My head may literally explode one day

[Koala]

lorialexander.blogspot.com/2012/09/mens-wandering-eyes.html#idc-container

From the comments:

I think it should also be mentioned that women shouldn't be 'withholding' their boobs/butts from their hubby's either

:angry-screaming:

[ElphabaGalinda]

So basically women can't own their own bodies and when they get married all their body parts are property of their husband. :evil: :x That's one of the more disgusting beliefs....I think my head has in fact exploded. I don't understand how any woman can believe this BS. And I'm sure that's what she taught her daughters. Of course, if a husband does anything the wife doesn't like she's not allowed to say anything about it because God's supposed to work on him :roll: That lack of agency would drive me crazy.

If men can't control what they're looking at, that's they're problem. I enjoy boobs but I'm very rarely actually looking, and when I am it's not like I'm ogling and i'd think it'd be the same for most men. Instead of teaching their sons that women will tempt them to sin, they should teach their sons to respect women, though that's a concept they'll never understand.

[nimerha]

So, not only should your husband be able to rape you at will, but you have to let him do anal and/or titty fuck as well?

Wait...

[Cran]

Nimerha, your avatar sums up my reaction nicely!

This is disgusting, but with the preoccupation of following the OT among fundies, this is somewhat consequent, after all, women are only property, to be given to any man,even their rapist, as custom and male relatives demand.

[Anxious Girl]

What wonderful Christian values we have! Can you imagine that if we didn't have values such as these, people would be anarchic (is that even a word?) and would just run amock, doing vile acts to others as they please? Oh, please, outdated holy books, show us the true way to be good people!

[Sola]

http://lorialexander.blogspot.com/2012/09/mens-wandering-eyes.html#idc-container

From the comments:

:angry-screaming:

I can't go to her blog any more. I got to the point where I want to punch through my computer screen, reach down the internetz and throttle the stupid bitch.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Nimerha, your avatar sums up my reaction nicely!

This is disgusting, but with the preoccupation of following the OT among fundies, this is somewhat consequent, after all, women are only property, to be given to any man,even their rapist, as custom and male relatives demand.

The specific teaching about spouses owning the bodies of the other comes from the NT.

I know it's common here for people to read the OT passage in Deut. 22:28-29 as requiring a girl to marry her rapist. I suppose that it's possible that some fundies, who go simply by a surface reading of the text without looking into how it was traditionally interpreted, may have assumed that this was the meaning.

At the same time, I have not seen any proof that Deut. 22:28-29 was actually used in the ancient Israelite community to force virgins to marry their rapists against their will. To the contrary:

(1) The laws of niddah (separation as a result of menstruation) would have prohibited any sexual contact, and these laws continue to apply even if there has already been a sexual assault. No further physical contact could be sanctioned without immersion in the mikvah, which would require the girl's consent.

(2) The Talmud in Ketuvot 29 cites Tosfos as stating that the phrase "and she will be to him for a wife" means that a future formal wedding process would need to take place, and that it could only take place with the consent of the bride.

TOSFOS (DH v'Chad) answers that the verse, "And she will be to him for a wife," is necessary for a different reason, as the Gemara later (39b) describes. The verse does not teach that the man must pay a fine only when he is permitted to marry the Na'arah. Rather, it teaches that he may marry the Na'arah only with her consent. She is entitled to refuse to marry him if she so chooses. RASHI (39b, DH Tiheyeh) writes that the word "Tiheyeh" implies that she must "make herself be" to him. (The term "Mehavah" implies marriage through Kidushin, as the Gemara later (46b) derives from the verse, "She will marry (v'Hayesah) another man" (Devarim 24:2). As a formal legal transaction, Kidushin takes effect only with the consent of both parties.) Since the verse which teaches the requirement for consent also implies that a man is required to pay a fine only when the Na'arah is permitted to him in marriage, it is necessary for the Torah to write "ha'Na'arah" in the next verse to include Na'aros whom the man is not permitted to marry.

From here: http://dafyomi.co.il/kesuvos/insites/ks-dt-029.htm

[Cran]

The teaching about spouses owning the bodies of the other comes from the NT.

You surely don't mind citing the biblical verses you refer to? The man being the head of the woman is of course from Paul, but the rules about male relatives marrying of their daughters is from the OT.

[Lady_M]

Good grief, why would any woman who actually believes this WANT to get married?

There are days I definitely don't have any desire to be touched even in a strictly non-sexual way. I'm fairly introverted, and when I get to that point where I need to recharge, pretty much any touch can feel like an invasion.

I just cannot even imagine being told that I have to allow my husband to grab my boobs/butt whenever he feels like it, and that I'm supposed to like it. I'd probably lose my mind.

Thankfully, my husband understands that *gasp* I'm actually a human being and respects me and my space.

[treemom]

WTF? This is just disgusting.

[Minerva]

There's something I don't get. So you're a patriarchal fundamentalist Christian. You're used to explaining that your "headship" model of relationships isn't abusive because God is telling the husband what to do, and both parties are following God, and God doesn't lead people into abusive relationships but rather to a perfect loving marriage. You're also used to explaining, when a Christian like you is caught breaking the law or having same-sex fellowship, how they were Doing It Wrong™, or how they stumbled in their walk with God but it's ok because it happens to all of us. Why can't they put two and two together and be like "hey, seeing as not everyone Does It Right™, and there is therefore a chance that a headship will stumble and abuse his power and hurt his wife, maybe our practises should include some kind of safety net for wives. Like, for starters, maybe we should believe them when they confide their abuse to us"?

[2xx1xy1JD]

You surely don't mind citing the biblical verses you refer to? The man being the head of the woman is of course from Paul, but the rules about male relatives marrying of their daughters is from the OT.

I edited my post to include more info.

The niddah rules would also have an impact on marriages contracted through the father. At the time, marriage was a multi-stage process. The betrothal legally committed the couple, but the process was not complete without a further ceremony and consummation of the marriage. There could be a considerable time lag between the betrothal and consummation - even years. We do know of situations, esp. where there was great hardship or danger, where a father would make future arrangements for his daughter. When it came to actually completing the marriage, though, the bride had to cooperate with the process since the groom wasn't allow physical contact until she had completely immersed in the mikvah. This had to be done prior to the wedding, and again each month. He had no automatic right to her body.

[Guest Anonymous]

I edited my post to include more info.

The niddah rules would also have an impact on marriages contracted through the father. At the time, marriage was a multi-stage process. The betrothal legally committed the couple, but the process was not complete without a further ceremony and consummation of the marriage. There could be a considerable time lag between the betrothal and consummation - even years. We do know of situations, esp. where there was great hardship or danger, where a father would make future arrangements for his daughter. When it came to actually completing the marriage, though, the bride had to cooperate with the process since the groom wasn't allow physical contact until she had completely immersed in the mikvah. This had to be done prior to the wedding, and again each month. He had no automatic right to her body.

I get that this is a nice scholarly breakdown but the fact of the matter is that women back then were chattel. I have a very hard time believing that things generally went down the way you describe. What prospects for marrying off a non-virgin did fathers have? I imagine they told the women to marry and the women did it because they had little or no choice. Same for marital rape. Hell, that was common as little green apples in the United States until very recently. I think you've got some rose colored glasses on.

[MagicalMuggle]

1 Cor. 7:2-6 (NIV)

2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I get that this is a nice scholarly breakdown but the fact of the matter is that women back then were chattel. I have a very hard time believing that things generally went down the way you describe. What prospects for marrying off a non-virgin did fathers have? I imagine they told the women to marry and the women did it because they had little or no choice. Same for marital rape. Hell, that was common as little green apples in the United States until very recently. I think you've got some rose colored glasses on.

Marital rape was absolutely common in the United States and Canada, and was legally permitted until very recently (1983 in Canada, I'm not sure the dates for all 50 states, and certainly those who talk about "legitimate" or "forcible" rape don't think the concept should exist).

On a practical level, unmarried women didn't have a lot of options. Husbands may have been seen as a source of protection, of current support, and of future support (via children). Still, I do see a difference between "agreed to something because of difficult circumstances" and "forced to do something because it was a religious requirement".

Is it possible that some men ignored religious teachings against marital rape and against sex during niddah? Of course. My point is that there is a difference in the notions of marriage and sexual rights within the religious teachings themselves. We can document what the Talmud says on the issue. At Eiruvin 100b, Rami ben Hama specifically states that a man is forbidden to compel his wife to have sex. We know the approximate dates that these sages lived, and can document the time frame in which the Talmud went from being past down as oral law to being written down. At the very least, these teachings have existed for more than 1500 years. There are also passages in the Talmud that discuss refusal to have sex by the wife as a grounds for divorce. It's clear that a wife could not be legally forced to have sex - the only question in the text in whether she is doing it out of spite (in which case, she may lose her divorce settlement) or because the husband was repugnant to her (in which case, she was entitled to her full payout). By contrast, we know that marital rape was explicitly permitted by law in Western society (until 1983 in Canada, and until 1993 in some states).

[Guest Anonymous]

Marital rape was absolutely common in the United States and Canada, and was legally permitted until very recently (1983 in Canada, I'm not sure the dates for all 50 states, and certainly those who talk about "legitimate" or "forcible" rape don't think the concept should exist).

On a practical level, unmarried women didn't have a lot of options. Husbands may have been seen as a source of protection, of current support, and of future support (via children). Still, I do see a difference between "agreed to something because of difficult circumstances" and "forced to do something because it was a religious requirement".

It's a precious small difference in my opinon. Especially when it's specifically allowed and stated by the religious text, it very well might have the cultural weight of a religious requirement.

Is it possible that some men ignored religious teachings against marital rape and against sex during niddah? Of course. My point is that there is a difference in the notions of marriage and sexual rights within the religious teachings themselves. We can document what the Talmud says on the issue. At Eiruvin 100b, Rami ben Hama specifically states that a man is forbidden to compel his wife to have sex. We know the approximate dates that these sages lived, and can document the time frame in which the Talmud went from being past down as oral law to being written down. At the very least, these teachings have existed for more than 1500 years. There are also passages in the Talmud that discuss refusal to have sex by the wife as a grounds for divorce. It's clear that a wife could not be legally forced to have sex - the only question in the text in whether she is doing it out of spite (in which case, she may lose her divorce settlement) or because the husband was repugnant to her (in which case, she was entitled to her full payout). By contrast, we know that marital rape was explicitly permitted by law in Western society (until 1983 in Canada, and until 1993 in some states).

I still think you're doing that thing that fundies often do where they look back on the "good old days" and don't acknowledge how terrible those days actually were. Life was nasty, brutish, and short in the time period you're talking about, and if you were a woman it was even worse. If I'm reading you correctly you think that because a few scholars stated something about the treatment of women that it actually played out that way in day to day life. Personally I doubt that it did. I bet a lot of women were literally or virtually forced to marry their rapists and a lot of husbands raped their wives. It happened (and still does happen) in every patriarchal culture and I don't think this one was any different.

**ETA: I like you and I respect you, I want that to be clear. I think you're an extremely intelligent person, but I really disagree with you on this one.

[eeemkaaayy]

Good grief, why would any woman who actually believes this WANT to get married?

There are days I definitely don't have any desire to be touched even in a strictly non-sexual way. I'm fairly introverted, and when I get to that point where I need to recharge, pretty much any touch can feel like an invasion.

I just cannot even imagine being told that I have to allow my husband to grab my boobs/butt whenever he feels like it, and that I'm supposed to like it. I'd probably lose my mind.

Thankfully, my husband understands that *gasp* I'm actually a human being and respects me and my space.

This! So much. I hate being touched without being told so, no matter who you are, even if it's just a pat on the back. If I was any of those women, I wouldn't be getting married. Really, it seems like something out of a dystopian novel. I cannot believe people think this is or ever was right.

Marital rape was absolutely common in the United States and Canada, and was legally permitted until very recently (1983 in Canada, I'm not sure the dates for all 50 states, and certainly those who talk about "legitimate" or "forcible" rape don't think the concept should exist).

On a practical level, unmarried women didn't have a lot of options. Husbands may have been seen as a source of protection, of current support, and of future support (via children).

I'll politely disagree with this. For the first part, just because it was the law doesn't mean it happened every day/frequently. Yes, it did happen, but in England and the USA (that I know of), it started to be challenged at least around the 19th cen. I'm sure others disagreed as well, but I can't think of any of the top of my head. So I mostly agree with your first point, but I disagree with the word common. It happened, yes, but I wouldn't classify it as common. My main problem comes with your second paragraph. Unmarried women from the very upper class didn't have many options. Sure, husbands were a source of protection etc. but many under class women did have options. They weren't nearly as many as we had today, but the majority of under class/middle class women had a job or something they did on the side. It wasn't a necessarily glamorous job, or a job that they enjoyed, but they were working and they had choices, albeit limited compared to today's. Most got married, but there was many a woman who didn't get married, like Susan B. Anthony/Dorthea Dix, Elizabeth I, Jane Austen, and all of the Bronte women. I see your point because the social norm was to get married. I think we're all making some broad generalizations, but I think everyone so far has made a good point. Also, please don't take this offensively people. I plan on minoring in women's studies, so this is a topic I really enjoy :)

[2xx1xy1JD]

It's a precious small difference in my opinon. Especially when it's specifically allowed and stated by the religious text, it very well might have the cultural weight of a religious requirement.

I still think you're doing that thing that fundies often do where they look back on the "good old days" and don't acknowledge how terrible those days actually were. Life was nasty, brutish, and short in the time period you're talking about, and if you were a woman it was even worse. If I'm reading you correctly you think that because a few scholars stated something about the treatment of women that it actually played out that way in day to day life. Personally I doubt that it did. I bet a lot of women were literally or virtually forced to marry their rapists and a lot of husbands raped their wives. It happened (and still does happen) in every patriarchal culture and I don't think this one was any different.

**ETA: I like you and I respect you, I want that to be clear. I think you're an extremely intelligent person, but I really disagree with you on this one.

No disrespect felt :)

Let me step back for a moment and explain a bit of Judaism 101:

It is most definitely NOT based on just a literal surface reading of the plain text of the Old Testament. 2,000 years ago, there was a schism between the Pharisees (forget whatever the NT says about them) and the Sadducees. The Pharisees followed the Oral Law in addition to the written Torah, and focused on the importance of rabbis/scholars. The Sadducees focused on the role of the Temple priests, and followed only the written Torah. After the Romans destroyed the Temple and exiled the Jews, the Sadducees religion couldn't really adapt while the Pharisees were able to have the religion go mobile. With the exception of some very small sects today (Karaites and some Ethiopian Jews), all of the Jewish movements today spring from the Pharisees.

This means that the Talmud (which was written down over time, with the final work completed 1,500 years ago) is not just "some scholar", but the foundation document of the religion which is used to interpret the "real" meaning of the written Torah. There were also subsequent medieval scholars/commentators, who were hugely influential, and codifiers of Jewish law. Reform, Conservative, Orthodox - they all refer back to these sources. Every single rabbi has to study the Talmud and know the major commentators and Code of Jewish Law. Rabbis lost the ability to enforce religious criminal law 2,000 years ago (so no modern-day stonings), but were still used for civil and family cases. We have many of those decisions.

As I said, I don't doubt that deviance existed and that there were creepy and abusive husbands who ignored what the religious law said. My point was that Jewish religious law did not require, and in fact explicitly prohibited, marital rape.

[2xx1xy1JD]

This! So much. I hate being touched without being told so, no matter who you are, even if it's just a pat on the back. If I was any of those women, I wouldn't be getting married. Really, it seems like something out of a dystopian novel. I cannot believe people think this is or ever was right.

I'll politely disagree with this. For the first part, just because it was the law doesn't mean it happened every day/frequently. Yes, it did happen, but in England and the USA (that I know of), it started to be challenged at least around the 19th cen. I'm sure others disagreed as well, but I can't think of any of the top of my head. So I mostly agree with your first point, but I disagree with the word common. It happened, yes, but I wouldn't classify it as common. My main problem comes with your second paragraph. Unmarried women from the very upper class didn't have many options. Sure, husbands were a source of protection etc. but many under class women did have options. They weren't nearly as many as we had today, but the majority of under class/middle class women had a job or something they did on the side. It wasn't a necessarily glamorous job, or a job that they enjoyed, but they were working and they had choices, albeit limited compared to today's. Most got married, but there was many a woman who didn't get married, like Susan B. Anthony/Dorthea Dix, Elizabeth I, Jane Austen, and all of the Bronte women. I see your point because the social norm was to get married. I think we're all making some broad generalizations, but I think everyone so far has made a good point. Also, please don't take this offensively people. I plan on minoring in women's studies, so this is a topic I really enjoy :)

Just as religious or legal prohibition doesn't stop all bad things from happening IRL, religious or legal sanction doesn't stop all good things from happening. So yes, decent husbands existed prior to 1983. I would argue that the attitude that marital rape wasn't really seen as "true" rape was more common.

My comments about why a woman might marry a rapist was referring to the ancient Israelites 3,000 years ago. At THAT point in time, yes, as gross as it sounds, some women may have felt that marriage at least provided some sort of support. I'm not aware of any documented cases of this rule being put into effect in the Israelite/Jewish community.

[Esther]

I think Talmud-era Jewish society wasn't a walk in the park to live in as a woman. However, I also think it was, in many ways, ahead of its time in regard to human rights in general. I also think it's a bit simplistic to call the Talmud just a scholarly work. Not because it's particularly holy or sacrosanct to me personally and somehow above criticism, but because it was the guiding text, in the most literal sense of the word, for thousands of people. It was to them the law. Some people may have disobeyed that law, I'm sure, but for most of them, it was really not just another book they didn't have to think twice about.

That said, yeah, generally, the past sucked. Just saying there are degrees of suck, and that if I had to pick, I'd rather live in a Jewish society 1500 years ago than most other places. As a woman.

[Guest Anonymous]

No disrespect felt :)

Let me step back for a moment and explain a bit of Judaism 101:

It is most definitely NOT based on just a literal surface reading of the plain text of the Old Testament. 2,000 years ago, there was a schism between the Pharisees (forget whatever the NT says about them) and the Sadducees. The Pharisees followed the Oral Law in addition to the written Torah, and focused on the importance of rabbis/scholars. The Sadducees focused on the role of the Temple priests, and followed only the written Torah. After the Romans destroyed the Temple and exiled the Jews, the Sadducees religion couldn't really adapt while the Pharisees were able to have the religion go mobile. With the exception of some very small sects today (Karaites and some Ethiopian Jews), all of the Jewish movements today spring from the Pharisees.

This means that the Talmud (which was written down over time, with the final work completed 1,500 years ago) is not just "some scholar", but the foundation document of the religion which is used to interpret the "real" meaning of the written Torah. There were also subsequent medieval scholars/commentators, who were hugely influential, and codifiers of Jewish law. Reform, Conservative, Orthodox - they all refer back to these sources. Every single rabbi has to study the Talmud and know the major commentators and Code of Jewish Law. Rabbis lost the ability to enforce religious criminal law 2,000 years ago (so no modern-day stonings), but were still used for civil and family cases. We have many of those decisions.

As I said, I don't doubt that deviance existed and that there were creepy and abusive husbands who ignored what the religious law said. My point was that Jewish religious law did not require, and in fact explicitly prohibited, marital rape.

I get what you're saying, but I continue to believe that Jews back then were as likely to follow that aspect of the Talmud as Christians today are to follow the Golden Rule. Some of them will if they're inclined that way already, but they're just as likely not to. That was not a culture nor a time period that had a lot of respect for women and their (often nonexistent) autonomy. Which is not a particular indictment of Judiasm, none of the other Abrahamic religions were any better, and very few cultures were either.

[Guest Anonymous]

I think Talmud-era Jewish society wasn't a walk in the park to live in as a woman. However, I also think it was, in many ways, ahead of its time in regard to human rights in general. I also think it's a bit simplistic to call the Talmud just a scholarly work. Not because it's particularly holy or sacrosanct to me personally and somehow above criticism, but because it was the guiding text, in the most literal sense of the word, for thousands of people. It was to them the law. Some people may have disobeyed that law, I'm sure, but for most of them, it was really not just another book they didn't have to think twice about.

That said, yeah, generally, the past sucked. Just saying there are degrees of suck, and that if I had to pick, I'd rather live in a Jewish society 1500 years ago than most other places. As a woman.

Next time I can call it The Guiding Text, In The Most Literal Sense Of The Word, For Thousands Of People. It's a bit unwieldy, but one hates to be simplistic. ;)

Anyway, prior to the compliation of the Talmud, I assume people were following (inasmuch as anyone follows their Holy Text) the Old Testament without benefit of The Guiding Text, In The Most Literal Sense Of The Word, For Thousands Of People.

While I very much respect the opinons and the scholarship of everyone in the thread, I don't buy that 2xx1xy1JD's statement below refutes the idea that women were in some cases compelled (by religion, culture, or the combination thereof) to marry their rapists. I think the same amount of proof exists that they were, as that they weren't. If it was put a stop to several hundred years after its inception that is all to the good and I applaud it, but the original text certainly suggests to me that it was a thing that happened, since there were rules governing it.

I know it's common here for people to read the OT passage in Deut. 22:28-29 as requiring a girl to marry her rapist. I suppose that it's possible that some fundies, who go simply by a surface reading of the text without looking into how it was traditionally interpreted, may have assumed that this was the meaning.

At the same time, I have not seen any proof that Deut. 22:28-29 was actually used in the ancient Israelite community to force virgins to marry their rapists against their will. To the contrary:

(1) The laws of niddah (separation as a result of menstruation) would have prohibited any sexual contact, and these laws continue to apply even if there has already been a sexual assault. No further physical contact could be sanctioned without immersion in the mikvah, which would require the girl's consent.

(2) The Talmud in Ketuvot 29 cites Tosfos as stating that the phrase "and she will be to him for a wife" means that a future formal wedding process would need to take place, and that it could only take place with the consent of the bride.

I am not a Jewish scholar myself by any means and I don't claim to be one, so I may be off base in which case I welcome correction. What I'm basing my conclusions on is that the Talmud i.e. TGTITMLSOTWFTOP, grew somewhat organically over time after the rules of the Old Testament had been in place. So while it modified and clarified and very much influenced Jewish culture and life, it didn't spring fully formed into being alongside the Old Testament. There was a time when it wasn't there, especially not in its current, huge, form. (Again, correct me if I'm wrong.)

[Esther]

Right. I never said it never happened, or that it was all that great to be a woman back then. I was only reacting to the "a few scholars stated" part, which I considered an understatement of the historical fact. I shan't go rabid and physically attack you for abandoning your acronym again.

[Guest Anonymous]

Right. I never said it never happened, or that it was all that great to be a woman back then. I was only reacting to the "a few scholars stated" part, which I considered an understatement of the historical fact. I shan't go rabid and physically attack you for abandoning your acronym again.

I wasn't trying to be a jerk. It was flippant of me but I thought it was in lighthearted funny territory. I do apologize if I upset you. I have enjoyed the discussion and your input. I don't always get my tone to come across the way I mean it.

[Esther]

I wasn't trying to be a jerk. It was flippant of me but I thought it was in lighthearted funny territory. I do apologize if I upset you. I have enjoyed the discussion and your input. I don't always get my tone to come across the way I mean it.

It's all right, it's been a weird day so I was most likely being a humorless bitch. :)