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

Monday Morning Roundup

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

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.

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

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."