Sex & The Divine (Not Divine Sex)

The sinfulness of sexual pleasure has always had more than a fair bit to do with the sinfulness of woman.

From an essay by Francine Prose at Lapham’s Quarterly:

The debate over sex with the beautiful versus sex with the ugly had its twisted roots in the belief that there was an almost mathematical ratio between pleasure and sin. The greater the pleasure, the worse the evil. Apparently, too, there also was considerable worry about ejaculation as something that drains and weakens the male, a dangerous process in general and particularly in the presence of the predatory woman who, unlike her mate, doesn’t lose in sex a life-sustaining fluid. The rabbinic admonition to think of a woman as “a pitcher of filth with its mouth full of blood” was echoed in the work of the twelfth-century theologian Petrus Cantor. “Consider that the most lovely woman has come into being from a foul-smelling drop of semen; then consider her midpoint, how she is a container of filth; and after that consider her end, when she will be food for worms.”  [too much more]

Robert George on  heterosexual marital sex and hating anything else:

… the argument for marriage between a man and a woman can require “somewhat technical philosophical analysis.” It is a two-step case that starts with marriage and works its way back to sex. First, he contends that marriage is a uniquely “comprehensive” union, meaning that it is shared at several different levels at once — emotional, spiritual and bodily. “And the really interesting evidence that it is comprehensive is that it is anchored in bodily sharing,” he says.“Ordinary friendships wouldn’t be friendships anymore if they involved bodily sharing,” he explained to me. “If I, despite being a married man, had this female friend of mine and I said, ‘Well, gosh, why don’t we do some bodily sharing,’ and we had straightforward sexual intercourse, well, that wouldn’t be friendship or marriage. It is bodily, O.K., but it is not part of a comprehensive sharing of life. My comprehensive sharing of life is with my wife, which I just now violated.” But just as friendships with sex are not friendships, marriage without sex is not marriage. Sex, George said, is the key to this “comprehensive unity.” He then imagined himself as a man with no interest in sex who proposed to seal a romance by committing to play tennis only with his beloved. Breaking that promise, he said, would not be adultery.

The second step is more complicated, and more graphic. George argues that only vaginal intercourse — “procreative-type” sex acts, as George puts it — can consummate this “multilevel” mind-body union. Only in reproduction, unlike digestion, circulation, respiration or any other bodily function, do two individuals perform a single function and thus become, in effect, “one organism.” Each opposite-sex partner is incomplete for the task; yet together they create a “one-flesh union,” in the language of Scripture. “Their bodies become one (they are biologically united, and do not merely rub together) in coitus (and only in coitus), similarly to the way in which one’s heart, lungs and other organs form a unity by coordinating for the biological good of the whole,” George writes in a draft of his latest essay on the subject. Unloving sex between married partners does not perform the same multilevel function, he argues, nor does oral or anal sex — even between loving spouses.

Infertile couples, too, are performing this uniquely shared reproductive function, George says, even if they know their sperm and ovum cannot complete it. Marriage is designed in part for procreation in the way a baseball team is designed for winning games, he says, but “people who can practice baseball can be teammates without victories on the field.”  [ewww more]

From Johann Hari at the New Statesman:

After all the arguments for subordinating women have been shown to be self-serving lies, what are misogynists left with? They have only one feeble argument that is still deferred to and shown undeserving respect across the world, even by people who should know better: “God told me to. I have to treat women as lesser beings, because it is inscribed in my Holy Book.”

Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom are the editors of Butterflies and Wheels, the best atheist site on the web. In Does God Hate Women? they forensically dismantle the last respectable misogyny. They argue: “What would otherwise look like stark bullying is very often made respectable and holy by a putative religious law or aphorism or scriptural quotation . . . They worship a God who is a male who gangs up with other males against women. They worship a thug.”

Every major religion’s texts were written at a time when women were regarded as little better than talking cattle. Their words and commands reflect this, plainly and bluntly. This book starts with a panoramic sweep across the world, showing – with archetypal cases – how every religion has groups today thumping women down with its Holy Book.  [the review carries on]

“Grotesque Reasoning”

From Reuters -Africa:

Gay rights groups and newspaper editorials on Tuesday condemned the Vatican for its decision to oppose a proposed U.N. resolution calling on governments worldwide to de-criminalise homosexuality.

The row erupted after the Vatican’s permanent observer to the United Nations told a French Catholic news agency the Holy See would oppose the resolution, which France is due to propose later this month on behalf of the 27-member European Union.

Archbishop Celestino Migliore said the Vatican opposed the resolution because it would “add new categories of those protected from discrimination” and could lead to reverse discrimination against traditional heterosexual marriage.

“If adopted, they would create new and implacable discriminations,” Migliore said. “For example, states which do not recognise same-sex unions as ‘matrimony’ will be pilloried and made an object of pressure,” Migliore said.

A strongly worded editorial in Italy’s mainstream La Stampa newspaper said the Vatican’s reasoning was “grotesque”.

Pointing out that homosexuality was still punishable by death in some Islamic countries, the editorial said what the Vatican really feared was a “chain reaction in favour of legally recognised homosexual unions in countries, like Italy, where there is currently no legislation”.

Franco Grillini, founder and honorary president of Arcigay, Italy’s leading gay rights group, said the Vatican’s reasoning smacked of “total idiocy and madness”.

“The French resolution, which is supported by all 27 members of the European Union, has nothing to do with gay marriage. It is about stopping jail and the death penalty for homosexuals,” Grillini told Reuters.

Read the rest of this article here

I’m not sure this is “grotesque reasoning”.  It doesn’t appear to me that “reason” is involved at all.  Not even compassion.

Christianity & Feminism

I tend to agree with this:

Judging by the response to her Comment is free piece last week, I’m obviously not the only one who was stunned by Julie Burchill’s assertion that in her latest incarnation as a “Christian Zionist, a Christian feminist, and a Christian socialist,” she now believes “literally, in the God of the Old Testament”. As dozens of posters pointed out, the term “Christian feminist” is an oxymoron; it’s a glaring contradiction in terms on a par with “compassionate conservative” and “pro-life anti-abortionist”.

Christianity is and always has been antithetical to women’s freedom and equality, but it’s certainly not alone in this. Whether it’s one of the world’s major faiths or an off-the-wall cult, religion means one thing and one thing only for those women unfortunate enough to get caught up in it: oppression. It’s the patriarchy made manifest, male-dominated, set up by men to protect and perpetuate their power.

Since men first conceived of the notion of a single omnipotent creator, that divine being has taken the form of a man: no matter what name he answers to, be it Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, or just plain God, what’s not in doubt is that he’s a he. His teachings and his various holy books reinforce the message that this life exists for men, while the best women can hope for is some kind of reward in the next one; as long as we do as we’re told of course, without questioning our lords and masters, and as long as we manage to remain pure of heart and mind while we prostrate ourselves at their feet.

Like a lot of people, I’ve dabbled with various religions over the years, but each time it was my feminism that proved my downfall: from the Rastafarian ex-boyfriend who refused to let me touch any living thing during that time of the month when I was allegedly “unclean”, to the happy-clappy church that took my purchase of a non-gender-specific Bible as evidence that I had a heritage of witchcraft in my family, and that reassured me I would one day be reunited with the foetus I’d had aborted (now there’s an encounter to look forward to!) Whatever it was I was looking for when I crossed these hallowed thresholds, I came away with no more than a growing comprehension that it was all a con: Jesus doesn’t want me for a sunbeam; indeed, there’s no room even in the stable for women like me.

From the very first days of feminism there’s been a recognition that religious doctrine is incompatible with the quest for women’s rights. As Susan B Anthony said way back in the 19th century: “The worst enemy women have is in the pulpit.” Or as Helen H Gardener put it in 1885 in Men, Women, and Gods:

This religion and the Bible require of woman everything, and give her nothing. They ask her support and her love, and repay her with contempt and oppression … Every injustice that has ever been fastened upon women in a Christian country has been ‘authorised by the Bible’ and riveted and perpetuated by the pulpit.

And so it goes on today. In any society where religion dominates it is women who pay the price: we can argue until we’re blue in the face about whether or not any particular religion sanctions so-called honour crimes for example, but what’s unarguable is that men’s interpretation of religion, and the patriarchal values that religion instils, has led to the murders of countless women. Similarly, it’s in the name of religion that girls are denied an education; in the name of religion that more than half a million women die every year because they cannot access safe abortions; in the name of religion that Aids continues its unrelenting progress across Africa, and in the name of religion that women throughout the world remain subjugated, impoverished and denied individual agency.

I try to practice tolerance of religion and religious practises but I don’t always do that easily.  Whether or not certain practises are rightly associated with any religion, nevertheless, some are associated with mainstream religions or with radical, fundamentalist versions of them.

But even if we take out things like honour killings and the notion that women should subject themselves to their husbands in all matters, I’m still not sure that there’s a mainstream religion that can pass my “feminist sniff-out-the-sexism” test.

I’ll speak of the religious cult I know best which is Roman Catholicism.  There were things I loved about my religion, though I remain unsure that any of the things I loved really had anything to do with belief in the God.

I loved the words of the Bible to the extent that they approach poetry.  I loved the liturgy for similar reasons.  I have a love of ritual – candles, incense, certain word patterns accompanying the liturgical calendar or life events like birth, marriage and death.  Well, I didn’t always love all the words, but I’m hoping you get the idea. 

I miss those things and have found them almost irreplaceable.  My own poetry and the poetry of others certainly replaces liturgy and the Bible, though I’ve not found a way to make certain words, word patterns and the traditions and rituals associated with them a part of my everyday life.  Affirmations and such just feel articial to me. 

As for ritual, I miss it the most.  The mystery invoked, the sense of belonging to a crew that’s been doing something close to the same thing for centuries, the community of people giving praise or mourning together – the rituals that many people have adapted can come close to replacing these old ways, but only close.  New ways of doing funerals or memorial services created by the gay community during the great early losses of the AIDS crisis come closest.  The fact is, though, it takes a long time to make a “tradition”.  That doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing, just that it won’t fill the hole for me in my lifetime.  And it would be awfully nice if I could find something while I’m still alive!

While I don’t want to minimise the importance of words, music and ritual, what of the deeper aspects of being in touch with a community that can express some of our longing for contact with “the divine” or a transcendant sense of what it’s all about, here on earth?  Where do I connect with mystery and that which can’t be explained?

For a long time, I did that within Roman Catholicism, despite my profound reservations.  I stayed away from the fetus freaks and prayed with the women of my Church that Il Papa might be moved, one day soon, to allowing women to take their rightful places as leaders in the Church.  We were “the faithful in waiting”.  I read Rosemary Reuther and Mary Daly and I contented myself with working toward what I most wanted and with waiting.

Till I could wait no more.  That is, when they started reading shit like this from the pulpit of my parish church:

The majority of Canadians understand marriage to be the union of a man and a woman, faithful in love and open to the gift of life. Marriage and the family are the foundations of society, through which children are brought into this world and nurtured as they grow to adulthood. As such, the family is a more fundamental social institution than the state, and the strength of the family is vital for the well-being of our whole society.

Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the state must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good.

It is sometimes argued that what we do in the privacy of our home is nobody’ s business. While the privacy of the home is undoubtedly sacred, it is not absolute. Furthermore, an evil act remains an evil act whether it is performed in public or private.

Personal choice is exercised both in opting for the marital state and in the choice of one’s spouse. However, the future spouses are not free to alter marriage’s essential purpose or properties. These do not depend on the will or the sexual orientation of the contracting parties. They are rooted in natural law and do not change.

I sat in the third pew the day they read that shit.  I cried as it was read but forced myself to stay put until it was done, making quite sure not to stifle my occasional sobs.  When the speaking was done and in the silence before the liturgy resumed, I stood up and walked very slowly down the centre aisle of my church and out the door.  When I got home, I sat down and wrote letters to the Cardinal who was overseeing the archdiocese of Toronto at that time and to the pastor of my church.  I never heard back.

I don’t regret walking out and I won’t ever go back.  Every now and then, I hope that my walk down the aisle helped a gay or lesbian church member or his/her parents.  How they stay alive in the face of such hate speech is beyond me.  Meantime, the fucking church gets all upset and pissed off and spreads fear that its refusal to welcome gays and lesbians (lets not even think about trans folk here because it just can’t be done) may make it vulnerable to human rights claims.  Oh right, the church is so oppressed!

There are mainstream churches whose stances toward abortion, homosexuality,  the ordination of women and social justice issues I admire, like the United Church and the Universalist Unitarians.  And there are people whose religious feelings I admire, like this blogger.  But I’m more inclined to feel about christianity and christians the way that apostate feels about Islam and Muslims. 

Sometimes I have to dig deep for my tolerance, sometimes not so deep.  Maybe the personal hurt I experienced at the hands of my church has fucked me up irrevocably.  Maybe the hurt just allowed me to step far back enough to see what I needed to see, what was there to be seen.  Or, maybe my faith just isn’t and wasn’t ever strong enough to withstand critical analysis.  And that, too, would be fine with me.

I have no difficulty doing my social justice work outside the church and sometimes, it’s much easier.  I have no problem at all being a feminist outside my church.  Within, I found it impossible.  Some women manage to live with the contradictions.  After all, it’s not as though life outside the mainstream churches is without contradiction.  There were just a few too many of those for me.

UPDATE:  One further thought about contradiction – if we define the cultures of the world as patriarchal, as many feminists do, me included, then we live with inordinately stressful contradiction every moment of our lives.  I don’t notice anyone jumping off the planet.  What I mean to say is, yes, the religions that I know exist on a continuum of patriarchal oppression ranging from the mild to the extreme, just like so many social institutions we live within.  We tolerate a good deal because we have no choice in many instances.  And we shout about it when we have the chance.  Why should our lives in spirit be any different?  We make choices.  I have made mine, for now, with respect to religion.  I have room for those who have made different decisions.

I’m enjoying this conversation, of sorts, with purtek.  I think because it’s real and true and respectful at the same time.  A rare thing these days …

Homophobe Papal Spokesman

News of the Vatican’s attempt to set the Anglican Lambeth Conference back a few decades (centuries?):

Homosexuality is a disordered behaviour that must be condemned, a Vatican official said yesterday.

Walter Cardinal Kasper made the remarks during an address at the Lambeth conference, the once-a-decade gathering of the world’s Anglican bishops in Canterbury.

Kasper, who is president of the pontifical council for promoting christian unity, reminded delegates of the catechism of the Roman Catholic church on homosexuality: “This teaching is founded in the Old and New Testament and the fidelity to scripture and to Apostolic tradition is absolute.”

Quoting from a key document on Anglican and Catholic relations he said: “Homosexuality is a disordered behaviour. The activity must be condemned; the traditional approach to homosexuality is comprehensive … A clear declaration about this theme must come from the Anglican Communion.”

Such a statement would “greatly strengthen the possibility” of the two churches giving common witness regarding human sexuality, something that was “sorely needed in the world of today”.

Kasper was saddened that dialogue between the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church had been seriously compromised over the issues of women’s ordination and homosexuality. These developments had also caused the Communion to enter into a period of dispute, he observed.

“Many of you are troubled, deeply so, by the threat of fragmentation. In such a scenario, who will our dialogue partner be? How can we appropriately and honestly engage in conversations with those who share Catholic perspectives on the points currently in dispute, and who disagree with some developments within the Anglican Communion or particular provinces?”

The decision to allow the ordination of women in 28 Anglican provinces implied a turning away from the common position of all churches of the first millennium, he said.

The Catholic perspective on the Anglican Communion was that it was moving a “considerable distance closer” to Protestant churches of the 16th century.

Kasper’s comments are one in a series of Catholic carefully worded expressions of dismay to have been aired at the conference.

Three biblical same-sex relationships:

Ruth 1:16-17 and 2:10-11 describe their close friendship Perhaps the best known passage from this book is Ruth 1:16-17 which is often read out during opposite-sex and same-sex marriage and union ceremonies:

Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that “Ruth clave onto her.” (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as “clave” is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24: “ Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (KJV)  

“Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me.” (NIV)

 

This book was probably included in the Hebrew Scriptures because King David was one of the descendents of Ruth. Although this same-sex friendship appears to have been very close, there is no proof that it was a sexually active relationship.

[…]

In modern English, this might be written: “Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children” That would refer to both his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. The Hebrew original would appear to recognize David and Jonathan’s homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal’s heterosexual marriage. Saul may have approved or disapproved of the same-sex relationship; but at least he appears to have recognized it. The KJV highlight their re-writing of the Hebrew original by placing the three words in italics; the NIV translation is clearly deceptive.

[…]

2 Samuel 1:26

“I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.”

In the society of ancient Israel, it was not considered proper for a man and woman to have a platonic relationship. Men and women rarely spoke to each other in public. Since David’s only relationships with women would have been sexual in nature, then he must be referring to sexual love here. It would not make sense in this verse to compare platonic love for a man with sexual love for a woman; they are two completely different phenomena. It would appear that David is referring to his sexual love for Jonathan.

[…]

Daniel and Ashpenaz

[…]

Religious conservatives generally view the friendship of Daniel and Ashpenaz as totally non-sexual. It is inconceivable that God would allow a famous prophet of Israel to be a homosexual.

  Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v’rachamim The most common translation of chesed is “mercy”. V’rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: “mercy” and “physical love”. It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz “showed mercy and mercy.” A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz showed mercy and engaged in physical love” with Daniel. Of course, this would be unacceptable to later translators, so they substitute more innocuous terms. The KJV reference to “tender love” would appear to be the closest to the truth. One might question whether Daniel and Ashpenaz could sexually consummate their relationship. They were both eunuchs. Apparently, when males are castrated after puberty, they still retain sexual drive. It is interesting to note that no other romantic interest or sexual partner of Daniel was mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.

See Religious Tolerance

And their related essay, “Eight Family/Marriage Types in the Bible

Gay Penguins

A book some would like to ban (or burn?):

A children’s story about a family of penguins with two fathers once again tops the list of library books the American public objects to the most.

And Tango Makes Three, released in 2005 and co-written by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell, was the most “challenged” book in U.S. public schools and libraries for the second straight year, according to the American Library Association.

“The complaints are that young children will believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle that is acceptable. The people complaining, of course, don’t agree with that,” Judith Krug, director of the association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, said in an interview yesterday.

The ALA defines a “challenge” as a “formal, written complaint filed with a library or school requesting that materials be removed because of content or appropriateness.”

The Star

via soup is good food