable to provide them with accurate scientific information they need. Often religious sources will refer them to medical sources - whether psychological, gynecological, or both. Most couples feel "failure at meeting personal, spousal, and communal expectations". They think something is wrong with them or their partner and are embarrassed.
A therapist must ask her or himself if one or both spouses are expressing reservations about the marriage through "sexual distancing". Therapists should not refer to inability to consummate as a "problem" and should try to make the couple feel as normal as possible, emphasizing that all newlyweds face certain challenges. While one spouse may be more responsible than the other for sexual failure, emphasis should be placed on how sex is a partnership and responsibility for consummation lies with both spouses, and unite the newlyweds in pursuing a common objective ie sex. Religious couples may turn to religious professionals whose "noise" interferese with the therapy. Therapists should help couples evaluate advice from religious sources to see what is and is not applicable and right for them, and should develop working relationships with a couple's rabbi, if necessary. Information abot sex and genitalia must be presented in a very medical manner that can in no way be considered inappropriate. The gender of the therapist, as well as whether the couple will work together or alone, or some combo, and whether or not one spouse would feel ok with a therapist of the opposite gender, must be taken into account.
Each spouse should be included in the treatment as much as possible, even if the treatment is focusing one one spouse who is the primary cause of the issue. For example, with vulvar vestibulitis, the husband should help guide the dilator, while with ED, the wife should manually stimulate the husband. Such steps should only be taken if and when the couple is comfortable with them, however. In the process of encouraging spousal sex, also emphasize that in the eyes of Jewish law, all sex must be consensual, since in the process of pursuing consummation, one spouse might bully the other into sex if the therapist does not do her or his best to prevent the couple from pressuring each other.
A 19 year old, S., and her 20-year old husband, N., were referred after 6 months of marriage. S. barely spoke or made eye conact, and N. "seemed confused and embarrassed". S. had been diagnosed with vaginismus. S. was shown her anatomy using a mirror and started inserting dilators, while B. saw a therapist who corrected some "sexual misinformation" he had regarding male and female anatomy, as well as "paramaters of desire, arousal, and performance". During therapy, S. revealed that her ability to prevent penetration was the one thing she felt she could control in her life, and she resented her community's pressing her into a marriage that involved moving to a new country, and leaving her friends and family. N. revealed guilt about pre-marital - and later, marital, given the lack of sex - masturbation. He fantasized about sex with his wife but didn't know how to communicate his feelings, and wasn't sure whether he considered sex with is wife positive, or simply a biological necessity. S. and N. were encouraged to be more open about their mutual desire with each other and to find a common vocabulary to express their feelings. N. "was advised to consult with a rabbi regarding his perception" about sex and Jewish values. N. was involved in S.'s dilation exercises, done from home, which proved stimulating and enjoyable. After completion of the dilation exercises, the couple succesfully had sex. "Residual issues" regarding their discomfort with physical contact were left unresolved at the time of therapy, since the couple feared to continue therapy due to the social stigma surrounding it.
A clinician treating a couple such as the one above must educate her or himself about the cultural and religious norms of the community they come from and take those norms into account; often much of this education will come from the clients themselves. Sometimes it may be necessary to involve more than one clinician.
This was published in the "Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy" in July 2005.
* Yeah, I don't plan on observing that one.
** See how gender stereotypes affect men? If they weren't expected to take control and know what to do more than their spouse, simply because they are the men and being in charge is masculine, maybe they'd have less performance anxiety and hence an easier time getting laid.
In Orthodox Jewish women, ignorance of their own body due to lack of info on the female anatomy, lack of sexual experience and tampon use or exploration of their own body, purely physical factors related to their hymen or their level of lubrication, fear and anxiety about sex, or some combination thereof, are all factors in the inability to acheive penile penetration after marriage.
The self-inspections of Niddah that a woman takes on before marriage may help her to know her own body, since she must instert a bedika cloth. Often, women who report inability to consumate marriage may have had difficulties with such inspections. Vulvar vestibulitis and vaginal muscular hypertonus, as well as fear, anxiety, and lack of knowledge of one's own anatomy, all contribute to inability to consummate marriage. These symptoms do not uniquely affect Orthodox women, but treatment for such issues shoudl take the clients' cultural sensitivities into account, which in the case of Orthodox women may involve toning down the explicit language and visual aids often used in treatment.
While most Orthodox women are able to consummate marriage, for some, the modesty standards they have been raised with make them feel inhibited, or make them feel immodest and thus transgressive in their attempt at sex, especially since Jewish law expects both partners to be naked, whereas religious culture expects women until marriage to always be very clothed in front of men.
As for men, erectile disfunction and premature ejaculation are the two main factors preventing consummation. The reasons for these symptoms may be purely physical, purely psychological - or, as is most often the case, some mixture of the two. Most men have not had any physical contact with their spouse or even with women in general, especially in Haredi communities - yet at the same time, they are expected to know what to do, to be the man and take control - which leads to performance anxiety. ED or PE on a first try will further increase such anxiety, thus increasing the chance of future ED or PE.**
Jewish prohibitions on "spilling the seed" may play a role in this phenomenon in the following ways:
1. Since even masturbation is not allowed, men are used to viewing the entire concept of sexual arousal and ejaculation as negative, and are not able to suddenly start viewing it as positive the minute they are married, even though halachikly they are entitled to do so.
2. Fear of non-vaginal ejaculation causes the man to insert the penis before he is either emotionally or physically ready (or both). Things then go badly, and the dissapointment and shame means that its a while before the couple tries again.
3. This fear of non-vaginal ejaculation, even if the man inserts at the right time, causes the woman to be nervous as well, so there is a general sense of nervousness surrounding the sex.
Extreme sensisitivity/heightened excitability at the female touch can lead to PE, which can become a pattern.
Major factors in inability to consummate in Orthodox couples include: lack of information about sex/the female anatomy, so the husband does not even know where he is supposed to be penetrating, and the woman might not know or might be too modest to guide him, lack of arousal, lack of knowledge about foreplay/ways to stimulate arousal, and discomfort/awkwardness with one's own body.
When first experiencing inability to consummate, couples may turn to religious, rather than medical sources. These sources may be unable to provide them with accurate scientific information they need. Often religious sources will refer them to medical sources - whether psychological, gynecological, or both. Most couples feel "failure at meeting personal, spousal, and communal expectations". They think something is wrong with them or their partner and are embarrassed.
A therapist must ask her or himself if one or both spouses are expressing reservations about the marriage through "sexual distancing". Therapists should not refer to inability to consummate as a "problem" and should try to make the couple feel as normal as possible, emphasizing that all newlyweds face certain challenges. While one spouse may be more responsible than the other for sexual failure, emphasis should be placed on how sex is a partnership and responsibility for consummation lies with both spouses, and unite the newlyweds in pursuing a common objective ie sex. Religious couples may turn to religious professionals whose "noise" interferese with the therapy. Therapists should help couples evaluate advice from religious sources to see what is and is not applicable and right for them, and should develop working relationships with a couple's rabbi, if necessary. Information abot sex and genitalia must be presented in a very medical manner that can in no way be considered inappropriate. The gender of the therapist, as well as whether the couple will work together or alone, or some combo, and whether or not one spouse would feel ok with a therapist of the opposite gender, must be taken into account.
Each spouse should be included in the treatment as much as possible, even if the treatment is focusing one one spouse who is the primary cause of the issue. For example, with vulvar vestibulitis, the husband should help guide the dilator, while with ED, the wife should manually stimulate the husband. Such steps should only be taken if and when the couple is comfortable with them, however. In the process of encouraging spousal sex, also emphasize that in the eyes of Jewish law, all sex must be consensual, since in the process of pursuing consummation, one spouse might bully the other into sex if the therapist does not do her or his best to prevent the couple from pressuring each other.
A 19 year old, S., and her 20-year old husband, N., were referred after 6 months of marriage. S. barely spoke or made eye conact, and N. "seemed confused and embarrassed". S. had been diagnosed with vaginismus. S. was shown her anatomy using a mirror and started inserting dilators, while B. saw a therapist who corrected some "sexual misinformation" he had regarding male and female anatomy, as well as "paramaters of desire, arousal, and performance". During therapy, S. revealed that her ability to prevent penetration was the one thing she felt she could control in her life, and she resented her community's pressing her into a marriage that involved moving to a new country, and leaving her friends and family. N. revealed guilt about pre-marital - and later, marital, given the lack of sex - masturbation. He fantasized about sex with his wife but didn't know how to communicate his feelings, and wasn't sure whether he considered sex with is wife positive, or simply a biological necessity. S. and N. were encouraged to be more open about their mutual desire with each other and to find a common vocabulary to express their feelings. N. "was advised to consult with a rabbi regarding his perception" about sex and Jewish values. N. was involved in S.'s dilation exercises, done from home, which proved stimulating and enjoyable. After completion of the dilation exercises, the couple succesfully had sex. "Residual issues" regarding their discomfort with physical contact were left unresolved at the time of therapy, since the couple feared to continue therapy due to the social stigma surrounding it.
A clinician treating a couple such as the one above must educate her or himself about the cultural and religious norms of the community they come from and take those norms into account; often much of this education will come from the clients themselves. Sometimes it may be necessary to involve more than one clinician.
This was published in the "Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy" in July 2005.
* Yeah, I don't plan on observing that one.
** See how gender stereotypes affect men? If they weren't expected to take control and know what to do more than their spouse, simply because they are the men and being in charge is masculine, maybe they'd have less performance anxiety and hence an easier time getting laid.
Blu Greenberg (one of the founders of MO feminism)
So, some of you may know that I have a bit of an obsession with Niddah. My convo last night has brought it out.
I have uploaded an image of Blu Greenberg, in which she explains the pluses of observing Nidah. I wanted to do the same for her observations on how to "improve" the mitzvah, but I just can't seem to be able to.
So here goes a summary:
1. Reappropriate Nidah as a special women's mitzvah, using the language of feminism.
2. Get rid of negative language and superstitions surrounding the mitzvah, and talk about the holiness of sex.
3. Get rid of the rabbinically mandated extra 7 days.
4. Offer marriage counseling that takes the Nidah-related stresses into account and tries to deal with them.
5. Get rid of the whole "treating a virgin who bleeds like a Nidah, so that she must wait 11 days before having sex again" thing.
6. Tack women's health issues, like monthly breast exams, onto Niddah. (My note: Actually, about a week after your period is probably a good time for breast-checkups, since breasts can be sore/swollen around one's period, however, there is now a debate about monthly checkups v "breast awareness", which is more about having a general awareness of your breasts and any changes going on there/ocassionaly (say, once every two months) checkups, as opposed to monthyly self-exams. One should consult one's doctor, and those with a family history of breast cancer should take more care.)
7. Accept that people have pre-marital sex. Encourage women to immerse and emphasize the value of having sex only in meaningful relationships. Keeping Nidah will lead to less promiscuity, since only in real relationships will people be willing to refrain from sex for two weeks.
8. Accept that the degree of touching couples engage in while in Nidah is a personal choice, and everyone draws the line somewhere else. Put some trust in women and men that they won't jump into bed the minute they touch each other, especially if its casual/non-sexual contact.
I am pondering this. Why?
1. I've met a lot of motherss who do things lately, and I find that cool and inspiring. Obviously, when you have a child you need to be dedicated to them, but I think its important to still take time to focus on your own personal development and fulfillment. I also think if you don't seek fuflfillment as a person, it can negatively impact your relationship with your child and your spouse.
2. I am in a house where the husband generally helps out, but when it comes to dishes, that is the wife's domain - even if the husband has time and the wife is busy, the husband won't do them, because that's just not his job. While, despite my feminism, I would actually be fine with an arrangment where I took on most of the domestic duties, I don't think I could handle being in a relationship where - for either of us - some chore was just "not my job" to the point where even if one of us had time and the other didn't, the one with the free time wouldn't do it. My minimum household requirements from my partner are that he help out with the laundry, dishes, and taking out the garbage, and that when he has free time and I am doing the dishes, he keeps me company and talks to me, as opposed to being on Facebook or something (unless he had a rough day/needs some alone time, because I totally get that.) Of course, I guess that's easy to say now, because I'm not in a relationship, and I would be willing to compromise on these chore requirements for the right guy, but I also feel like the right guy for me probably would agree to those requirements.
3. I think it's really important to walk in with a smile and say, "Hello, my beautiful family/wonderful husband/wife", etc, and then walk over and give everyone huge hugs/kisses - even if one is in Niddah. This is usually how I greet my parents, and it is how I would like to one day greet my husband and children. I think it "sets the tone" for your interactions for the rest of the day. Of course, if you've had a bad day, it should be ok to talk about it, to express upset and to cry - if you can't do that, you're in a pretty bad relationship - but I think there should be an effort made to put on a smile and a hug for that first minute you walk through the door, even if five minutes later you're sitting on someone's lap sipping tea and crying.
2. I am in a house where the husband generally helps out, but when it comes to dishes, that is the wife's domain - even if the husband has time and the wife is busy, the husband won't do them, because that's just not his job. While, despite my feminism, I would actually be fine with an arrangment where I took on most of the domestic duties, I don't think I could handle being in a relationship where - for either of us - some chore was just "not my job" to the point where even if one of us had time and the other didn't, the one with the free time wouldn't do it. My minimum household requirements from my partner are that he help out with the laundry, dishes, and taking out the garbage, and that when he has free time and I am doing the dishes, he keeps me company and talks to me, as opposed to being on Facebook or something (unless he had a rough day/needs some alone time, because I totally get that.) Of course, I guess that's easy to say now, because I'm not in a relationship, and I would be willing to compromise on these chore requirements for the right guy, but I also feel like the right guy for me probably would agree to those requirements.
3. I think it's really important to walk in with a smile and say, "Hello, my beautiful family/wonderful husband/wife", etc, and then walk over and give everyone huge hugs/kisses - even if one is in Niddah. This is usually how I greet my parents, and it is how I would like to one day greet my husband and children. I think it "sets the tone" for your interactions for the rest of the day. Of course, if you've had a bad day, it should be ok to talk about it, to express upset and to cry - if you can't do that, you're in a pretty bad relationship - but I think there should be an effort made to put on a smile and a hug for that first minute you walk through the door, even if five minutes later you're sitting on someone's lap sipping tea and crying.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Thoughts
Being a feminist is exhausting: Being angry at the patriarchy and all that jazz, when that jazz surrounds you everyday, is just tiring. Of course, at times I leave it behind - I too, am capable of laughing at a mysogynistic joke or even telling one once in a while. I am not about to become a not feminist - as a matter of fact, today someone joked that my feminism was rubbing off on them and that made me happy - but I did want to point out this fact.
Anyhow, the Jerusalem post had an "Ask the Rabbi: Does Halach permit pre-marital sexual relations" column and a dvar Torah from Rabbi Riskin that had some interesting observations on Avraham's relationship with Sarah. The halacha article was ambiguous, mainly pointing out that the Torah never mentions pre-marital sex as its own category, whether for good or for ill (except in cases of rape or seduction of a virgin, where a man must either pay for the woman's upkeep for the rest of her life by giving a huge sum of money to her father, the assumption being she is now unmarriable and will remain in her father's house, or he must marry her and can not divorce her. The choice is hers to make. Obviously, the point of his marrying her would be that marriage entailed financial support. In ancient near eastern society, women were financially dependent on husbands, fathers, or brothers, and life outside of a household was not an option - as a matter of fact, life outside a household was not usually feasible for men either. The Torah does not condone the fact that she was considered unmarriable - it was merely recognizing a fact of ancient near eastern society and trying to protect the woman given that fact.)
The Rabbi Riskin article is worth summarizing but I'm too tired at the moment.
Anyhow, the Jerusalem post had an "Ask the Rabbi: Does Halach permit pre-marital sexual relations" column and a dvar Torah from Rabbi Riskin that had some interesting observations on Avraham's relationship with Sarah. The halacha article was ambiguous, mainly pointing out that the Torah never mentions pre-marital sex as its own category, whether for good or for ill (except in cases of rape or seduction of a virgin, where a man must either pay for the woman's upkeep for the rest of her life by giving a huge sum of money to her father, the assumption being she is now unmarriable and will remain in her father's house, or he must marry her and can not divorce her. The choice is hers to make. Obviously, the point of his marrying her would be that marriage entailed financial support. In ancient near eastern society, women were financially dependent on husbands, fathers, or brothers, and life outside of a household was not an option - as a matter of fact, life outside a household was not usually feasible for men either. The Torah does not condone the fact that she was considered unmarriable - it was merely recognizing a fact of ancient near eastern society and trying to protect the woman given that fact.)
The Rabbi Riskin article is worth summarizing but I'm too tired at the moment.
Education 2
In general, I have been thinking a lot recently about how I want to raise my future children (God willing). Don't get me wrong - I hve no immediate plans to have children. I am not in a serious relationship, and even if I were, I think ideally it is good to wait two years after marriage before even trying to have kids. Also, I would want to be more financially stable before producing offspring whose financial (as well as emotional) well-being I'm responsible for.
So why am I thinking about this topic? 1. Social pressure 2. Many of my friends now are married/have kids 3. Spending lots of time in family environments, so one sees things other families do and thinks "I like that", or "I don't like that" 4. Parent issues causing me to think about my own childhood and hence what I'd want my kids' childhoods to be like 5. Evolution 6. I am at a stage where while I am happy with my life as it is, I can also envision being in a relationship that leads to marriage and settling down - yes, scary, I know. Me, the uber-feminist, caving into the desire for this patriarchal institution.
Anyhow, because of this, the issue of a child's education - especially their religious and their ethical educations - have been on my mind, and its why I found tonight's conversation so gratifying. I know the values I want to raise my children with (kindness, openness, an ability to ask questions, a sense of fun and wonder at this world, a love of learning), as well as random other stuff - for example, I want there to be "cookie-baking Thursdays", I want a part of the wall designated as a parsha mural where my kids can draw their feelings about the parsha, and I want every Rosh Chodesh to be a dress-up day. I also want to have special themed days where I teach the kids about different historical eras and we do activities related to that. I also want to be able to eat dinner with my kids most days of the week, which I know is not great for my career prospects, but is really important to me. (At the same time, having a date-night with my husband at least once a week is also really important to me, even if that date involves hiring a sitter and going for a one-hour walk in the park.)
I think living in a family household has had a lot to do with my thinking about child-rearing: Today I explained to a little boy how sometimes we get angry at people we love, and that's ok, but anger is different from hate, so instead of saying he hates his sister, we should discuss what she is doing that makes him angry, and I also spoke to him about prayer. Having these types of conversations with little children is both enlightening and enjoyable. My friend - the child's father - discussed how hard it is to raise children to be religous without raising them to be fundamentalists, but I said that maybe you do teach things to children a bit more "black and white", when they are younger, and then you keep on opening up the same conversation topics as they grow older, increasing the complexity of your discussions, and that you also encourage them to ask questions and teach that every question is ok, so that they feel comfortable coming to you and approaching you in conversation, and that's how you raise open kids who aren't fundamentalists.
For example, the song "Hashem is here. Hashem is there. Hashem is truly everywhere" might be a simplification, but I don't think a five-year-old is harmed from knowing the song, and if you encourage your child to ask questions and they feel comfortable approaching you, when they are older, they might have a discussion with you about beleif in God, which could be more complex and "gray". I don't know - I don't have kids - but I think these are things you need to start thinking about way before you have kids, because raising human beings is one of the most important and delicate tasks someone can do, so it takes a lifetime of preparation.
So why am I thinking about this topic? 1. Social pressure 2. Many of my friends now are married/have kids 3. Spending lots of time in family environments, so one sees things other families do and thinks "I like that", or "I don't like that" 4. Parent issues causing me to think about my own childhood and hence what I'd want my kids' childhoods to be like 5. Evolution 6. I am at a stage where while I am happy with my life as it is, I can also envision being in a relationship that leads to marriage and settling down - yes, scary, I know. Me, the uber-feminist, caving into the desire for this patriarchal institution.
Anyhow, because of this, the issue of a child's education - especially their religious and their ethical educations - have been on my mind, and its why I found tonight's conversation so gratifying. I know the values I want to raise my children with (kindness, openness, an ability to ask questions, a sense of fun and wonder at this world, a love of learning), as well as random other stuff - for example, I want there to be "cookie-baking Thursdays", I want a part of the wall designated as a parsha mural where my kids can draw their feelings about the parsha, and I want every Rosh Chodesh to be a dress-up day. I also want to have special themed days where I teach the kids about different historical eras and we do activities related to that. I also want to be able to eat dinner with my kids most days of the week, which I know is not great for my career prospects, but is really important to me. (At the same time, having a date-night with my husband at least once a week is also really important to me, even if that date involves hiring a sitter and going for a one-hour walk in the park.)
I think living in a family household has had a lot to do with my thinking about child-rearing: Today I explained to a little boy how sometimes we get angry at people we love, and that's ok, but anger is different from hate, so instead of saying he hates his sister, we should discuss what she is doing that makes him angry, and I also spoke to him about prayer. Having these types of conversations with little children is both enlightening and enjoyable. My friend - the child's father - discussed how hard it is to raise children to be religous without raising them to be fundamentalists, but I said that maybe you do teach things to children a bit more "black and white", when they are younger, and then you keep on opening up the same conversation topics as they grow older, increasing the complexity of your discussions, and that you also encourage them to ask questions and teach that every question is ok, so that they feel comfortable coming to you and approaching you in conversation, and that's how you raise open kids who aren't fundamentalists.
For example, the song "Hashem is here. Hashem is there. Hashem is truly everywhere" might be a simplification, but I don't think a five-year-old is harmed from knowing the song, and if you encourage your child to ask questions and they feel comfortable approaching you, when they are older, they might have a discussion with you about beleif in God, which could be more complex and "gray". I don't know - I don't have kids - but I think these are things you need to start thinking about way before you have kids, because raising human beings is one of the most important and delicate tasks someone can do, so it takes a lifetime of preparation.
Religiosity and Religious Education
I also discussed child-education with the religios/non-religious couple: They plan on sending their child to a religious/traditional school until highschool, so the child has a background knowledge of Jewish religious culture. Then for highschool, the child can decide. I think this is brilliant: When you are little, it is comforting to beleive in God and to have this religious environment, with the songs and community it entails. Also, being in a religious school in youth gives you a life-long connection the religion, whether or not you continue your religious education or are observant in adulthood - and I do think that a life connected to one's tradition, even if one chooses not to observe that tradition, is important. I think a Christian should be connected to her Christian tradition, a Muslim to her Muslim tradition, etc.. I am Jewish, so I want to be connected to the Jewish tradition.
In my case, in addition to being a traditonal Jew, I am also a religious Jew, however, while the behavior involved in the two overlaps and each enhances the other, there are certain things I do solely because of tradition, certain things I do solely because of religion, and certain things I do because of both traditional and religious reasons, even if the reasons themselves are unrelated.
Thus, I as a woman, choose to eat in a sukkah despite not being halachikly obligated, because it is my religious tradition. I pray solely because I am halachikly obligated to, even if I don't always have kavanah (focus). I observe Pesach seder both because I am halachikly obligated and because it is my religious tradition, but each reason alone would be sufficient.
Anyhow, I thought it was great this couple worked out an innovative solution to challenges such as Niddah and education. I think religious-non-religious marriages are good for Jewish unity, provided each partner's lifestyle is respected within the relationship. That being said, I am not about to marry a non-religious Jew solely in order to make a point - at the same time, I don't see a person's lack of religiosity as a barrier to a relationship.
In my case, in addition to being a traditonal Jew, I am also a religious Jew, however, while the behavior involved in the two overlaps and each enhances the other, there are certain things I do solely because of tradition, certain things I do solely because of religion, and certain things I do because of both traditional and religious reasons, even if the reasons themselves are unrelated.
Thus, I as a woman, choose to eat in a sukkah despite not being halachikly obligated, because it is my religious tradition. I pray solely because I am halachikly obligated to, even if I don't always have kavanah (focus). I observe Pesach seder both because I am halachikly obligated and because it is my religious tradition, but each reason alone would be sufficient.
Anyhow, I thought it was great this couple worked out an innovative solution to challenges such as Niddah and education. I think religious-non-religious marriages are good for Jewish unity, provided each partner's lifestyle is respected within the relationship. That being said, I am not about to marry a non-religious Jew solely in order to make a point - at the same time, I don't see a person's lack of religiosity as a barrier to a relationship.
Niddah
Today I got into a discussion about Niddah with a couple where the wife is religious and the husband is not. The wife said she does everything except for actual intercourse when she is in Niddah - she was unclear on how she defined "Niddah" - ie does she define it as the days she has her period (the Torah definition), or the days she has her period + the 7 "clean days" mandated by the rabbis? Either way, I thought its cool her secular husband agreed to this.
I was telling friends earlier today that I would like to be in a relationship where I have the freedom to be as lenient as possible with Niddah laws, without worrying about my significiant other being stricter than I am. My (male) friend replied by saying that halachikly, Niddah is considered the woman's mitzvah and her responsibility, so a husband doesn't have the right to tell the woman what to do in that regard - but I wonder how many men are taught that halacha. I know I was never taught it, despite being taught the minutia of "harkachot", such as that one shouldn't pass a baby to one's husband - of course, I don't plan on observing these harkachot.
I think that the way Niddah is taught to women is really problematic (also the way its taught to men - men should be well-educated on these halachot as well, because even if they are a women's mitzvah, they are halachot that affect one's romantic relationships if one is straight). Women are taught "This is the halacha", without being taught how the halachot developed, and usually, the halachot they are taught are the stricter opinions, opinions they might reject if they knew the process of how those opinions came to be, and if they knew of the more lenient opinions of the tradition. This is a general trend with regards to how mitzvot regarding gender and sexuality are taught, especially to girls.
For example, there is a kallah teacher used by some of the more right-wing Modern Orthodox Washington Heights girls who teaches that a) one may not laugh with one's husband during Niddah b) one may not give/receive gifts, flowers, etc. c) one may not tell one's spouse "I love you" during Niddah. Not only are all of these things ridiculous - and have been outed as "ridiculous" by mainstream YU rabbis - but they also can negatively impact one's spousal relationship, because these "issurs" are about one's emotional connection with one's husband - laughing, saying "I love you", giving each other little presents - these are not sexual, and they are the little things that form the basis of a strong relationship. Especially if one is not engaging in physical contact, verbal "I love you"s are extremely important.
A friend of mine told me how during Niddah, her husband had a crisis, and she was really frustrated by her inability to hug him. To me, hugging someone is not sexual, and especially during a time of crisis, it is really important to be able to comfort one's spouse. Judaism stresses the value of shalom bayit - household peace is the literal translation, but I would like to think of it more as a healthy household/family life - and not being able to hug one's husband in a crisis is not healthy for one's family life. According to the midrash - ie, rabbinic philosophy as reflected in exegisis - God lied to Avraham in order to cover up Sarah's thinking Avraham was old, because God valued the health of Sarah and Avraham's relationship over the truth*, and God allowed His** name to be erased in the Sotah ceremony in order to maintain "shalom bayit". (The ceremony was supposed to quell the jealousies of husbands and restore peace between man and wife.)*** If God is willing to lie - despite Biblical injunctions like "From words of falsehood stay away" and to have His name erased for healthy households, it is hard for me to beleive that Judaism would have halachot that detract from the health of households, which is why I can not beleive Niddah laws would truly santion not hugging one's husband when he is sad, or not telling each other "I love you". I think the Orthodox community needs to have a real conversation about how Niddah impacts relationships, and about how to prevent it from having a negative impact - which means lightening up on harkachot.
I think that these letters are a good illustration of the problem - and by the way, I find the answers unsatisfying:
http://www.yoatzot.org/question.php?id=4181
http://www.yoatzot.org/question.php?id=2627
* Sarah asks how she can conceive when Avraham is old, but in repeating her words to Avraham, God changes them to Sarah asking how she can conceive when she is old, thus skipping over her questioning of Avraham's virility and changing it into a question about her own
post-menopausal state.
** Yes, God is genderless, but English has no gender-neutral pronoun
*** Think about it: If she drinks the water and nothing happens, she is assumed to be innocent and her husban must show contrition for accusing her of infidelity to begin with. If something happens and she dies, she is assumed to be guilty. There are two ways of seeing this: 1. God performed a miracle with Sotah water so innocent women lived and guilty ones died - this is certainly how the Talmud saw it 2. The water never had the power to kill; it was normal water that certain harmless elements were mixed into during the course of the ritual. Thus, the water served the social function of restoring household peace since all women survived, and their having drunk it and survived proved their innocence to their husbands. This is the theory about the effectiveness of much of African tribal medicine, where the medicine cures a social ill: For example, a woman who complained of her husband's anger was told when she thought of his anger to put a large stone in her mouth for a few minutes. This did decrease the husband's anger, because they fought less, since the woman was not saying things that angered her husband. Of course, the official reason given was that the stone had certain powers. But in any event, I think such medicine is valid, because it is getting done what it is meant to get done and improving people's lives. Of course, I do not think it should come at the expense of Western medicine, and if the two were to conflict I would side wit Western medicine - thus for example, I am against FGM, which in modern medical terms is thought of as extremely unhealthy for the woman, despite is esteem in certain heritages - which is beginning to change thanks to organizations like Tostan.
I was telling friends earlier today that I would like to be in a relationship where I have the freedom to be as lenient as possible with Niddah laws, without worrying about my significiant other being stricter than I am. My (male) friend replied by saying that halachikly, Niddah is considered the woman's mitzvah and her responsibility, so a husband doesn't have the right to tell the woman what to do in that regard - but I wonder how many men are taught that halacha. I know I was never taught it, despite being taught the minutia of "harkachot", such as that one shouldn't pass a baby to one's husband - of course, I don't plan on observing these harkachot.
I think that the way Niddah is taught to women is really problematic (also the way its taught to men - men should be well-educated on these halachot as well, because even if they are a women's mitzvah, they are halachot that affect one's romantic relationships if one is straight). Women are taught "This is the halacha", without being taught how the halachot developed, and usually, the halachot they are taught are the stricter opinions, opinions they might reject if they knew the process of how those opinions came to be, and if they knew of the more lenient opinions of the tradition. This is a general trend with regards to how mitzvot regarding gender and sexuality are taught, especially to girls.
For example, there is a kallah teacher used by some of the more right-wing Modern Orthodox Washington Heights girls who teaches that a) one may not laugh with one's husband during Niddah b) one may not give/receive gifts, flowers, etc. c) one may not tell one's spouse "I love you" during Niddah. Not only are all of these things ridiculous - and have been outed as "ridiculous" by mainstream YU rabbis - but they also can negatively impact one's spousal relationship, because these "issurs" are about one's emotional connection with one's husband - laughing, saying "I love you", giving each other little presents - these are not sexual, and they are the little things that form the basis of a strong relationship. Especially if one is not engaging in physical contact, verbal "I love you"s are extremely important.
A friend of mine told me how during Niddah, her husband had a crisis, and she was really frustrated by her inability to hug him. To me, hugging someone is not sexual, and especially during a time of crisis, it is really important to be able to comfort one's spouse. Judaism stresses the value of shalom bayit - household peace is the literal translation, but I would like to think of it more as a healthy household/family life - and not being able to hug one's husband in a crisis is not healthy for one's family life. According to the midrash - ie, rabbinic philosophy as reflected in exegisis - God lied to Avraham in order to cover up Sarah's thinking Avraham was old, because God valued the health of Sarah and Avraham's relationship over the truth*, and God allowed His** name to be erased in the Sotah ceremony in order to maintain "shalom bayit". (The ceremony was supposed to quell the jealousies of husbands and restore peace between man and wife.)*** If God is willing to lie - despite Biblical injunctions like "From words of falsehood stay away" and to have His name erased for healthy households, it is hard for me to beleive that Judaism would have halachot that detract from the health of households, which is why I can not beleive Niddah laws would truly santion not hugging one's husband when he is sad, or not telling each other "I love you". I think the Orthodox community needs to have a real conversation about how Niddah impacts relationships, and about how to prevent it from having a negative impact - which means lightening up on harkachot.
I think that these letters are a good illustration of the problem - and by the way, I find the answers unsatisfying:
http://www.yoatzot.org/question.php?id=4181
http://www.yoatzot.org/question.php?id=2627
* Sarah asks how she can conceive when Avraham is old, but in repeating her words to Avraham, God changes them to Sarah asking how she can conceive when she is old, thus skipping over her questioning of Avraham's virility and changing it into a question about her own
post-menopausal state.
** Yes, God is genderless, but English has no gender-neutral pronoun
*** Think about it: If she drinks the water and nothing happens, she is assumed to be innocent and her husban must show contrition for accusing her of infidelity to begin with. If something happens and she dies, she is assumed to be guilty. There are two ways of seeing this: 1. God performed a miracle with Sotah water so innocent women lived and guilty ones died - this is certainly how the Talmud saw it 2. The water never had the power to kill; it was normal water that certain harmless elements were mixed into during the course of the ritual. Thus, the water served the social function of restoring household peace since all women survived, and their having drunk it and survived proved their innocence to their husbands. This is the theory about the effectiveness of much of African tribal medicine, where the medicine cures a social ill: For example, a woman who complained of her husband's anger was told when she thought of his anger to put a large stone in her mouth for a few minutes. This did decrease the husband's anger, because they fought less, since the woman was not saying things that angered her husband. Of course, the official reason given was that the stone had certain powers. But in any event, I think such medicine is valid, because it is getting done what it is meant to get done and improving people's lives. Of course, I do not think it should come at the expense of Western medicine, and if the two were to conflict I would side wit Western medicine - thus for example, I am against FGM, which in modern medical terms is thought of as extremely unhealthy for the woman, despite is esteem in certain heritages - which is beginning to change thanks to organizations like Tostan.
Rivkah and Yitzhak
A friend pointed out over shabbat pointed out that Rivka's family asks her if she would like to go and marry Yitzhak, and how revolutionary that was for the time. Then we got into a discussion about how Judaism does not beleive in coerced marriage; a marriage is a contract in which two people must give consent and if one does not - whether it is the man or the woman - the marriage is not considered valid.
My friend's comment - about how marrying Yitzhak was Rivka's choice - elicited another comment, about the possibility that Rivkah was desperate to escape her home, especially if her folks were as bad as the midrash says.
This entire discussion got me thinking more about Rivka and Yitzhak: Rivka has a very physical, powerful response to seeing Yitzhak for the first time - she falls off the camel. Meanwhile, Yitzhak loves Rivkah from the beginning of their marriage, and the Torah states so outright. They are so passionate that they can't keep their hands off each other, and hence fail at the whole "She's just my sister" ruse that was succesfully carried out by Avraham and Sarah. Rivka also clearly knows what her husband wants - she seems to run his life, and he doesn't mind. They even pray together, for the same thing - children - when they are experiencing difficulty conceiving. The Torah describes them praying while facing each other. This presents a strong contrast to Avraham, who prays for a child for himself without mentioning Sarah - a fact that the rabbis attibute Sarah's anger to, when she tells Avraham after Hagar conceives a child for him, "My anger is upon you". At the same time, one does not see much verbal communication between Yitzhak and Rivka - she goes behind his back with getting Yaakov the birthright, although she does speak to Yitzhak when convincing him to send Yaakov to Lavan, and Yitzhak listens. He also does not seem too upset that Yaakov is the one with the birthright, and does not try to change things, but actually gives Yaakov an additional bracha after finding out the truth - which makes one wonder if Rivkah knew what Yitzhak wanted better than he did. In any event, the image is one of a powerful woman who runs the household, who has a passionate relationship with her husband, even if sometimes there are miscommunications/she manipulates him "My Big Fat Greek Wedding Style - "The man is the head, but the woman is the neck and she can turn the head any way she wants".
My friend's comment - about how marrying Yitzhak was Rivka's choice - elicited another comment, about the possibility that Rivkah was desperate to escape her home, especially if her folks were as bad as the midrash says.
This entire discussion got me thinking more about Rivka and Yitzhak: Rivka has a very physical, powerful response to seeing Yitzhak for the first time - she falls off the camel. Meanwhile, Yitzhak loves Rivkah from the beginning of their marriage, and the Torah states so outright. They are so passionate that they can't keep their hands off each other, and hence fail at the whole "She's just my sister" ruse that was succesfully carried out by Avraham and Sarah. Rivka also clearly knows what her husband wants - she seems to run his life, and he doesn't mind. They even pray together, for the same thing - children - when they are experiencing difficulty conceiving. The Torah describes them praying while facing each other. This presents a strong contrast to Avraham, who prays for a child for himself without mentioning Sarah - a fact that the rabbis attibute Sarah's anger to, when she tells Avraham after Hagar conceives a child for him, "My anger is upon you". At the same time, one does not see much verbal communication between Yitzhak and Rivka - she goes behind his back with getting Yaakov the birthright, although she does speak to Yitzhak when convincing him to send Yaakov to Lavan, and Yitzhak listens. He also does not seem too upset that Yaakov is the one with the birthright, and does not try to change things, but actually gives Yaakov an additional bracha after finding out the truth - which makes one wonder if Rivkah knew what Yitzhak wanted better than he did. In any event, the image is one of a powerful woman who runs the household, who has a passionate relationship with her husband, even if sometimes there are miscommunications/she manipulates him "My Big Fat Greek Wedding Style - "The man is the head, but the woman is the neck and she can turn the head any way she wants".
Friday, November 18, 2011
Thoughts
Reading the parsha, Chaye Sarah, I am struck by the importance of women:
Abraham goes all-out to provide Sarah with a proper burial, and then seeks a wife for Isaac, sending his servant far to ensure that Isaac has a good wife, which shows Abraham considerd wives important. Then, Isaac loves Rebeccah, and she makes him feel happy again after his mother passes away - again, showing the power of women.
I am about to start shabbat, where we will read the Eshet Chayil poem, read every Friday night, that praises women - women who engage in commerce, no less. More on that another time.
I was also thinking about different types of liberation: There is ritual liberation - women's partaking equally in religious ceremonies. Then there is life liberation - an equal splitting up of household chores, etc. Many Orthodox families I know engage in the second type of liberation. The women in these families are not opressed -they are simply prioritizing one type of liberation over another. I saw an egalitarian minyan where the women could participate equally, but were not, because they were the ones watching the kids - those women had chosen to partake of ritual liberation, but not life liberation.
Feminism is about choice, and no one thing is right for everyone, so I can not condemn or condone anyone's choice. But I think viewing people who fit into one box as "opressed" and people who fit into another as "liberated" is overly simplistic and condescending, and this is often done with regards to Orthodox women.
Abraham goes all-out to provide Sarah with a proper burial, and then seeks a wife for Isaac, sending his servant far to ensure that Isaac has a good wife, which shows Abraham considerd wives important. Then, Isaac loves Rebeccah, and she makes him feel happy again after his mother passes away - again, showing the power of women.
I am about to start shabbat, where we will read the Eshet Chayil poem, read every Friday night, that praises women - women who engage in commerce, no less. More on that another time.
I was also thinking about different types of liberation: There is ritual liberation - women's partaking equally in religious ceremonies. Then there is life liberation - an equal splitting up of household chores, etc. Many Orthodox families I know engage in the second type of liberation. The women in these families are not opressed -they are simply prioritizing one type of liberation over another. I saw an egalitarian minyan where the women could participate equally, but were not, because they were the ones watching the kids - those women had chosen to partake of ritual liberation, but not life liberation.
Feminism is about choice, and no one thing is right for everyone, so I can not condemn or condone anyone's choice. But I think viewing people who fit into one box as "opressed" and people who fit into another as "liberated" is overly simplistic and condescending, and this is often done with regards to Orthodox women.
Lovely Ladies of Kings 1 Chapter 3
I was recently re-reading Kings 1, chapter 3: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09a03.htm
In this story, two prostitutes go to King Solomon, each claiming to be the mother of a baby. Solomon proposes slicing the child in half and giving half to each woman, at which point one woman says, "No. Don't kill the baby - let the other woman have him", and Solomon realizes the woman who was willing to give up the baby to preserve his life must be the mother.
The profession of the women - prostitution - is presents factually, without any moral censure. Furthermore, these women are granted a personal audience with the king, and treated with respect.
Whether or not the story happened is irrelevant: What matters is that whoever wrote and/or edited this story, who had this pro-Yahweh, pro-Davidic dynasty political-religious agenda, felt comfortable casually mentioning prostitution without needing to morally censure the women involved, and felt comfortable having a wise leader respect said women and grant them a personal audience.
I think that's pretty cool.
Links
On modern day sex slavery:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/opinion/kristof-the-face-of-modern-slavery.html?_r=1&src=tp&smid=fb-share
on the Israeli police and honor killings of Arab women;
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/defending-police-honor-1.395618
A "be proud of Israel' moment:
http://unitedwithisrael.org/israel-develops-cancer-vaccine/
More on the Israeli rabbinate:
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=245345
On male and female rape victims:
http://www.slate.com/content/slate/blogs/xx_factor/2011/08/03/an_accusation_of_female_on_male_rape_shows_how_much_it_resembles.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_like_chunky&fb_source=profile_oneline
Two opposing views on sexual harrasment:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/opinion/sunday/sex-harassment-what-on-earth-is-that.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2011/11/14/aren_t_we_past_katie_roiphe_s_fear_that_sexual_harassment_laws_will_make_workplaces_drab_and_women_uncool_.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_like_chunky&fb_source=profile_oneline
On the gender of nurses:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2011/11/14/does_it_matter_whether_male_nurses_are_masculine_or_feminine_.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_like_chunky&fb_source=profile_oneline
On religious women fighting for women's rights in Israel:
http://www.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/news/jt/israel_news/the_struggle_to_make_sure_womens_voices_are_heard/27686
Credit photos - courtesy of George Takei.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)