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:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)