Monday, January 11, 2010

Sex, Politics, and the Pursuit of Happiness

"Sexual harassment on the job is not a problem for virtuous women."
“By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don’t think you can call it rape,”
"Women have babies and men provide the support. If you don't like the way we're made you've got to take it up with God."
- Phyllis Schlafly

"Don't you think that the irresponsible behaviour of men is caused by women?"
-Pope John Paul II
(response to Dr. Nafis Sadik's suggestion that the church could play a role in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in Third World countries by teaching men not to "impose themselves" on unwilling wives. Dr. Sadik is a woman.)


"There is nothing loving about sex."
"Having sex without horniness is a greater expression of love. Sex is self- satisfying, but not meant for pleasure."
"Inequality is the natural condition."
-Fr. Paul Marx, Human Life International Symposium on Human Sexuality

"Incest is a voluntary act on the woman's part. If it were not, it would be rape."
Charles Rice, professor emeritus of law, Notre Dame University, currently teaching "Law and Morality"


"Many women have been brainwashed by the mindset of our society. They have been educated beyond their intelligence and beyond their natural instincts ..."
'The Flourishing Mother', Above Rubies, March 13, 2002

"It is interesting that today many women are so educated beyond their intelligence that they no longer understand the way God created them - with a womb to nurture life and breasts to nourish that precious life." 'Fully Female'
- Nancy Campbell,

"The proposed law on rape within marriage threatens the whole concept of the special marriage relationship."
Light magazine, Nov. 6, 1976
- Rev. Fred Nile, Christian Democratic Party


"I smell the stink of your fetid breath in the welfare lines; in crime ridden public housing compounds, in the detox wards where the detritus of liberalism wretch the bile of leftist compassion onto the floor; and in the horror chambers where Dr. Frankenstein rips your doomed children from the wombs of your defiled women."
ApathyBoyblog comment section, T.J. Swift "Swiftee" , Conservative Minnesota blogger


Let me begin by explaining that I couldn't encompass describing the scope of the further-to-the-right conservative view of sex with fewer quotations. The above represent a cross section of Catholic and Protestant Christian views, along with the views of both male and female secular conservatives.

Let me also add, in great haste, that I do not presume that these individuals speak for ALL conservatives; I am well aware that there is a spectrum of views on women and on sexuality among conservatives, and also that these views do NOT by any stretch of the imagination speak for the wider point of view held by more moderate Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant Christians. So, please, please do not take these quotations as expressing any assumptions about the more widely held views of any religious denomination.


The last quotation however was, although not on Penigma, at least in part, a response directly to Pen, AB, and myself, and so became my inspiration here. I was particularly struck by the notion that apparently women are defiled by having sex, but that men are not. I was further struck by the notion, typical of the 17th century, that rape does not, cannot by definition, occur within marriage. Statistically approximately 25% of all reported rapes occur between spouses (and many more rapes go un-reported).

"Swiftee" specifically stated in further comments that because I associated with liberals, I could not "find the strength to realize my worth". I would argue that everytime I write something here on Penigma, or on any of the other locations where I blog, that I use my intelligence, my skills, my perceptions and my character to do precisely that - to use my strength to realize my worth.

When I was a small child, before I was old enough to attend kindergarten, I was furious that grown ups could force me to wait to go to school. I wanted to learn how to read, and I wanted to learn NOW; I made a pretty good start at teaching myself to read, but I was absolutely convinced that school would speed things up tremendously. I was never a patient child. I vividly remember an afternoon spent alone with my maternal grandmother talking about the importance of school. I asked her if she had been a good student. It turned out my grandmother had been first in her graduating class, by a very large margin......but in her day, it was the best male student who was designated valedictorian. The best a woman could hope to achieve, regardless of the extent to which she excelled, was to be salutatorian; for which my grandmother received recognition, including giving a brief salutatory address - a welcoming statement of a line or two compared to the longer, more prestigious valedictorian address.

While bad language was pretty strictly prohibited, my unexpected reaction ,"The hell I'm going to put up with THAT!" left grandma laughing so hard, and in such complete agreement, that there was no chance of reprimand. Grandmother tried to patiently explain that in her day, it was considered the appropriate thing to do, however unfair it might seem to me years after her experience. When I asked grandma WHY in the world she would go along with something so unfair, she indicated that at the time, that was how both men and women defined being feminine. When I asked my grandmother WHY that defined masculine and feminine (and yes, my observation 'that's just dumb' was a part of the conversation), she was quiet for a very long time, and finally told me she just didn't know really, that it was not logical, that it was what people believed, and that they believed it very strongly. She did observe that the male ego was definitely a part of the belief, and that there had been an implicit need to prop up male status at the expense of female status - because how women felt was regarded as frankly (according to grandma) less important than how men felt.

Grandma predicted that I would be more successful than she was, but that it would mean conflict in my life. That specific conversation was the foundation over the years until she died just shy of 100, where when we were alone together we were not older and younger, we were equals who were unusually candid with each other. Grandma shared with me that she knew absolutely nothing on her wedding night, ignorance being equated with innocence. She shared with me that she was not even aware of the symptoms of pregnancy or the realities of contraception, when she was pregnant with my mother. And she shared with me that she had not been well informed enough as a mother to pass on much useful, reliable and accurate information to my mother and my aunt.

When I was old enough to have a curiosity about sex, after one of our candid discussions between grandma and I, I decided that my parents either wouldn't know or wouldn't be comfortable answering my questions. I had a number of mentors, but while they might have wanted to answer my questions, when it came to sex, I was sure they would be put on the spot between what my parents would want and what they would want and what I would want. So, I did what I always did when I wanted to know what the adult world was unwilling or unable to provide. I turned to my local library -- where fortunately at an early age - somewhere between 7 and 8 - my parents had written the obligatory letter which gave me unlimited access to the adult section of the library without either parental or librarian approval being required. My parents assumed - wrongly - that while I clearly enjoyed science books, and reading classical literature like Shakespeare, my reading ability would provide the appropriate limits. I was reading at college level by 5th and 6th grade, and I read everything that interested me, voraciously. I read Shakespeare, beginning with The Tempest and Midsummer Night's Dream, complete with the explanations of his sexy language. I read Ayn Rand, and thought she wrote very provocative sexual relationships. I even read a couple of books by the Marquis de Sade (Justine, and Juliette), just to see what the fuss was about and to see why anyone would consider him a philosopher. An inside joke to anyone else who has read de Sade, he was not my cup of tea. It was however great fun when I was in my mid teens to correct my aunt and uncle's family minister over the dinner table after Christmas Eve service when he inaccurately used the word Sadism. (Those "she did WHAT" moments were always a source of mischief - and surprisingly, perhaps most of all second only to my enjoyment, was my grandmother's.)

I was the person my grandmother turned to, while I was still in elementary school, to speak candidly about going through menopause. I was the person who was able to be supportive to my mother when she first had a radical mastectomy, followed a few years later by a hysterectomy, in understanding what kind of physical changes were going to result from such drastic surgery. When I received incredibly thorough comprehensive sex ed in the summer school biology class I took early, to pick up extra credits towards graduation, it filled in a few blanks, but was not entirely new material.

What formed the positive views of sex in monogamous relationships were things like observing my parents kiss each other hello, a 'real' kiss, not just an indifferent peck on the cheek when my father came home from the office. Or watching my father grieve over having lost his soul mate when my mother died at an unfortunately early age. Equally important were the loving long term relationships I formed with the men in my life, as mentors, as lovers, and most of all as friends which led me to regard sex as spiritual and about connection and character not just libido.

Every aspect of the attitudes about sex, and gender, encompassed in the quotations above, are hateful towards women and demeaning towards a wholesome and loving equal sexual relationship. Swiftee used the word 'defiled'. To defile, by the dictionary definitions, is to make dirty, unclean, polluted, or debased. It means to violate chastity. It means to desecrate. It means to sully a reputation. I can think of no better definition to describe the conservative view of sex and gender expressed by the quotes above, than defilement; defilement of women, defilement of what sex can and should be. The views in those quotes is ugly, it is degrading, and it is hateful. I am grateful to all of the people in my life who shaped my view of sex and gender, but most especially to the men in my life, whether teacher, friend, or lover, for valuing women generally, and for always valuing me specifically; and especially for helping me to value myself and to realize my strength and my potential.

21 comments:

  1. I think that using Swiftee to define a conservative view of sex is taking it a bit far, quite frankly.

    I can't speak for Swiftee. I know he claims to be conservative. And there are probably some conservatives who believe as he does, or appears to believe. However, I also believe that there are a number of conservatives do not believe that sex is evil, or that somehow a woman is subservient to a man. Most of these people don't believe that sex or their sex lives are anyone's business but their own, and thus, simply don't discuss it openly. Nor are they willing to discuss others' sex lives. That doesn't mean that they aren't there, we just don't hear about them in the newspapers or the blogs. You do a disservice by assuming that the majority of ANY faith holds these views.

    (As a point of information, there are still some states in which it is not possible to prosecute the crime of rape within a marrage. I don't approve of rape, marriage or not, I'm just noting the status of the law.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. ToE, in my second paragraph I completely agreed with you, that these are not representative of either all conservatives OR all of the followers of any Christian denomination.

    These views are unfortunately representative of a segment of conservatives, and a segment of christianity, particularly where conservativism overlaps with fundamentalist beliefs, or with dominionists, and others who advocate 'headship'. It is more widespread than some think, including former President Carter having this past year left his own baptist church over issues of 'headship'. I would respectfully argue I have fairly defined this issue.

    I would point out that I have not been able to find anything remotely similar in centrist / moderate views, or in liberal views; on that basis, in that context, I hope that my repugnance to this particularly conservative viewpoint will be properly understood.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was challenged by my friend Mitch on two counts about what I wrote, one observation was that the quotations were cherry picked.

    My response was that they were selected out of pages upon pages of simiilar quotes (some actually distinctly worse).

    The other area in which he challenged me was the notion that views on the left are not always more positive towards sex and women than conservative views, without actually supplying quotes to illustrate that.

    So, in fairness, let me supply one (it's a doozy, so be forewarned, it is explicit):

    “I do not want to be the leader. I refuse to be the leader. I want to live darkly and richly in my femaleness. I want a man lying over me, always over me. His will, his pleasure, his desire, his life, his work, his sexuality the touchstone, the command, my pivot. I don’t mind working, holding my ground intellectually, artistically; but as a woman, oh, God, as a woman I want to be dominated. I don’t mind being told to stand on my own feet, not to cling, be all that I am capable of doing, but I am going to be pursued, fucked, possessed by the will of a male at his time, his bidding.” - Anais Nin

    I wouldn't characterize this quote as being representational of Nin's work, but.....it could be argued she was a 'lefty' writer / diarist, and that this is clearly about women, and their role sexually relative to men.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "I think that using Swiftee to define a conservative view of sex is taking it a bit far, quite frankly."

    Other than pointing out that Dog Gone very explicity qualified these quotes as examples and not definitions, I could not disagree with you more. Swiftee's comment about pregnant women being "defiled" is a perfect example of conservative thought.

    Two years ago I picked a fight over the availability of contraception at colleges (colleges, mind you, not high school)on one of the MOB blogs. I brought up the example of one of my closest friends who enjoyed a very healthy sex life as a single woman in college. One of the posters commented that since she enjoyed sex out of marriage that she was psychologically unsound. A number of the commenters agreed, as if this was common conservative knowledge.

    Further more, the conservative arguments against gay marriage pivot on the religious belief that any act of sex peformed without the primary purpose of procreation is immoral. I don't think I'm equivocating when I use the words "immoral" and "defiled" synonymously.

    So my view that conservatives see unmarried women with healthy sex lives as debased or defiled has both inductive and deductive roots. As such, when someone tells me that they are conservative it is VERY logical for me to assume that they have little or no respect for women who are comfortable exploring sexuality beyond reproduction.

    Furthermore, women who are comfortable with their sexuality and identify themselves as conservative should ask themselves if the truly have the respect of their friends. [If they do, perhaps they should ask themselves if they are comfortable with their sexuality.]

    ReplyDelete
  5. "I was challenged by my friend Mitch on two counts about what I wrote, one observation was that the quotations were cherry picked."

    In other words, he is saying that applying a high standard of inductive reasoning will show the argument to be invalid. If Mitch is willing to apply the same high standard to his own work, I accept.

    "The other area in which he challenged me was the notion that views on the left are not always more positive towards sex and women than conservative views..."

    In other words, since there are also a small number of liberals who are also negative towards sex and women, one can inductively infer that liberals as a whole are negative towards sex and women. This is an extremely loose standard for inductive reason.

    These two counters are mutually exclusive. If Mitch were to choose which one he believes to be valid I would love to address it directly.

    However it will come down to an argument that conservative thought does more to establish sexual liberation within the female identity than liberal thought.

    If anyone thinks they have a valid (and not contrived) argument to this effect, you have my full attention.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AB wrote:"In other words, he is saying that applying a high standard of inductive reasoning will show the argument to be invalid. If Mitch is willing to apply the same high standard to his own work, I accept. "

    I would prefer Mitch to defend his own words,which were in an email exchange, not a comment here. I make that statement only because I have a concern about doing full justice to his point of view, defending him on his behalf.

    More importantly, I sought HIS input to what I wrote, and he was kind enough to give me that feedback. Because I sought his thoughts, I would please ask that we focus the criticism on what I wrote and not on Mitch.

    What he referred to, and elaborated on subsequently, were the views of some of the more caustic feminists on the left who do not appear to acknowledge that men and women can have a sexual relationship without it somehow being an instance of men raping women on some level. Men bashing, in short. It happens; I'm not sure how widespread this is in representing a more left view of sex, men, and women however - but I cannot deny it exists. And I strongly disagree with men bashing, as strongly as I feel about the more extreme right views.

    I sought out Mitch's review, because while I know he shares some of Swiftee's views on subjects like abortion, I have never known Mitch to be anything other than pro-women, treating women with respect as equals, and encouraging them to fulfill their potential...a contrast to how I perceived what Swiftee wrote.

    I felt strongly enough about it to include in my email TO Mitch this Anais Nin quotation, which I felt expressed how I feel about our friendship:
    "Each friend represents a world in us, a world not born until they arrive, and it is only by this meeting that a new world is born. "

    It was Mitch as much as Pen who introduced me to the 'world' of blogging, and encouraged me to write, which I so very much enjoy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. AB, you wrote very articulately about what I understand the view of women and sex to be when you described contraception, college, and women having sex outside of marriage. You have my applause!

    When you wrote"In other words, since there are also a small number of liberals who are also negative towards sex and women, one can inductively infer that liberals as a whole are negative towards sex and women. This is an extremely loose standard for inductive reason."

    I think you misframed the criticism, which was to identify AND OPPOSE, equally, ALL negative views of BOTH men and women and sex, rather than the point you make in your syllogism.

    This reflects my failure to fairly and adequately convey the thoughtful criticism offered, than any flaw in that criticism from Mitch.

    I intended the final sentence I wrote to in part be a tribute to the men - including friends - who did NOT reflect a negative view, and who have consistently encouraged me. That includes Mitch. And very much it includes Penigma.

    I am wrestling with 'fallout' from this and other things I have written that touch on sexuality intersecting with politics. I have received some pressure - and not from Mitch!! - NOT to write about these things, regardless of how passionately I feel about the topics. I've been asked - without naming names other than adamantly NOT Penigma - to self-censure by not addressing sexually charged topics.

    It makes some readers uncomfortable, readers who deserve to remain anonymous unless they choose to express their opinion more publicly. I am trying to find the balance that respects the feelings of others, while still addressing my own purposes in blogging, and the value of what I see as important subjects, and also to continue to make useful and positive, constructive contributions to Penigma. I want to be inclusive not exclusive.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "I think you misframed the criticism..."

    That is fair, and I'll accept the blame for it. If his point was to demonstrate that feminism can sometimes become caustic and harmful, I agree with him and I think its an important issue for converstaions on feminism to address. It frustrates me just as much when feminists refuse to recognize the progress that society has made towards equal rights as when others refuse to admit that our society still perpetuates double standards when it comes to gender.

    But I think that if you compare the two ideologies, liberal and conservative, the conservative camp drops the ball when it comes to feminism.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- Robin Morgan
    "Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice." -- Andrea Dworkin
    "Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice." -- Ti-Grace Atkinson
    "All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." -- Catherine MacKinnon
    "All men are rapists and that's all they are"
    -- Marilyn French, Authoress; (later, advisoress to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.)

    So since Apathyboy can infer from the quotes at the beginning that Conservatives all think that way of women, can I infer from these comments that all liberals and feminists in particular feel this way about men. I found several pages of these quotes and I intentionally left out the ones from the Society for Cutting Up Men.

    By the way I looked up the quote by John Paul II and he apparently lost his temper in a discussion over problems in Latin America. Dr Sadik and others were not only asking the church to teach men not to rape but to change their position on abortion and contraception and he lost his temper. He also when he was a bishop wrote a book about marraige that stressed the importance of female orgasms and warned of the dangers of either partner in sex making an object of the other rather than a partner.Does not sound like a man that hates women.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ToE,

    I don't think DG meant to construe Tom Swift's views as reflective of all (or most) conservatives.

    Tuck,

    I certainly agree that Dworkin and Ayn Rynd have said things equally defaming of the motivations of men and sexuality. Both extremes essentially suggest men are thugs - boorish rapists who either are not (in the former like Rand) or should not (in the case of people like Schlaffley), inside the context of marraige, ever be held accountable for violent or manipulative acts.

    As such, it is entirely the case that both extremes do exactly as Hitler suggested, they do not attack each other, but the middle - they SAY that the extreme views of the extreme left or right are reflective of most on the left or the right - and that is a falacy. Clearly the VAST majority of conservatives do not condone, but instead abhore, rape in any form. Equally clearly, the vast majority of liberals don't believe in abortion as a proper form of birth control, nor do they think that physical intimacy is rape in all cases between men and women (as Rand has said).

    Yet, I must confess to being struck, time and again, by a view, whether or not conservative and pervasive is for others to say - that sex 'has consequences'. This simple comment is reflective of an apparent view that sex is wrong - and therefore should the negative consequences come about, you must accept those consequences. I did not say 'risky' but rather wrong, because if it were simply the risk - we, like setting a fracture resulting from skiing - might say skiing has risks, but we would treat the fracture regardless. Instead we seem to feel (or at least a great many of us do) that because sex is 'naughty' if you engage in it, you better be able and willing to handle the consequences.

    Yet who handles the consequences? Much like the quotations from DG indicate, men are quite unlikely in many circles in this world, not necessarily this country, to even be ASKED to bear the burden - the social mores' are that men are 'men' and simply must be allowed to be promiscuous - it's the natural thing. Even in our society, men are rewarded and applauded for their 'conquests' with the approval and admiration of their peers. We still TEND to look upon sexually active young women entirely differently than young men. In truth, we (I believe) Americans still MOSTLY look on sexual activity as right for young men, and wrong for young women.

    Consequently, if pregnancy results, it is the woman who bears the child and the consequence.

    It is my belief that this is the fundamental and underlying root of a great portion of the anti-abortion movement - that sex SHOULD have consequences - and mostly, that means for the woman. There are a great many people I know who feel this way, it does not make them amoral or immoral, but I don't happen to agree.

    If, however, anything that has been said on this thread makes people uncomfortable, then please accept my apology - some subjects are charged with feeling, and are hard to talk about without engaging those feelings.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "So since Apathyboy can infer from the quotes at the beginning that Conservatives all think that way of women,"

    I said no such thing so quit slandering me.

    What I said was that it is common for conservatives to oppose the sexual liberation of women (and men) and that conservative idelology does not allow for sexual enjoyment outside of attempts of procreation.

    Each of these claims are vulnerable enough for you to counter honestly without resorting to empty rhetoric.

    Please know that when I say "I'd love to hear an opposing argument" I do mean that honestly and I'm not being rhetorical. I welcome opposing points of view but I often phrase questions in a way that is not as inviting as I'd like.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I have modified my original post to reflect a greater emphasis to my statements in the first two paragraphs. Perception differs from person to person, and I wished to clarify my meaning and intent.

    TT, I researched my quotations before selecting them, and knowing that the John Paull II quotation would be controversial, I not only verified that he said it (references occur in not one but two biographies of him, news accounts,etc.) I verified his larger positions as context.

    While it is true that he wrote more sympathetically towards women while a bishop,that position appears to have altered after he became Pope. There is a link between John Paul II and Benedictine Father Paul Marx. Marx met with John Paul II, and appears to have had his support and the endorsement of the church for his activities and his position; that support has continues under the current pope which cannot be ignored.

    Further, the context of the comment to Dr. Sadik came after active discussions where, along with others, Sadik indicated she wished to hold a dialog and not simply be silent while the pope lectured her on his views. Part of the discussion she tried to hold included the topics of abortion and contraception, especially the use of condoms to control the spread of aids in Africa and other third world countries, as issues of public health rather than religion.

    It was at the end of the attempt to discuss things like the use of condoms to prevent loss of life, that Sadik attempted to find common ground in seeking the endorsement at the very least for the decision of women not to have sex be respected by men.

    Under those circumstances combined with the support for Fr. Paul Marx, I do NOT find it appropriate to simply dismiss the comment as Pope John Paul II losing his temper. Apparently he lost his temper at the very beginning, at the very idea of holding a discussion rather than being the only one to have an opinion presented at this conference.

    These were only a FEW of the statements made with the blessing and endorsement of the roman catholic church and recent popes which I would respectfully suggest should be challenged.

    I would further respectfully suggest that there are serious flaws in celibate clergy presuming to address sexuality after renouncing it.

    Tt, you brought up the same sources as our friend Mitch. What I would argue to you is two things; 1. that I clearly repudiate male bashing in what I wrote, and so at least indirectly address the position of these more extreme women; and 2. I think it is easier to quantify the extent to which these views are pervasive, which is to say less widely embraced by the left than the comparable views on the right are reflected in the spectrum of conservative thought. I would respectfully suggest that the fundamentalist evangelical component of the right appears stronger (and I have a lot of pages of quotes to that effect, LOL) as evidenced by the embracing of issues like teaching creationism or a variation of it; and the promotion of abstinence only sex ed, as well as the anti abortion efforts.

    Thank you for providing a counter balancing point of view TT!

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think the use of the quotation from H.H. John Paul II was at best, needlessly provocative, and by it, it appears that the author intends to paint the Roman Catholic faith with a broad brush, and to presume that all Roman Catholics agree with the Pontiff on all issues. I assume that the author knows better, as I respect her knowledge of faiths and people in general.

    Within the Roman Catholic faith, there are a variety of views on contraception, abortion, capital punishment, homosexuality, and a variety of other social and political issues, to name a few. While the Church may have an official position on these issues, very often a significant majority of Catholics disagree, and usually express that disagreement by ignoring the Church's official teachings on the particular area of disagreement. However, the Roman Catholic church is not a democracy, and I don't see it becoming one.

    Likewise, there are a great many protestant denominations, which are quite moderate on these issues. Again, within these denominations very often the leadership (and the structures vary considerably, including some governed by more or less democratic means) may set an official position, but individuals within these denominations frequently disagree, sometimes to the point of schism. (Witness the furor in the Anglican denominations over the ordination of openly gay bishops)

    I disagree with the positions of some of the writers here that there are far more people who would identify themselves as "conservative Christians" who believe some of the drivel that was spewed forth by Phyllis Schlafly, Fr. Paul Marx, or the Rev. Fred Nile.

    Addressing the comment of Professor Rice, incest is considered a crime, whether or not it is voluntary. If involuntary, it is prosecutable as rape. If voluntary, it is prosecutable as incest. Both men and women are subject to prosecution. I do not have figures on the numbers of such prosecutions where incest is claimed to be voluntary. Regardless, a search shows that the quotation from Professor Rice was apparently taken from a pamphlet issued by the American Life League. However, I am unable to find a copy of the pamphlet, so I was unable to verify the entire quote or the context in which it was taken. The fact is, if a woman has voluntary sexual relations with someone who is related to her to an extent prohibited by law, it is incest. If the sexual relations are not voluntary, it is rape. (I should note that in most states, the statutory penalty for incest is far less than the penalty for rape) Professor Rice's comment, however, as it was provided here, simply states the law as it exists today. It says nothing about the opinion of conservatives of any faith.

    ReplyDelete
  14. ToE, what part of this from the first two paragraphs, "Let me also add, in great haste, that I do not presume that these individuals speak for ALL conservatives; I am well aware that there is a spectrum of views on women and on sexuality among conservatives, and also that these views do NOT by any stretch of the imagination speak for the wider point of view held by more moderate Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant Christians. So, please, please do not take these quotations as expressing any assumptions about the more widely held views of any religious denomination. "
    in large type, bold face fails to adequately convey my respect for the variety of individuals who hold less extreme views?

    As to the quotation from Pope John Paul II, as it reflects the OFFICIAL viewpoint of the current Roman Catholic church as well as the thousands of years of tradition of that denomination, I would strongly assert that it is NOT provocative, it is pertinent.

    If you happen to disagree with the pope, that does not make it provocative for me to quote him, or the current pope. If you feel it is appropriate for a very much heirarchical religion to deal with this disconnect between their doctrine and the belief of the members of the church by simply ignoring it, then I would suggest that too, is a less than an ideal response instead of engaging and resolving those differences.

    As to Professor Rice, the original quotation was incomplete, it only stated the part about women and incest as voluntary. I found the full quotation, and expanded both the original quote here and the credentials of Professor Rice. It was not terribly hard to find the original information, and as I have always been very thorough, I hope that you will respect that I am not in the habit of taking comments out of context, or using them to mis-state the view of the person being quoted.

    Incest is occasionally an act where an adult womaman behaves incestuously towards another adult or child. Far more often, overwhelmingly so, it is an act where the girl or woman is underage and therefore NOT consenting, or where a woman is in coercive circumstances that do not meet some or all of the criteria for formally being prosecutable as rape.

    His statement makes women (and girls) wrongly responsible for being the victims of incest.

    As to the quotations from TT -- allow me to expand on my earlier statements about the extremest feminist views you quoted. They are not only wrong because they bash men, but because they deny all of the wonderful conduct of men as fathers, husbands, and lovers - sacrifice, nurturing, protecting, gentleness, loving. They are wrong because they deny women loving men, and loving and enjoying sex as equals. They deny that women can and often are happy in marriage. They inaccurately represent that feminism requires women to be lesbians.

    ReplyDelete
  15. DG,

    While I understand you mean no offense, I must challenge the following..

    "If you happen to disagree with the pope, that does not make it provocative for me to quote him, or the current pope. If you feel it is appropriate for a very much heirarchical religion to deal with this disconnect between their doctrine and the belief of the members of the church by simply ignoring it, then I would suggest that too, is a less than an ideal response instead of engaging and resolving those differences."

    First, it is not, in my opinion, our perogative to assert the members of a religion would "do better to...", for there may be a myriad of reasons for the members of a faith not pushing one point within the leadership of the faith. When we engage in this kind of discussion we move from opinion, to expressing how we think another faith, or even those within even our own faith - OUGHT to behave within the context of religion.. a clearly deeply personal and entirely 'of our own opinion' point. This isn't whether we agree about foriegn policy - it's akin to telling someone that their impression of the taste of chocolate is wrong - but on a more personal level. I know you mean NOT to do this, but it stil crosses over that line - to me.

    ReplyDelete
  16. DG, the quote is provocative. However I do not think that it is needless.

    He said that. That is not in dispute. Whether or not it means anything is a seperate discussion. I believe very strongly that no man or woman should be judged on a single quote alone, but on the whole body of their work. And if Karol Wojtila had been a patron of women's rights, the one quote would have been laughable.

    However the Catholic Church has never been at the forefront of the women's movement. Whether or not you happen to agree or disagree with the Church is beside the issue. The Church has a heavy influence on the ideologies and actions of a large population and as such their messages are subject to scrutiny.

    If the quote was meant as a dig on Catholics then it was needless. But if it was meant to raise (or provoke) the issue of the Catholic Church's views of sex and gender then it plays.

    ReplyDelete
  17. AB (et.al.) -

    First, I think it is important to understand a bit of context about the genesis of this post - it was a response to an abusive person - using a forum which provides for a more public reebuke.

    Second, I agree that the conduct of a religion (not a faith) but the organized church, should be a topic which we call can discuss - but, as they say, the three things you can't talk about are sex, politics, and religion, and this poist encompasses all three -- consequently, it is undoubtedly going to be emotionally charged.

    Third, as a result of that procliviity toward evoking an emotional/visceral reaction, the words are, among civil, reasoning adults, STILL something which can be inadvertently offensive or misconstrued - even when carefully chosen.

    Fourth, all that said, we - none of us - have the right, nor should we exercise the perogative, to lecture another on how they should FEEL about their faith, how they should interact within that faith, nor whether their beliefs about sex or religion are right or wrong - if we are talking about someone's personal relationships or conceptual undertandings related to either. I may feel God is a big cloud, you may feel God is an enigma, and someone else may feel sex is not pleasant, but needed. It is wrong to say any of these are wrong (in my opinion) - we can say we don't agree - but we cannot determine for ourselves what someone else should FEEL or believe about faith, no less so than to say that BECAUSE we personally feel sex or religion is X - that everyone else has to feel that way - because our belief is right, and theirs is wrong.

    Regardless, clearly there is some question about John Paull II's motivations - perhaps his stance on woman's rights was less progressive than we might prefer, and even more, prehaps the stance of the leading elements of the Catholic church equally are less progressive than we might prefer (to wit, the stance of the Church on ordination of women). While I can say I don't agree with the Church, and I MIGHT even say that I think the Church errs in not allowing for it (or marriage) and that I think it causes them problems - I will not go so far as to say that DG's feelings about faith or sex (or anyone else's) are incorrect/improper, nor would I expect she would want to, or intended to.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Phil - Penigma is home for me, I use it as a vehicle to express my angst and hurts and react to those things which have struck a cord. In the interest of tactful conduct, I run what I anticipate wrting by one or both of you, with the intent of having critique provided to avoid offending people, most of all both you. I understand you do the same thing - to that end, as what I wrote offended or hurt you, please accept I meant something otherwise - as this should be a home for you too, but a home where we both can express our feelings in the safety and with the approval of our friends.

    My esteemed colleagues and very dear friends:

    It was my intent to address a view of women, a kind of mysogyny which I have myself experienced as a girl and as a woman. That mysogyny has been held and expressed by segments of a particular political position; and are also the views expressed equally by some (not all) adherants to segments of a variety of Christian religious denominations. The two groups largely overlap.

    What I wrote was about my own experience, and the evidence that my experience was not by any means unusual or unique to me.My value, and the value of women generally as human beings of worth, separate from our fertility and sexuality and definition of gender, is something that goes very deep, as deep as faith, an issue that is profoundly personal.

    My quotations and comments were never, ever, meant as a 'dig' at catholics. I am critical of what I perceive to be mysogyny within the catholic church and elsewhere, and the response to it both from catholics and non-catholics that perpetuates mysogyny. That is not at all the same thing as telling any individual how to participate in practicing their faith or participating in their religion of choice. There is a fine line between critical observation and dictating conduct to other people.
    .

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dog Gone, after reading your excellent post and the comments that followed, I must state that each of the quotes you began with do shed a bit of light on belief systems of the right. And your disclaimers are more than adequate.

    I am puzzled by Penigma's response: "...I will not go so far as to say that DG's feelings about faith or sex (or anyone else's) are incorrect/improper..."

    Why not? It's not as if Dog Gone has the power of a government or a religious belief system behind her to "enforce" her belief system upon others. Her only tools are the tools of rational thought and logical argument. And I would assert that faith and sex are NOT taboo subjects for the full range of inspection, discussion - and conclusion.

    If they were, belief-based systems such as religions would NEVER change. Look at the Christ story for example. He observed what was wrong and he clearly stated what was right and what needed to change...and religion changed.

    Catholicism (and I am a Catholic) is a human institution (Yes, I know what the "Church" says.)...and it is flawed. We are reminded of that every day. The quote of Pope John Paul II is a reminder by Dog Gone that we must NEVER simply say "I don't like it. I believe differently, but that's just the way it is..."

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thank you Leslie for commenting in support. I was reminded off-blog by a reader of this that one explanation for the Roman Catholic church to require celibacy rather than for it to be optional had to do with property and inheritance rather than spirituality. Other explanations for the intersection of doctrine and political ideology (and not just Roman Catholic ones, because this is not about any one religion) are that these policies promote the greatest numbers of new adherents being born for their views. There are groups, like the Above Rubies group, which promote the idea that we must populate the world with as many Christians as possible and with as many Americans / Westerners as possible to dominate the world (always of course for the world's own good) or at least so we are not outnumbered (note - we already are, but that argument only persuades them it is more important than ever that we reproduce unchecked). The requirements in Leviticus relating to sex can be viewed in this context, for example.

    To insist that the only basis for these dogmas is purely spiritual justification begs a pass from critical thinking.

    It is about how a segment - a segment - of conservatives holds religion as a justification in part for their views AND how their views of sexuality, and larger views of our humanity, shape the religious views they embrace as well. It is not a simple a produces b causation.

    While our current abortion law, and agreement, is that abortion is permissable in cases of rape and incest and to save the life of the mother, this is not an area of complete agreement either. There are significant segments which assert that NO criteria is acceptable for abortion. The argument is that the origins of the pregnancy are irrelevent, and that saving the life of the mother is not a valid, acceptable choice, that every pregnancy must continue.

    I think my greatest area of objection, as a woman, has been to an endimic characterization of female sexuality as inherently evil, and by extension of sex as evil. It was exemplified by this quote against contraception - and yes, there is still a very strong push-back against contraception primarily from some on the right -"Women pay dearly for this non-freedom. First, they become slaves of their erotic sensuality, they are easily by the male of the species, they truely become sexual toys, and their de-naturalization now transforms them into nothing more than large semen containers." J.C. Espinosa

    Because it follows, in the minds of the people who believe this way, that if you deny sensuality, and have sex while repudiating your sexuality, and dislike sex as anything other than reproduction, then when women become nothing more than a 'pregnancy container', it's all good.

    If that isn't a warped view of women, and of sex and human (not just female) sexuality, I don't know what is.

    ReplyDelete