Modern American Feminism: A Critique (Get Ready to Read About My Underwear)

At first when I read this article I thought it was funny - and it is. To sum up (for those too lazy to click on the link) a feminist released pseudo-Victoria Secret ads featuring a variety of differenly colored and shaped women, wearing underwear with slogans such as "Consent is sexy". Personally, I would buy such underwear, both because consent is sexy, and because it's just funny.

But when I thought about the interview with the women behind this project, I realized it revealed a lot of the issues I have with modern American feminism: 1. I do not think Victoria's Secret is obligated to take a stand on women's issues because it happens to sell underwear marketed at women. Something such as "we are anti-rape and genocide" should be assumed to be true of all businesses, unless stated otherwise - or unless they act in a way that indicates the opposite (for example, supporting the Sudanese government or having workplace environments that tolerate sexual harrassment). It would be nice if VS took a stand, and the next wave of charity might be harnessing the altruistic abilities of profit-making organizations, but it is not obligatory, any more than it would be obligatory for any other company. 2. I might not like the super-frilly lace things that VS sells, but I'm not sure how wearing (or marketing) them conflicts with the concept that consent is sexy. I don't think it is giving into rape culture or the patriarchy to wear pink underwear - unless, of course, my black thong with white rhinestones (don't judge me- I bought it when I was twelve) somehow means that I was "asking" for it, in which case you yourself are perpetuating the attitude of rape culture. It is normal to want to look sexy, both for yourself and for your partner. If for you VS undies do the trick, then gezunt aheit.* 3. I do think that the attitude that the only way to look sexy is to wear certain type of underwear (since when did nudity become unfashionable? Have men suddenly stopped liking women's naked bodies, that they need to see that g-string?) is unhealthy - and Victoria's Secret may be accused of selling that message in its marketing campaigns, as well as selling the message that only one type of body is sexy. This is a legitimate critique, but must come within the context of a more general critique of the fashion industry, since VS is not the only company guilty of this.

There is a real women's rights issue with VS - they use slave-like labor producing their products. I have long argued that women's rights and human rights are the same, and have no desire to repeat the argument now.** Suffice it to say: 1. Some of the children being forced to harvest cotton are females 2. Most of these children have mothers, who are pained by the situation (and father's who are pained by it as well) 3. Some of the male children will grow up and mate with women bearing the emotional scars of modern day slavery.

All of the reasons above are only part of why child labor is a very real women's rights/human rights issue - and it would be much more productive to have a conversation about that, then about whether or not VS's current underwear designs "lean more towards rape culture". I am not saying that conversation has no value, but it's time for modern-day, American feminism to get its priorities right. If feminism is about helping and empowering women, let's help empower women working against female genital mutilation in Somalia, or even help a homeless women on our local street-corner, before we complain about the design of slave-made cotton underwear.

* An extension of the "pink undies give into the patriarchy" idea is that all hetero sex gives into the patriarchy. I oppose this idea: Some women are biologically programmed to want to screw men. Fulfilling this desire is an act of empowerment, a feminist act. Sleeping with women when you like men, would just be an exercise in misery, thus opressing women. But yes, feminism must aim to level the playing field, so the power dynamics between the genders allow women to pursue male mates or female mates in a world of equality between males and females, and yes, the current inequality between the two does impact the average straight girl's lovelife in a very real way.
** If a woman is opressed, it is a women's rights issue - but it's also a human rights issue because she is human - and I believe the second formulation is more productive, both in terms of marketing and of substance. Read Simone de Beauvoir and get back to me.

on to the judaism part

I found this dvar Torah in my inbox, that I wrote a few years ago - and bc im so modest, decided to publish it:

I want to take a few minutes to explore the applications of Levina’s concept of responsibility in this week’s Torah portion as well as the limits of those applications. To summarize: In this week’s Torah portion, Toldot, Isaac and Rebecca are barren. Isaac prays and Rebecca conceives twins. She receives a prophecy that the oldest twin, Esav, will worship the younger one, Jacob. At one point Esav sells his birthright to Jacob. Unaware of this fact, Isaac tries to give Esav the special blessing for the firstborn, but is tricked by Rebecca and Isaac and winds up giving the blessing to Isaac instead, thus fulfilling Rebecca’s prophecy.

    In Genesis 25:21 it says,  וַיֶּעְתַּר יִצְחָק לַיהוָה לְנֹכַח אִשְׁתּוֹ, כִּי עֲקָרָה הִוא; וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ יְהוָה, וַתַּהַר רִבְקָה אִשְׁתּוֹ. “And Isaac entreated God while facing his wife, and God entreated Isaac, and Rebecca became pregnant.

    In this scene, Levinas’s conception of responsibility is at work: It is Isaac’s facing Rebecca that imbues him with the responsibility to pray for children on her behalf. At the same time, Isaac faces God as an ethical being, and this face-to-face (so to speak) encounter with God is defined by each facer taking responsibility for the fac-ee: Thus, just as Isaac “entreats” God, so too, God “entreats” Isaac, (actively allows himself to be entreated and grants Isaac’s request.)

    Contrast this with a later scene: Coming home exhausted and hungry from a day of hunting, Esav sells his birthright to Jacob in exchange for lentil stew, reasoning in Genesis 25: 32, “I am going to die anyway, of what use to me is a birthright?” The Torah censures Esav’s actions; the birthright blessing was designed to help Esav fulfill his potential as a human being, but Esav, being tired from his hunting career, did not feel up to the challenge, so he gave up on it, ate and went to bed.

    Why did one face-to-face encounter result in responsibility, while the other resulted in an evasion of responsibility?   

    The answer lies in the presence of God in each encounter: Isaac faces Rebecca as a man who stands before God, thus imbuing him with responsibility towards his wife qua his relationship with and responsibility towards God. Whereas for Esav, God is not in the picture. I just want to note for a second that if one wants to get Soloveichikean about it, one could argue that Isaac is homo religiosus, Esav is cognitive man, and Jacob is halachik man.

    This is where the limits on the applicability on Levinas’s coneption of responsibility come into play:  For Levinas, the face-to-face encounter in it and of itself becomes the imperative for responsibility, while in the Torah, the human face-to-face encounter is not enough; it is the encounter with God that turns the human face-to-face encounter into the moral imperative.

    We constantly face exhaustion and the temptation to be like Esav:  How many times, tired from all-nighters, is it so tempting to give up on whatever it is that is really important to us, whether it is religion, fighting genocide in Darfur, or spending time with friends? It is important to remember however, that ultimately our humanity is more important than our academic career, and to not give up on our goals for ourselves as people in the course of pursuing academic success.

    Secondly: As students, we come into daily face-to-face encounters with multitudes of people. Do we use these encounters to engage in responsibility and ethical relationships with people, or do we, like Esav, seek to evade responsiblity?

    I hope that this semester we can all engage in meaningful, responsible, and ethical relationships with ourselves, with God, and with each other.

 *************************************************

I have notes on the bottom, positing maybe Yitzhak is homo religiosis, Esav is cognitive man, and Jacob is the halachik man, as per the Rav Soloveitchik, but I never really fleshed out that idea - please feel free to take a shot at it and let me know what you come up with :)

Divorce and Anullment - Woohoo!

One of the claims made against Orthodox Jewish law is that it is sexist, because while the husband must grant the wife a bill of divorce in order to enable her to be legally divorced - and thus, entitled to remarry - the husband needs no similar document from the wife. This makes the system open to abuse, by men who wish to keep their wives legally married, in order to extract money from them (by demmanding money in exchange for the bill of divorce), or to exact revenge. Such men, if they took upon themselves second wives while still not having granted their first wives a bill of divorce, would only be considered to be violating a rabbinic prohibition by Rabbi Gershom, whereas the wives they keep legally married would be considered adulteresses on a Biblical level.****

Today, it is common for communities to ex-communicate men who refuse to give their wives a bill of divorce, known in Hebrew as a get, but the man in question can simply move to another community, where his antics may be unknown, so the ex-communication has a limited effect. Technically, a woman might move to a place where her previous-marriage-that-is-still-legally-binding is unknown, and marry some hot stud, but most of Orthodox women would consider doing so to be a direct violation of the Torah commandment against adultery, so their conscience holds them back.

The Talmud was extremely aware of the system's potential for abuse. For that reason, it ruled it permissible to physically beat a recalcicrant husband into submission. Persumably, a good thrashing managed to bully men into giving their wives a get, in a way that ex-communication today does not. Also, keep in mind that at the time ex-communication was devised as a form of punishment, the world was formed of micro-communities, with each person's health and livelihood dependent on their community, so ex-communication had very serious consequences.

As a further safeguard against abuse, the rabbis instituted a legal mechanism for anulling marriages. The theory went like this: Every Jewish couple marries with the understanding that they are marrying according to the rules of the rabbis, thus, if at some point in the future, the rabbis want to anull the marriage, they technically have the right to do so. Because the couple is aware of the "This marriage is only valid as long as the rabbis say it is" clause in the marriage contract (which Rashi points out, is implied in the language of the marriage ceremony: "You are betrothed to me according to the laws of Moses and Israel"), at the time they make the contract, this "The rabbis can annul this marriage" clause is valid. Thus, rabbinically anulling a marriage after it's taken place, is simply legally using a clause that the couple themselves put in their marriage contract on their wedding day.

The rabbis are clearly not in favor of going around anulling marriages - as a matter of fact, almost every time it rules that a marriage anullment is permitted, it makes sure to include Ravina's (ultimately rejected) objection to the entire concept of rabbinic marriage anullments. I do not believe this is a mere rhetorical ploy, but rather, the editor's subtle way of underscoring that while permissible in certain circumstances, rabbinic marriage annulments are only to be used sparingly, because yes, the entire concept is problematic.*****

I plan on bringing two cases in the Talmud when the rabbinic power of annullment is used in response to inappropriate action by the husband. There are other cases when the Talmud allows anullments for different reasons, but my goal is to prove that annullment can be used in response to the husband's misdeeds, not to prove that it can't be used for other reasons.

In Baba Batra, 48:1, the Talmud explains that if a woman is forced into a marriage, the marriage is invalid. "He acted with her improperly, thus we act with him improperly, and retroactively anull the marriage." Thus, anullment is seen as something negative, yet necessary. The anullment prevents the woman from being taken advantage of by a man who acts improperly. The goal of the law is to protect the women's agency, her ability  to not be forced to stay in a marriage she does not want to be in.

Tosfot, commenting on the passage, note that the reason the "all people marry in accordance with rabbinic law, thus the "rabbis-can-annull-this" clause is built into the marriage contract, is not given as the reason behind the annullment in this case, is that the man in question clearly married in full knowledge that he was acting against the will of the rabbis.* This shows that Tosfot considered a woman's free choice in the matter to be essential enough to rabbinic matrimonial values that any man violating them must be one who consciously flouts the will of the rabbis.

The second case is in Yevamot 110., in the case of a woman in Narsh, a city notorious for cime, who was betrothed at a young age, and then kidnapped right before the actual wedding.** The Talmud rules that the woman does not need a get from her second husband (the kidnapper) because, "He acted with her improperly, thus we act with him improperly, and retroactively anull the marriage." Once again, an argument could be made that the rabbis are worried about a woman being forced to stay in a marriage she doesn't want to be in, since presumably she did not want to be kidnapped, and they were living before the discovery of Stockholm Syndrome.*** In any event, it seems that a husband's improper actions are grounds for anullment - as Tosfot points out, even if the marriage was done without the implied clause of "I'm marrying with the permission of the rabbis and this marriage lasts only as long as they approve".

Based on the above, it is clear that according to the Talmud, one of the major sources of Orthodox jurisprudence, if "a man acts improperly", the rabbis may retroactively annul the marriage, thus obviating the need for the man to give the women a get. Thus, one could argue: A man refusing to give his wife a get is acting improperly. Furthermore, it is acting improperly in such a way that it will force the woman to stay in a marriage she does not want to be in - the very type of impropriety mentioned in the two cases above. Thus, this impropriety is grounds to institute the principle of "He acted with her improperly, thus we act with him improperly, and retroactively anull the marriage.", thus annulling the marriage, and allowing the woman in question to be legally single without her husband giving her a get.

If this is the case, then the problem is not the Orthodox law per se, rather, the unwillingness of the rabbis to properly implement the law. The rabbis could make it a policy to anull the marriage of any couple where the man does not give the woman a get (unless he has a good reason behind his actions) - they certainly have the legal power to do so, they simply prefer not to use it.

But if anything, the extent to which the rabbis of the Talmud are willing to extend rabbinic power beyond the limits of what they are comfortable with, and to rely on all sorts of leniencies in order to make the laws of divorce more flexible, in a way favorable to women, shows the importance they placed on the value of protecting women from abuse within the halachik system - perhaps because they understood that such abuses violated the halachik principle of "The Torah's ways are ways of pleasantness and all her paths are paths of peace." Thus, such annullments would not only be using legal measures sanctioned by the Talmud, but they would also be upholding the values implied in those measures. Which begs the question of why the rabbis don't anull - a question whose answer depends on socio-historical, not religious, factors.

The question might then be asked: If the rabbis cared about the rights of women so much, why didn't they simply say that just as a man must give his wife a bill of divorce, so too, a wife must give one to her husband?

The answer lies in the verses themselves: Deutoronomy, 24:1: "When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house, 2 and she departeth out of his house, and goeth and becometh another man's wife, 3 and the latter husband hateth her, and writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife; 4 her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD; and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance."

In the verses above, it is very clear that it is the man, not the woman, giving the bill of divorce. It is clear that the wife's divorce depends on the husband's bill of divorce, but that no such condition applies to the man, for if it did, the verse would mention it. The rabbis saw themselves bound by the language of the verse. There is some leeway - namely, the verse can be interpreted either in accordance with a standing tradition, even if it violates the apparent meaning of the text, or in accordance with the traditional exegetical tools (such as Rabbi Yishmael's 13 measures the Torah is expounded by), but here, there was no long-standing tradition of male divorce being dependent upon bills of divorce by women, nor did the rabbis feel the exegetical tools at their disposal justified such a reading. (It should be noted there are many midrashey halacha about the above verses that are not directly related to the topic at hand, but that do show the rabbis clearly felt comfortable expoudning midrashim about said verses.)

I believe the answer also stands in the way that the Talmudic rabbis saw the world, a way which determined how they related to the above verses: They saw it as one of natural, not positive, law. The role of the rabbis was to uphold the laws passed down through Moses, the written Torah, and various oral traditions, or to reveal laws using a variety of exegetical and legal methods - but they did not have the power to create their own laws. Even the "chiddush", the new learning, is in fact no more than a revelation of a pre-existing truth, which the learner is privileged to reveal. Thus, the midrashic story God first looked into the Torah, and then created the world: The threads of the Torah and the Jewish legal system was woven into the world, were part of the natural order since the first moment of creation. The process of the evolution of Jewish law is a process of ongoing revelation (albeit a more hidden revelation ever since the exile and the cessation of prophecy, but the relationship between revelation, prophecy, and the Jewish legal tradition is way too big to tack right now), not of ongoing creation.

Thus, the rabbis did not have the right to create a law that would enable a mutual exchanging of divorce bills. The most they could do was work within the limits they had to reveal ways in which the laws might be made more empowering of women. I believe that this model of revelation holds power for current Jewish legal jurisprudence. If I assume I am bound by the laws, but that I can look at the corpus of Jewish texts and the values contained therein, and then try to reveal ways, within the boundaries of the laws in front of me, to minimize any seeming conflict between the two, then all of a sudden, I have a plethora of options available to me. Another example of this method of jurisprudence is that of the rebellious son: The Talmud could not undo the law, because it is a Biblical passage******, but it did limit the definition of rebellious son to something so specific, not to mention impose ridiculous conditions on the parental testimony necessary for the execution, in such a way that the chances of anyone being executed under the law were zero. The Talmud itself claims, "A case (fitting all our criteria) for a rebellious son, never happened", and goes on to ask why the Torah bothered listing a law involving a case that will never take place. Conclusion: To give the Jews the benefit of the Torah study that comes from exploring that law.

So I hope you've benefited from reading my post exploring a Torah law - a law that I hope will not be used very often, because the majority of marriages will be deliriously happy, life-long unions.

*Since the built-in-clause was the way the rabbis justified their powers of anullment, Tosfot then goes through legal hoola-hoops to explain why the rabbis can anull in this case, when there was no such clause. While those hoola-hoops are not directly relevant to this piece, their commentary does include the sentence "The rabbis can uproot a Torah law" - which is admittedly much sexier when taken out of context.
** Best Jastro saying: "If a Narshean kisses you, count your teeth".
*** Yes, kidnap marriages in late antiquity are part of a larger topic. Not going to go there right now.
**** The men in question can legally remarry if they get a hundred rabbis to make them exempt from the prohibition, but getting a hundred rabbis to agree on anything is pretty hard. Also, worth mentioning for the record: A man can not force a woman to divorce - she must consent to the divorce for it to be valid. A different topic, but I couldn't resist.
***** because of the amount of power it grants the rabbis.
****** Yes, there are times the Talmud or a midrashic source will interpret the text in a way that is the complete opposite of its simple meaning. But I believe they only do so a) when the interpretation is in accordance with a long-standing tradition b) when the traditionally accepted ways of interpreting verses allow for such an interpretation. Presumably, in both the case of the man giving his wife a bill of divorce and in the rebellious son case, neither a nor b applied in such a way that would allow for claiming the verse was promulgating a mutual-bill-exchance law, or for claiming the verse was in fact not arguing for executing the rebellious son.

Periods. How exciting.

I want to write about what it's like to have my period, because I think it's not talked about enough. Girls are told to keep quiet; it's ok to say "I have a cold", or "I have a headache", but not "I have my period", even though, like colds and headaches, it is a natural medical condition - yet unlike those conditions, it does not imply a negative impact on health - on the contrary, menstrual periods are generally considered signs of a healthy female body.

It is true that periods are healthy, but they can also be extremely annoying. Every woman experiences her period differently, so I can't speak for others. But I think part of acknowledging the female existence on this earth, is acknowledging the different ways that different women experience periods. I understand that this goes against centuries of male-propagated menstrual taboos, but I think the fight is worth it. Imagine being able to actually say, "I have my period", when asked why you cancelled your dinner plans - just being able to say those words, to explain the real reason that you're feeling ill or don't feel like seeing anybody, provides you with so much freedom. Truth is empowering.

That's not to say that I think suddenly men will start considering periods sexy; I honestly believe that periods are an extremely unappealing part of how a woman's body works, for the simple reason that blood is unsexy (unless you have a vampire fetish, but let's not go there). So yes, knowing that blood is seeping out of the same part of a woman's anatomy that you stick your dick into - I think that's a completely valid reason to not feel like sticking your dick into it at that exact moment. I also know that this does not bother some men, though the concept of period-sex has always eluded me, for the reason that when I am sad and nauseous, it's kind of hard for me to feel turned on. I think if the sexiest man on earth walked into my room right now, I would just feel too sick to do anything beyond cuddling. I actually see the Bible's taboos on menstrual sex as a mechanism to protect women against rape within marriage: "They haven't invented Midol yet" might not have counted as a valid excuse for the average ancient near eastern husband, in an era before the concept of "rape within marriage" had been properly legally defined. "I'm forbidden" might have been a more palatable excuse.

Which brings me to my own experiences: Some days when I have my period, I can not eat. Other days, I crave food all day long, especially chocolate. Once I even craved tofu. I walk around in something ranging from mild nausea/stomach ache to fullblown stomach virus. I've fainted twice. One of those times was in public, and I was rushed to the emergency room. It was a Friday. Thankfully, the doctor didn't make me spend the night. Most classes that I have missed, I have missed on days when I had my period. It is easier for me to function with fever and strep than with my period (and easier for me to be with guys with fever and strep, though I never understood why the words "I'm on anti-biotics" are not a sufficient deterrent to stop someone from exchanging saliva with you.)

Not all my periods are alike. Some are better than others. Sometimes I will get through an entire period feeling completely normal. But of course, there is not just the period itself - there are also the days leading up to the period. A woman is told to track her period on a calendar. I sometimes forget to do this, but I can generally tell when I am "coming down" with my period, because suddenly, so many things in my life will seem pointless or impossible, because I will feel sad and lonely in a way I just don't when I'm not menstruating (thank God), because I won't feel like seeing or speaking to anyone, sometimes not even to my closest friends, because things I usually consider fun will be annoying, because I will suddenly find myself getting really emotional and crying over something silly. Again, I don't experience all of these things with each period; I usually experience at least one, but degree also matters: If I am walking around feeling slightly lonely, but knowing it's hormonal, that's not so bad. It's the days when I don't feel like getting out of bed, and have to remind myself it's my hormones that are making me feel that way, that the "me" beneath the hormones wants to get out of bed and continue functioning, when the entire thing enabling me to carry out tasks throughout the day is my rationality fighting the feeling that all I want to do is sleep in order to escape myself, that's when it's hard. And yes, it IS my hormones: I am grateful to God that I don't feel that way when I'm not pre-menstrual/going through the first day or two of menstruation.

And of course, there is the delicious horniness that hits me in the week or two before my period, that can grow so potent when the PMS forgets to strike. This makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint: I need to be horny while I ovulate so I can produce babies - and if this crazy monthly blood thing is what enables me to do that, then yes, it's worth it. (Ouch. Cramp as I write this - body, are you trying to test me?)

And yes, there are things I probably could do to minimize the pain. I could walk around hopped up on pain relief meds for a week. I could switch from birth control to birth control, until I found the one that made my period more bearable. I once told a doctor about my periods, and she asked if I wanted anti-depressants to take in the few days before I started menstruating. I was shocked: Not because I am against anti-depressants (I think they do good work WHEN PROPERLY PERSCRIBED) but at the casual way she suggested it, like a girl offering her friend candy - or menstrual chocolate. But you know what? All of these "cures" have consequences: Pain meds have side-effects, and generally make me fall asleep - and it's unhealthy to be hopped up on them for a quarter of your life, even the period-fighting ones, like Midol. Different birth controls have different side effects and risk factors, and getting one's body accustomed to a new birth control pill can be its own long and arudous process. Seasonale, the "four periods a year" birth control, has not been around for long enough to make me comfortable taking it, and it recently had a name-change, which is generally what companies do to cover up a testing glitch on a popular medication. As for anti-depressants: I guess I could go to a shrink and get them perscribed for one week a month, but I'd rather not and I also think that there is no need to, at least in my case. Perhaps other women feel differently, and do take anti-depressants that one week a month; it's their right to do so. But all medicines have side-effects and consequences - so there are no simple solutions.

I also think a lot of these solutions are needed because modern Western society ignores the uniqueness of a woman's menstrual experience. Women have to function normally; if they admitted that for one week out of every four (or even three) they might not feel well, physically or emotionally, they become less profitable, hence less hire-able, and there goes the feminist revolution, and we all go back to being housewives. I am not advocating that women be given special "period days" off from work, but I think periods should be seen as valid personal or sick days, and women shouldn't have to think up creative excuses. If the man and women each use the same amount of sick/personal days, it shouldn't be held against the woman that some of hers were for menstruation and some of his were for a headache.

I also think that a lot of rituals we interpret as "separating" out a menstruating woman, were in their own ways, respecting the uniqueness of a woman's menstrual experience. The woman was not expected to function normally during her period, the fact that she was going through something the non-menstruants were not, something that might make it harder for her to perform all the tasks she does when she doesn't have blood seeping out of her, was recognized. This special - because say whatever you want about it, it is special - time in a woman's life was marked off: There was a ritual to celebrate (or commiserate) the end (or beginning) of her period, demarcating it from the non-menstrual portion of her life. Behind many taboos lies male chauvenism and female disenfranchisement, but behind many taboos - perhaps some of those same taboos - lies an inherent respect for a woman's body, and often women embraced the taboos and made the their own, usurping chauvenistic rituals by using them as a means of female empowerment.

I am a little afraid to publish this, not just because, as I said before, I consider periods unsexy, and publishing unsexy information about myself is something I generally prefer not to do, but also because I'm afraid someday some guy considering dating me might see this, and say, "That girl is crazy when she has her period. I don't want to deal with this." It's nice to say, "The right guy will care enough to see beyond it", but I don't think that's how it works. There might be some awesome guy who'd fall in love with me if we went on a second date, but won't go on a second date with a girl who has tough periods. On the other hand, since I've been in extremely happy relationships before, and my period hasn't made a difference (other than that it sucks if your girlfriend doesn't feel well) in those relationships, I am hopeful that God willing, I will once more find happiness.

But of course, I am not sure how "tough" my periods are. It is generally impossible to compare one corporeal experience to another. We are all bound by the subjectivity of our bodies, and this is a general obstacle to human empathy. But the silence about women's menstrual experiences, means that beyond my circle of close friends, I'm not sure what women experience. I'd like to know. We each go through this common-yet-different experience every month, and we have so much to share and so much to learn from each other. (Come on people. This is a post about periods - you knew when you started reading that it had to end with a plea for hugs and women's empowerment.)

So I hope that my words about my period will be the first of many words that many different women will speak about their period - and perhaps even that different men will speak about how their lives are affected by the menstrual cycles of women close to them, if at all. I know in Orthodox Judaism for example, couples are taught to refrain from period sex, so there has to be an impact.

I did hesitate before publishing this, but Ghandi said "Be the change you wish to see in the world". I wish to live in a world in which women can openly express what they go through during menstruation, without fearing social (or other) consequences. So here goes. Here's to hoping that for every man who reads this and gets turned off, there's another one with a vampire fetish.*


* Note: I am completely joking. I do not have a vampire fetish. If I loved a guy, I'd be willing to try out a vampire fetish or role-play that did not involve menstrual blood, but the idea of it doesn't particularly appeal to me. I read Twighlight, but I never understood how it became a fad - and no, I have not seen the movies.

2 Quick Thoughts

Ok, two quick thoughts:

1. I recently had a conversation about elbow-length with a Jewish communal leader/educator. She confessed that she does not think women are halachikly obligated to wear elbow-length, but does so in order to gain the communal respect she needs in order to be a succesful Jewish educator in the Modern Orthodox world. On the one hand, I admire her dedication. On the other, the more women wear elbow-length despite not believing in it, because they view it as a social prerequisite to being an MO female Jewish educator, the more it becomes a social prerequisite: It enforces the idea that modesty is elbow-length, and that elbow-length is the true halachik requirement - after all, why else would it be that no MO Jewish educator ladies are wearing short sleeves? If at least there were a public acknowledgment: We as women do not view this as a halachik requirement, but dress this way anyway, because we respect the social customs of our community even if they are not halachik requirements, or because we give in in this one area, in order to engage in our work of Torah teaching, I would be fine with it. But since people often assume that Jewish layleaders dress in accordance with what they view as halacha, and since no such announcement accompanies these women's attire, people simply assume "If the lady who gave a shiur wears elbow-length, it must be required." I think sometimes the obligation to live the Torah, in order to teach the Torah, means living kulahs, in order to teach people kulahs, therefore making it easier for them to follow the Torah. If you don't show people ways to make things easier within the law, they will simply circumvent the law.

2. I got to say a pasuk from "Ata Horaita" at the Carlebach shul on the Upper West Side of Manhattan over Simchat Torah. The minute I performed a public ritual, I immediately felt more of a part of the community. I felt more of a responsibility to stay and to be invovled in the service. This just reinforces my belief: If davening were more inclusive of women, more women would come. So saying "We'll make it more inclusive when more women come", is really no more than a faux-halachik way of ignoring the ritualistic needs of women in community contexts.

Sexual Halachot: Time To Face Reality

What do niddah, shomer negiah, and abstaining from vaginal intercourse before marriage have in common? They are all Orthodox halachic norms that are framed in apologetic terms.

Niddah is supposed to enhance your marriage by making married sex more special, preventing sexual boredom, and enhancing verbal and other non-sexual communication skills. Shomer laws are supposed to enhance marital sex, by saving it for marriage, and to preserve the holiness of all married physical contact. What could be more special than having your first kiss be with your lifetime lover, than only having sexual contact with the person of your dreams? Why open yourself up to the pain that comes with sexual intimacy in a relationship that ends? Shomerness prevents you from getting hurt or taken advantage of as a single person. It allows you to see your relationships clearer, without being biased by the physical pleasure you get from them (since you're getting none), which leads to healthier relationship decisions. Use the word "sex" instead of shomerness, and you have the justification for the "everything but sex" before marriage Orthodox philosophy. Add in the knowledge that to violate any of these sexual laws is a terrible sin that would make you a social pariah if people knew, a sin whose guilt is hammered into your head over and over in Orthodox schools.

What do you get? A completely unhealthy attitude towards these sexual halachot. The fact is, all of the aforementioned halachot can be difficult -actually, excruciating - to keep. By presenting them as this magical experience, the discourse makes a person feel guilty for the difficulty they have in keeping those halachot. Ironically, this guilt may help drive a person to break the halachot, since negative self-perceptions often become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Furthermore, by emphasizing the seriousness of these halachot and making sexual propriety a defining criteria for membership in Orthodox society -as opposed to, say, the ability to refrain from speaking lashon harah - we make it harder for someone to do teshuva if they do violate one of these halachot. A person can be plagued with a feeling that even a minor slipup puts them beyond hope of redemption, therefore taking away the motivation to redeem themselves. This can lead not only to continued breaking of the halacha in question, but even to a complete abandonment of Judaism, since, if you're doomed for hell anyway, what's the point of not eating a cheesburger?

I understand that this type of negative thinking is a trap, but I think it is the type of thinking being encouraged by the way these halachot are currently taught in the Modern Orthodox (maybe Orthodox in general) world. I also can understand the argument that using refraining from lashon harah as a criteria for social acceptance is unrealistic - but so is expecting perfection when it comes to rules governing something as basic and widespread as human sexuality! Of course, I think that Orthodox society (and pretty much all socieities) should stop being so judgemental, especially since in Judaism, we are enjoined not to judge others, just as we wish for God not to judge us, but instead, to treat us with kindness and mercy - but that's a different topic.

I am not advocating a change in the halachot, but rather, a change in the way the halachot are taught. Openly adressing the challenges in keeping these halachot, and helping students to address them, can help students to keep them. Furthermore, emphasizing that while yes, sinning is bad, teshuva is possible, and that just because you sinned in one area, does not make you "a sinner", will help students stay within the bounds of the halachik system. A brief skim through the Yom Kippur liturgy is enough to illustrate that Judaism certainly believes in the power of redemption, and the ability of people to change.

I also believe, that the same way that there are Alcoholics Anonymous groups, there should be shomer, nidah, and no-pre-marital sex anonymous groups, segregated by gender (sorry for the heteronormativity here), where people can gather for facillitated meetings at which they can discuss the difficulties involved in keeping these halachot, and offer support and tips for each other. Perhaps the no pre-marital sex one could be merged with the general shomer one, dependng on demmand. In an ideal world, these groups would not be anonymous, and would not be gender segregated, but I understand that our world is not always ideal. In an ideal world, if someone saw another person going to a "Niddah Difficulties" anonymous group, they would admire that person for their commitment to halacha - and yes, men also need such a group, because niddah affects their relationships, too.

Or maybe it would be better if those groups were public - if whatever was said in the room was confidential, to the point where you even had to sign a legal disclaimer saying so, but that it would be publicly known, "The shomer difficulties group for women meets every Monday night at 9 o'clock, in the little office on the second floor, next to the beit midrash" - that way there would be public acknowledgment and acceptance of said difficulties. Though again, I think many people who might otherwise attend such meetings would be uncomfortable with that.

In any event, I think changing the discourse around these halachot, and the way they are taught, is essential. It is time to move beyond apologetics, towards reality - and in doing so, to honor a Jewish tradition that has long recognized the messy realities of the human body, while attempting to bring meaning to the Jewish soul.

Why I Love Being Orthodox

I often criticize the Jewish Orthodox community, however:

1. If you are Orthodox and getting married, you can turn to your local gemach - lending organization - for a free bridal dress. (It is customary, but not obligatory, to give a small donation for the upkeep of the gemach, according to your financial abilities.)
2. If you are sick - you have an entire community to pray for you, to visit you in the hospital, to make you meals.
3. Most synagogues have a bikur cholim society that goes around visiting sick people in hospitals - regardless of whether or not said people are synagogue members, or even Jewish.
4. If a loved one passes away, the community unites to comfort the mourner by visiting her/him and making meals.
5. If you give birth - presto, there will be a sign-up sheet going around as people volunteer to cook you meals.
6. If you need a shabbat meal or even to be set up in a city for shabbat, just let the synagogue know, and it will send out emails and call members, in order to arrange hospitality for you. Just in general, people within the Orthodox community have a "my pleasure" attitude towards hosting others, whether the guest is a friend, a friend of a friend, or a stranger one is hosting at the community's behest.

These qualities might exist in other denominations of Judaism, or in other religions, but I am talking about Orthodox Judaism because it's the community I grew up in and am most familiar with. To me, the six values I've mentioned above - each a different way of being kind towards others - are part of the core values of Judaism - and part of why, at times, I love being Orthodox.

On God

So recently I've been thinking a lot about God. Actually, I've been thinking a lot about God since I was three. I am not a fan of trying to convince other people to believe in God. I can give reasons that I believe in God, but I think, that while there are rational arguments both for and against God's existence, ultimately, the decision to believe, like the decision to disbelieve, requires a leap of faith.

I recently realized however, that while many people disbelieve in God on the grounds that it is "irrational", no one seems to disbelieve in human emotions, like love or happiness, even though they are not rational. How can I prove happiness exists? I can say I feel happy. I can say people say they feel happy. I can also say I feel God and know people who say they have felt God's presence - why is one more irrational than the other?

I think this is especially true in the case of love: How do we know love exists? Maybe it is psycho-sexual tricks our mind and body play on us, that we call love. We simply mislabel: Evolutionarily, we were meant to reproduce, and if we realized our bodies are duping us for that purpose, we wouldn't want to be in relationships, so our minds came up with this adaptation, this myth of love that enables us to create stable families, which up our chances of producing offspring that survives to pass on its genetic material to the next generation. We already know that our bodies and minds are capable of a) playing tricks on us b) coming up with adaptations to better enable us to pass on our DNA - yet most people, even staunch atheists, would rather agree in this wholly irrational, inexplicable theory of love. Why?

I mean, I can't even prove I have a soul, or that I exist. I can make logical, rational arguments for the latter, but I can't prove it, beyond the shadow of that doubt - I take a leap of faith. Yes, this leap is based on reason, but at the end of the day, it is faith that moves my belief in my own existence from "highly probable", to "certain".

I think human existence is composed of faith, of things that can not be explained purely by reason, and to try to do so, is to underestimate human nature and the richness of human experience on this earth. Yes, it is important to use logic: Do not buy the car you can't afford just because it looks pretty - that would be irrational. Yes, take the medicine the doctor prescribed, using an evidence-based scientific method. But don't expect the reason you love your wife and only your wife, from among the hundreds of beautiful woman you've come into contact in, to be explained solely through science or logic. Some facets of human life can not be reduced to empirical evidence or rational arguments - and that is ok. To my mind, one of the flaws of modern, secular culture, is that it is too quick to discount that fact of human nature. Life does not mean having to choose. It can mean being an engineer and a passionate lover, even if you can't rationally explain the reason behind your love. It can mean being a scientist, or even a Biblical critic, and still believing in God.

On Torah, Habit, and Prayer

Today I told a teacher of mine not to make blanket statements about Judaism, only to realize that in my blog, I constantly make blanket statements about Judaism. So, to be clear: When I say, "Judaism....", what I mean is, "My personal opinion, based on sources I've seen/research I've done, is that Judaism....", realizing someone equally or more knowledgeable could provide you with a diametrically opposed view of Judaism, also backed up by research and sources - as they say, there are 70 faces to the Torah. But I did want to apologize for the generalizations.

Having said that, I am about to engage in a generalization: To me, part of Judaism's beauty is that it uses the power of habit: Praying 3 times a day, saying blessings on various things throughout the day, having to base decisions about what one wears or eats around religion - all these cause Judaism to be seamlessly integrated into one's routine, encompassing a constant awareness of God's presence.

Science is just now beginning to understand the power of habit, which happens to be the title of a new book by Charles Duhigg. Essentially, we shape and are shaped by our habits - but we also have the ability to change those habits, although it does take a lot of work. Habit formation involves the strengthening of certain neural pathways, which means, when we get into the habit of praying, we are literally making prayer part of our body, for we are changing the chemical pathways inside our minds.

Perhaps the rabbis understood this when they said that one should act upon the mitzvot even if they do not feel them (shelo lishmah), understanding that soon such mitzvot would become habit. Since studies show we tend to adjust our perceptions of the world and our actions in order to better our self-image, it is only natural that once I do a, I will come up for a reason why a is a worthy action - so from the shelo lishmah habit, I create the lishmah reason for that habit.

I do not mean this to be cynical; halachik Judaism's grasp of human nature is so magnificent, it may even be taken as evidence for the argument that there is some Divine spark that ignited it all. I wish to give here two examples: 1. Blessings. Having to say blessings before and after eating, after going to the bathroom, when I hear thunder/see lightning, and in a myriad of other daily occurrences, means that taking a moment to acknowledge God's presence in my life (and to be grateful for that presence) is not something I need to think about or schedule in - it's part of my daily routine, almost as natural as eating or drinking coffee. This makes having those moments of acknowledgement easier. 2. Prayer: Having scheduled prayer three times a day is extremely powerful. If you pray everyday, and all of a sudden you miss a day, you really feel its absence, like an avid news junkie who doesn't have time to read the paper one morning. Prayer encompasses thanking God and generally giving gratitude - and taking time to feel gratitude is considered psychologically healthy by the psychological establishment. It also encompasses asking for personal requests - which can be a great time to clarify for oneself what one really wants, or just even to express anxiety about a minor anticipated event of the day. Again, a psychologically practice. Then, there is also the custom to pray for others (the rabbis say that's the best way to get one's own prayers answered). Many prayers are communal - we ask for God to heal "us", the collective we, as in, all who are sick. We pray for the good of the world and the Jewish people - the Amidah includes requests for peace, for "us and all the people of Israel", and also asks for God to redeem the Jewish people. Recent studies show that taking some time to hope for the well-being of others increases one's own psychological well-being. This means that daily prayer is the institutionalization of habit that encompasses three practices that lead to emotional well-being.

Of course, I do not think that one's halachik obligation rests upon the observable benefits of observace: If God is beyond human comprehension (which I believe - if He created us, She must be greater than us), then it is logical that His ways (i.e. halacha) would be as well. I believe in what Yeshayahu Leibowitz says: Halacha is about doing God's will, independent of observable benefits. However, I do also believe that because God loves humanity, He designed the system in such a way that as it works as intended, it does benefit humanity - often, though not always, in ways we can see. However, God, in Her desire to empower humans and give us freedom of choice, gave power to the rabbis to run halach, and rabbis are human and thus flawed, which is why halacha does not always work as intended. Luckily, like any legal process, halacha has built-in mechanisms for correcting its own flaws, but recently, for political reasons, rabbis have been afraid to use those mechanisms.

Still, even if I believe the system as it currently operates is flawed, I do have faith in the system to redeem itself. This is similar to how one may disagree with a Supreme Court decision, but accept it anyway, because one recognizes the Constitutional system that gives the Supreme Court to make decisions that are binding upon you even if you think they completely mis-interpreted the Constitution, and that, because the Constitution has self-correct mechanisms built in, you just have to wait for a new court for the law to change. Thus, accepting the system in its totality means accepting what you view to be the flawed interpretation of that system, for the moment.

As to why I believe in the system, it is very simple: I believe in a God who gave the Torah to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai, along with a component of Oral Law, that eventually morphed into the Talmud. As for how Biblical and Talmudic criticism factor into that statement, that is really too big for me to attack in one blog post. Suffice it to say, I do not simply reject secular, academic study of Judaism or its conclusions.

In Which I Blog About Pee

I am not generally a fan of finding significant implications in the technical requirements in the Talmud: I don't feel the need to question why 4 amot is the amount allotted for personal space, and not 3, and if I give any credence to an attempt to do so, it is only because as a post-modernist, I believe that any meaning one can find in the text is valid, regardless of authorial/editorial intent, so if you want to find some hidden, esoteric message - go ahead.

But today, when I was reading the Rambam's definition of ilan/ilanit (a man or woman who does not show the signs of physical/sexual maturity, and thus, biologically, while having a sex, retains a pre-pubescent body), I was struck by two things: 1. The definition of both ilan (male case) and ilanit (female case) listed difficulty or inability to have proper sexual relations as a sign of being an ilan/ilanit.*  2. In the case of defining a male ilan, there was a big discussion, both in the Talmud and in Rambam, about male urine: Apparently having the right type of urine, and being able to pee in the right way, was considered an essential sign of masculinity.**

Immediately, I was reminded of "Urinalysis: Standing Up To Pee", by Leigh Shoemaker, published in the book "Bitchfest". In the article, Shoemaker shows the way the man's ability/woman's inability to pee standing up has been used in gender discourse, to prove the superiority of man/inferiority of woman.

Thus, for example, Camille Paglia writes in Sexual Personae: Concentration and projection are remarkably demonstrated by urination, one of male anatomy's most efficient compartmentilizations...male urination really is a kind of accomplishment...a woman merely waters the ground she stands on. There is no projection beyond the boundaries of the self.***

I am not so interested in either Paglia's argument or in Shoemaker's article per se, as much as a) the durability of the act of male urination as a marker of male identity**** b) the way that the ancient often connects to the modern.

As a matter of fact, this marker of male identity not only post-dates the Talmud, but predates is as well: In Samuel 1, Chapter 25, when David threatens to kill the men of Naval's household, he says, "Thus may God do unto the enemies of David, and may He add to it: If I will leave from anything he (Naval) has until the morning, a urinator on the walls."

It might be hard to tell due to my awkward translation, but David uses the term "urinator on the walls" to refer to man. I think it's one of the best Biblical phrases, and a perfect way to describe a man, whether you wish to denigrate him by referring to his urinating habits, or to praise him by referring to his uniquely male ability to projectile pee onto a wall. It's all in the tone, and the context.

So basically, Jewish sources have some pretty cool - and maybe even funny - things to say about stuff that's as mundane as pee, and something as mundane as pee can also be mined for clues into historical constructions of gender identities.

On a more serious note, the incorporation of mundane physical needs into the corpus of Jewish, especially halachik, source material, not as something to be shunned, but rather, as a natural part of life that should be accepted, or even elevated through the mitzvot, is something that makes Judaism special. It embraces human nature in its totality, thus offering a philosophy of approaching the mitzvot through positivity, self-affirmation, and comfort with one's body.*****


* Note: This does not mean if you have bedroom troubles, you are considered an ilan/ilanit. You have to have a whole slew of signs showing you did not have proper sexual development, and inability to have sex properly is one of them. If you have a fully mature, post-pubescent body, but merely have sex troubles, that would not be enough to make you considered in ilan/ilanit - either in the Rambam, or in the Gemarah in Yevamot.

** The rabbinic dictum to not hold one's penis while peeing, lest one become hard/tempted to masturbate, also points to the act of peeing as a potential locus for male sexuality. Peeing while standing, the male act, stands in contrast to the un-virile act of onanism, and to change one for the other would be to convolute one's own male identity, literally through misappropriation of one's maleness i.e. one's penis.

*** Paglia then goes on to lament the longer restroom lines for women as evidence of female inferiority. Shoemaker, in turn, goes on to deconstruct Paglia's argument, by examining the various factors behind the longer lines (bathroom design. number of stalls, the amount of layers/clothing women must wear, the social aspect of ladies rooms (related to the privacy they afford, in comparison to men's rooms), etc.), and concludes by arguing that a) quicker is not always better b) what does the "sequestering" of women in private stalls v. the more public male bathroom scenario say about society's attitudes towards different gender's bathroom needs, and how does it affect men and women's perceptions of their own bodies and bodily functions?

**** As a matter of fact, the ability to pee standing up is considered a "rite of passage" for a female-to-male transgendered individual, an act of performing the male identity that enables one to be a true member of the male community. There are even guides telling trans men how to pee standing up, and prosthetics available to help them do so. If there is another trans perspective out there, I would love to hear it, but that is the one that I have seen so far, in my research on the issue.

*****Yeshayahu Leibowitz would disagree with me for saying that, since he does not believe that halacha is about the needs of man, but rather about the "desires" (so to speak) of God: Halacha is about doing the will of God as expressed through halacha. What the content of that will/Halacha is, is irrelevant. To a certain extent, I agree with that, however, I would argue: If a) halacha stems from some sort of Divine revelation b) that Divine wants what is good for people, then by it's nature, halacha could not help but be in (wo)man's best interest even if that is not its primary goal. I also think Leibowitz's theory is hard to reconcile with certain instances of Jewish jurisprudence where halachik rulings were issued based on statements such as "Its ways are ways of pleasantness and peace", unless one argues, it so happens, that there is a halachik principle of "It's ways....", and that's pure coincidence.

I'm Back! (Please don't judge this - I'm out of practice.)

Sorry for taking a break; I was extremely busy and also experienced hesitation about blogging per se, but I guess this forum for sharing my thoughts is too irresistible.

So here goes:

I am currently reading a book called "Sichot im yetzer harah", edited by Asa Kedar, published by Yediot Acharonot.* In the course of reading an essay by Shlomit Wiler, within the book, I came upon the following:

1. Rabbi Chiya says that women "save us from sin" (Yivamot semech-gimmel, ayin-alef).

2. A man without a wife is without a wall, i.e. protection against the evil inclination. (there, samech-bet, ayin-bet)

These two statements point to a Talmudic stream of thought that envisions the woman as the savior from sin, as man's guardian against the evil inclination, which stands in direct contrast to the Christian view of woman as the root of sin, as the evil inclination and temptress par excellence. I believe that this Christian view of women, based on the first chapters of Genesis, was influenced by the Greek story of Pandora as the temptress par excellence who brings a variety of ills to the world. As a matter of fact, Pandora (i.e. woman) was sent to men as a punishment, for angering Zeuss - just as Eve was sent to man, in Christian (primarily Catholic) mythology as a sort of stand-in for Satan - perhaps not as a punishment exactly, but as a test man was doomed to fail, as something negative. This is in contrast to the mainstream Jewish view, where woman is sent to man as a gift. In the plain Biblical text, God sends woman to man because "it is not good for man to be alone", as an act of kindness, and woman comes from man, bespeaking an innate equality between the two sexes - an equality that only gets tampered with as a result of the woman's actions, when the natural gender equality of the world is upturned: Gender inequality is tied up to punishment and the state of banishment. The Edenic ideal is one of equality between the sexes. The Biblical view of woman as gift is buttressed by Talmudic statements such as the ones above. There are counter-streams of Talmudic statements that do view woman more negatively, however, we must ask ourselves how much such statements have been influenced by the Hellenistic, Christian, and Zoroastrian streams of thought that pervaded Talmudic society. It would be interesting to see if there is a historical trend within the Talmud, from more misogynistic to less or vice versa, which could help us understand the different non-Jewish intellectual influences on Talmudic thought as pertaining to the essential nature of woman: Is she good, bad, or a bit of both - and if she is a mix of both, is there more Talmudic ambiguity concerning the nature of woman than there is the nature of man? It seems that with the current trend in gender studies, looking at gendered language in the Talmud regarding women is a hot topic, but I wonder how much scholarly work there has been regarding the Talmud's gendered language concerning men.

* In the spirit of "Whoever says something in the name of its sayer bring redemption to the world" (which I learn in Mr. Shwarz's Brachot class), I should acknowledge that a recent shiur by Amit Gvaryahu that touched upon yetzer hara is what inspired me to read the book. This shiur took place at Drisha.

Abstinence

Today I want to talk about abstinence until marriage. One of the most common pop-culture arguments against abstinence, is that you might find yourself married to someone you're completely sexual incompatible with. Interestingly, Judaism foresaw this possibility, which is why it considers sexual incompatibility legitimate grounds for divorce.

However, I believe that the sexual incompatibility argument has two major flaws: 1. The argument seems to equate abstinence with shomerness and complete chastity. Assuming you've done other things with your fiance, but simply abstained from intercourse, and also taken the time to explore your own body, you should at least have some idea of your compatability, your likes and dislikes. Now, it is possible that you do great together in bed until third base, but find upon marriage that you're unable to get that home run satisfactorily - possible, but unlikely. As a matter of fact, a recent study of the sex life of Orthodox women showed that those with the happiest sex life were those who had not been shomeret in pre-married life, but who had abstained from pre-marital intercourse. 2. The argument supposes the compatability is a one-shot thing: Either you have it or you don't - but first-time sex with anyone can be awkward, and sex lives do not need to remain static or stagnant - they can be improved. People might have a really bad first-night experience, but, with work (and perhaps even the help of sex therapists), learn how to be compatible. A lot of it is learning what works for each other's bodies - sex, like any skill, improves with practice, and it's not unreasonable to think that if most couples come into the marriage knowing sexual compatibility is something they might have to work for, and are willing to do so, then they will achieve their goal.

But I  also think the anti-abstinence stance comes from society's general attitude towards sex: 1. Sex is a be-all-and-end-all, therefore 2. If you don't have a perfect sex life, you will be miserable, therefore 3. Your married sex life better be perfect. (If it's not, perhaps you should open your marriage up to experimentation with other sexual partners - hence the Dan Savage term "Monogamish".)

I would argue that 1. In Judaim, sex is important but not the be-all-and-end-all, therefore 2. There is a minimum threshold of sexual satisfaction every person needs to be happy. If your marriage does not meet this threshhold despite your best efforts, you should get a divorce. If however, your married sex-life has crossed the threshhold, but is still not everything you wish it to be - you just have to live with it (of course, you can still work towards that goal, but divorce or adultery aren't a fair solution).

Many people might have threesome fantasies, and most people would ideally want the freedom to bang every hot person they meet on the street, but Judaism recognizes that marriage is a control over sexual freedom, a capitulation to the fact that you can't have that threesome or screw the girl on the bus with the really nice breasts - It is a sacrifice for the sake of commitment. Today, modern society often views monogamy as quaint or outdated, because at a certain point, commitment and freedom, or even commitment and pleasure, may contradict each other, and we value freedom and pleasure above commitment - Judaism does not. The entire concept of a covenant at Sinai is that we have mitzvot, i.e. limits on our freedom and pleasure - in exchange for a committed and loving relationship with God - and that is one way the Sinai covenant is similiar to marriage.

Of course, when I speak of abstinence until marriage, I am speaking, as I said before a) of a non-shomer abstinence in which you each know a little of each other's (and your own) bodies b) an abstinence where you've both had extensive sexual education (I am talking here of reading books, articles, etc.) c) an abstinence where you've both discussed sex - potential likes, dislikes, fears, etc. before marriage. In other words, an abstinence pop culture does not recognize because it assumes all abstinencers are religious freaks - and sometimes even assumes all religious people are freaks.

Allright, I'll abstain from my anti-religiosity-within-supposedly-tolerant-secular-society-rant for now.

Also, the study I cited is called, "Observant Married Jewish Women and Sexual Life: An Empirical Study", by Dr. Michelle Friedman, Dr. Ellen Labinsky, and Dr. Tali Rosenbaum, Dr. James Schmeidler, and Dr. Rachel Yehuda. It was sent to me by a friend.

Mikvah (Once More)

I was walking through Lincoln Center tonight, when I suddenly realized something:

Among the rabbis I've spoken to about making single women's immersion in mikvah permissible (thus making pre-marital sex not punishable by karet), the main arguments is that it would appear that rabbis are condoning pre-marital sex* . When I counter that the risk of doing so is less problematic than the current situation, when loads of observant Jews are breaking nidah drabanan (since foreplay without mikvah is forbidden derabanan) and definitely deoraita (no sex sans immersion, possibly no foreplay sans immersion, depending on who you hold by).

The response I usually get is two-fold: 1. Most single Jews are shomer** (I believe this is false, but don't know the statistics) 2. For those Jews that can't handle shomer laws (which become mandatory as a result of the ban on women's immersion), let them sin - it's not uncommon for an observant Jew to have one halacha that he habitually slips up on. Better for the few to slip, than for the rabbis to make pre-marital sex not punishable by karet, which might cause many to sin.

This counter-argument is false on two grounds: 1. Since most are already sinnning, you're just downgrading their sin from derabanan to deoraita. There is a long rabbinic tradition of not imposing halachot the community en masse will not be able to observe - and shomerness/continuation of the single women ban violates that tradition. 2. Pyschology shows that humans do not like living with cognitive dissonance. So while it is possible that an observant Jew will say, "I am observant but happen to be violating the set of sexual halachas, despite believing in them, because they're too darn hard", what is more likely is that, in order to lessen the dissonance, the person will either stop breaking sex halachot (unlikely given the strength of the sex urge in humans) or just stop believing in sex halachot - perhaps by just giving up belief in the halacha system in general. Furthermore, even if one believes in the halachik system, one might not like the feeling of hypocrisy inherent in "I believe in a system, but only observe part of it, cause the rest is too hard", and thus, prefer to simply stop observing the system altogether.

For these reasons, I truly feel that allowing single women to immerse in mikvah is an example of "Et laasot laHashem, hefirut Toratecha" - It is a time to get rid of one halachik prohibition, less the strength of that prohibition, cause Jews en masse to stop observing the entire corpus of halachik laws.

* My proposed solution to this was either a) takanah making pre-marital sex (PMS) forbidden b) statement condoning PMS c) making boys/girls take neder at bat/bar mitzvah not to engage in pre-marital intercourse - I was told that a neder wouldn't work because people would break it. Of course, by that logic, no halacha will work, because people might break any halacha - whether the halacha is not to go against a neder, or not to fornicate without going to mikvah. Note: My neder would be against pre-marital sex, not mentioning other forms of touching, such as hugging, kissing, etc.
** While there are Jews who are legitimately shomer, many claim to be so without actually being shomer. This group can be split into two camps: 1. The group that tries to live a shomer lifestyle, but occassionally slips up 2. The group that habitually engages in romantic physical contact. It is true, that many faux-shomer people don't engage in pre-marital sex, for religious reasons - but the same can be said of many openly non-shomer observant Jews.

Dear Man

Dear Man:

You do not have a right to my body. Contrary to what you think, buying me a drink does not entitle you to a goodnight kiss. I do not charge for kisses, and if I did, you could not afford it. I happen to think that really good physical intimacy is priceless; apparently, you think it's worth as much as an expensive bottle of beer. I confess, knowing that you place so little worth on the interaction of our bodies, greatly decreases my desire to get into bed with you.

Which brings me to my next point: Sex is about desire - not just about your desires, but also about mine. If you desire to kiss me, and I desire to kiss you, we should kiss. If desire to kiss is lacking in either party, we should not. If you put your hand on the small of my back, and I don't respond, or I shrug it off, I probably don't desire for it to be there - which means you should stop.

Don't give up - the fact that I don't desire to kiss you tonight, doesn't mean that I won't desire to kiss you tomorrow. But if you don't respect my desires and my boundaries tonight, I have no desire to see you tomorrow.

I understand, that we live in a society that tells you sex with a woman is your God-given (or biologically given) right, but last time I heard, it wasn't enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, or in the Constitution. I understand our society tells you if you don't get laid you're a loser: If society didn't tell you that, you'd have no reason to buy the profit-making products that are supposed to get me to get into bed with you. I understand, and I'm sorry that society lied to you - but overcoming those lies is best worked out on the therapists' couch, not on top of me.

I even heard a rumor, that it is possible to go one night without sex and survive. I guess you're still ignorant of that rumor, which explains why you're so upset at me for not going to bed with you. 

Apparently, you were expecting a kiss goodnight, because you assumed that a date came with a goodnight kiss,just as the coffees in some places come with little chocolates. I however, am not responsible for the set of assumptions that you brought to this evening - I have broken no vows or promises to you. If I were to kiss you without wanting to however, I would be breaking a vow or promise to myself: You see, I vowed to treat myself with respect at all times - which includes not giving men access to my body when I don't desire it. I am sorry that my self-respect got in the way of your orgasm. Better luck tomorrow.

Sincerely,

Woman

PS - In case you're wondering why I am addressing this letter to Man, it is because it is based on my experiences as a straight woman who dates men. If a male friend wishes to write the "Dear Woman: Please stop being clingy just because last night I gave you an orgasm (or two)." letter, I'd be happy to read it.

The definition of rape is a big issue in feminism. Nicholas Krisfof recently pondered the issue, when he raised the question of whether or not a forced vaginal ultrasound counts as rape - after all, there is pentration. While different states have differet definitions of rape (because clearly something as petty as sexual assault does not merit federal regulation), all definitions hinge on one factor: Lack of consent. Unfortunately, this lack of consent is often difficult to prove, for different, yet complementary, reasons: 1. Rape most often happens between people who are alredy acquainted, meaning that it turns into a "He said, she said" squabble, with the man claiming that the sex was consensual. It is often impossible to prove to a jury that the victims' version of events is correct. 2. Often, the lack of consent is not expressed through physically fighting back against the rapist, which the victim may feel is dangerous or futile. This makes the rape harder to prosecute: New York State, for example, defines rape in the first degree as "when a male engages in sexual intercourse with a female by forcible compulsion". Leaving aside the way this law ignores male rape victims, there is also the issue of "forcible compulsion" - defined as "use of force" or "a threat, express or implied, which places a person in fear of immediate death or physical injury to himself or herself [or another person] or in fear that he or she [or another person] will immediately be kidnapped.".It is hard to prove threat or implied threat, without some sort of physical altercation. 3. Not only does this make the rape difficult to prosecute, but it makes it difficult to convinct as well. In New York State for example, just in case the jury thought that lack of consent is enough to warrant a conviction, the jury is given instructions explaining that the People must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant had sex with the alleged victim "without consent by the use of forcible compulsion.", thus adding to the People's burden of proof, and, with the last five words, implying that there is a difference between "without consent" and "without consent by use of forcible compulsion". 4. Then, there is the fact that rape with passive resistance goes against the pop culture image of rape: A physical struggle between man and woman that usually occurs on a dark street corner, the kinds of scenes we're used to seeing all the time in Law and Order: SVU.

Recently, much feminist discourse, in its search for a wider definition of rape, has started exploring the relationship between sex and power, arguing that even if consent is given by the woman, any relationship with a gossly uneven imbalance of power, constitutes a sort of rape. Under these relationships they include: slave-master relationships, prostitute-costumer relationships, and sometimes even husband-wife relationships in socieites in which marriage was a woman's only option for avoding starvation. Then there is the counter-argument, that defining such relationships as rape deprives women of agency, turning them into passive objects. As Purim approached, I started wondering; Where does Esther's relationship fit into this paradigm?

Leaving aside the question of whether or not she was taken to the palace by force - a question raised by the rabbinic sources - it certainly seems that once she got there, saying no was not an option: The second chapter of Esther, after going into great depth about the beeautifying rituals of virgins in the harem, waiting to be tested, then goes on, in verse 14, to describe the test itself: "In the evening she went, and on the morrow she returned into the second house of the women, to the custody of Shaashgaz, the king's chamberlain, who kept the concubines; she came in unto the king no more, except the king delighted in her, and she were called by name." Unfortunately, the Biblical author decided to gloss over the juiciest details, but presumably, they didn't spend the night discussing poetry. Not only were the power dynamics of this relationship extremely uneven, to say the least, but considering that one was in a guarded palace with a king who showed no compunctions about chopping off the head of women who didn't give him a proper striptease (assuming the midrash that Vashti was executed for not appearing naked at her husband's party is correct), the threat of force was extremely imminent. Now, arguably, if Esther chose to go to the palace knowing she'd have to sleep with Mr. Crown, there was consent - but how valid is that consent when you have an orphan girl from a minority group facing the king of an empire? Given the Esther was under Mordechai's authority and follows his instructions virtually throughout the story, we must face the fact that even if Mordechai chose to send her to the palace, her choice in the matter may have been limited.

The Talmud grapples with some of these issues: It wonders how Esther, possibly married to Mordechai, could have slept with Achashveirosh, in what was certainly not a halachikly sancitoned union. It's reply is very simple: 'Esther lay still as the ground (while Achashveirosh slept with her)." With these words, the Talmud succinctly and graphically shows that Esther was raped, and therefore not responsible for the interourse, so she can not be held responsible for its lack of halachik propriety. By using the example of Esther lying stiffly however, the Talmud is also showing that it considers sex with passive resistance by the victim, to constitute rape. Esther did not fight back. She merely lay stil - yet that was enough to demonstrate her lack of consent, absolving her of all responsibility for the sex act. Since the Megillah goes on to say the Achashveirosh, after spending the night with Esther,  loved her more than all the other women and decided to marry her, it kind of makes you wonder if Axhashveirosh had a necro fetish - or whether the Talmud did not mean its words to be taken literally, but was merely using an image of force to illustrate that no matter what really went on in the royal bedroom, the royal power imbalance means that effectively, the sex was forced.

This allowance for different types of definitions of rape can also be seen in the Pentateuch*,  if one looks at Exodus 22:15-16 and Deutoronomy 22:28-29. In the first case, a man seduces a virgin, and must either pay 50 shekels, or marry her. The purpose of both penalties is the same: To provide for the woman's financial upkeep, since now that she is no longer a virgin, she will not be able to find a good marriage, the primary way for a woman to ensure her financial security in ancient society. In Deutoronomy 22, we are told that a man who "catches a woman and lies with her", must pay her father 50 shekels, and marry her, without the possibility of divorce. Here, we have a combination of the punishment options from Exodus. The marriage without divroce means that the rapist will be obligated to provide for the woman financially for the rest of her life, since he deprived her of the opportunity to find a good, financially secure marriage, when he chose to rape her. The lifelong financial obligation also provides a major deterrent for would-be rapists. It is unclear exactly what it means to catch a woman and lie with her - presumably, some sort of physical force is implied, making this definition of rape more similar to that of New York State. The similarities in punishments between Deutoronomy and Exodus however, implies a sort of equivalency between the two cases; The difference is one of degree (the rape involving physical threat in Exodus combines both punsihments) and not of kind. This mimics current New York law, which also has different degrees of sexual assuault. By placing the difference as merely one of degree however, the Bible is implying that the "seduction" in Exodus, whatever that might entail, is a type of assault - especially in a society with a gross imbalance of power between men and women.

 A third definition of rape is introduced in the case of the "betrothed virgin" in Deutoronomy 22:25-26. In that case, if the woman was somewhere where people could hear her, and screamed, she is off the hook. If she did not scream, she is held responsible. No physical resistance - other than crying for help - is required.  If the betrothed virgin is in a secluded feild, where there was no one to hear her cries, then she is considered to have been raped. In other words: If a woman has sex with a man in an isolated place, where no one would hear her cry for help, and says the sex was not consensual, she is assumed to have been raped. There is no obligation for physical resistance - or even to prove that one did scream - in order to go forward with the rape charge. Thus, according to this Biblical logic, if a woman today is in a house alone with a man, with no land-line, her cellphone is out of batteries, and a man has sex with her against her will, it was rape - whether or not there was "use of force" or "a threat, express or implied, which places a person in fear of immediate death or physical injury to himself or herself [or another person] or in fear that he or she [or another person] will immediately be kidnapped.", as the New York law mandates.

Of course, in reality, the case of rape in Jewish law is much more complicated - I am merely trying to show, that the Biblical texts have varied and complex definitions of rape, some of which might radar a "moderately progressive" on the feminist rating scale. Given the different ancient definitions of rape, I wonder how Esther would have defined her relationship with the king.  Something tells me she would not have used the  word "rape". And even I, the renouned cynic, can not deny the possibility of romance developing in the royal chambers - to do so would be to deprive both Esther and Achashveirosh of agency. Then I begin to wonder: Is the Talmudic dictum that Esther lay still as the ground no more than an attempt to deprive Esther of agency, to reduce a woman to passive object in an attempt to defend her honor and preserve her purity, as so much of make society has done throughout the centuries? After all, the megillah is one of the few stories where a female protagonist takes on a major role and saves the day - though of course, it is God, the megillah's invisible character, who is the real star, as the rabbis constantly remind us.

Then I go back to pondering whether or not Achashveirosh had a necro fetish, and get a hunkering for humentashen.

a note on all blog entries

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

I´m back

Hi everyone. My vacation has lasted longer then expected: I decided to extend my time in Brazil. As befitting the Latino stereotype, last night, a brief channel search revealed about five sex channels (which also play during the day), which led to a discussion about pornography with my Brazilian hosts.

I realized that a) I have never sat down and watched a porn movie, and have no desire to do so - not just because the industry caters to male desires while creating unrealistic sexual expectations and abuses its workers, pressuring female workers to literally alter their bodies in order to create an image that no woman not willing to alter her body can expect to live up to, but also because it just does not appeal to my sexual desires. b) I do have however, a great desire to buy Playboy. I am curious what the women in its magazine look like (one study shows in times of economic difficulty, pornographic photos skew towards the breast-y), and whether the articles really are worth reading. c) I have no desire to buy Playgirl, because there is less of a mystique surrounding it, and I have no desire to view random naked men.

I also realized that while seeing naked women in the media is normal to me, seeing naked men is not - it would be strange to see nude men in magazines, in a way that seeing nude women would not be.

This is because in our society, naked women are acceptable in a way that naked men are not - think about the different standards in gender nudity for R and X rated movies. This is partially because our society´s standards are based on the sexual standards of straight men, and anything they consider too much of a turn-on must be bad, and therefore banned. Of course, the subject of why sex is bad or "not innocent" stems back to the Middle Ages Catholic literature surrounding the Garden of Eden, and continues with Puritan and later Victorian society - yes, I am over-simplifying, and yes, Puritans believed in unbriddled horniness within marriage, and Victorian men often frequented prostitutes.

This is also partially however, because our society venerates the penis. Vaginas can be shown, because they are just another part of a woman´s sexual anatomy. Penises however, are powerful in a way that vaginas are not (since they belong to men and not women), and thus, deserve a classification of their own. They can only be shown under certain circumstances, just as certain idols must remained covered except for certain occasions, or in front of certain people - yes, I just compared our society´s phallocentrism to idol worship. Suck on that.

Vacation

I have not posed in a while because I have been on vacation, but there is a new development I must report: 1. The Jewish Press published an op-ed by an openly gay Orthodox Jewish man, urging the Orthodox community to treat gay Orthodox Jews better 2. When bullied about the op-ed, the Jewish press chose to fight back, saying, " significant number of suicide attempts are committed by boys from not just religious but rabbinic homes — because they thought they were homosexual and had no place in the Orthodox world they grew up in, even if they had never acted on those impulses.

Until politics exits the science, it won’t be known if homosexuality is genetic, hormonal, neurological, psychological, or a choice. The Torah itself is very clear on where it stands on homosexual acts.

But the Torah is also very clear on how one should treat one’s fellow Jew, and certainly one who tries to be religious — whether he or she succeeds or not — should not be driven by fellow Jews to contemplate suicide.

A situation where religious Jews are provoking children and adults who are different to consider suicide is unthinkable and unacceptable.

Following the publication of this op-ed, a number of Jewish Press advertisers were approached and threatened. They were told to stop advertising with The Jewish Press.

The Jewish Press won’t give in to threats and we won’t be silenced."

Below are links to the op-ed and the Jewish presses response.

Op-ed:http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/surviving-bullying-silencing-and-torment-for-being-gay-in-the-frum-community/2012/01/25/

Response:http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/editorial/the-jewish-press-wont-be-silenced/2012/01/31/

While I'm providing links, here's another one to the Jewish Press - a letter written by an awesome feminist frummie husband:http://www.jewishpress.com/sections/family/marriage-relationships/dear-dr-yael/2012/01/12/

And an article about the Exodus, slavery, and birthing practices: http://shayna-abramson.suite101.com/exodus-and-new-world-slavery-a401965