Since Db0 was so kind to remind me of this in his post, it was hard for me not to reply to that, especially after learning about the Seed Theory originally created by Carol Delaney and her colleague whose name escapes me right now. There is actually a reason why females are considered inferior in the Abrahamic religions. To understand this, we must first of all understand what was before Christianity and Judaism. That’s right, many pagan religions where some were cheerishing the fertility of women, since good fertility means a good harvest. Fertility of course, is the very central theme in many agricultures, and why shouldn’t they, when it’s the very thing they rely upon to survive? Looking at this further, we can also see a notion where every god of fertility in pagan religions is depicted as woman. Coincidence? I think not. Thus, fertility as a whole is more strongly connected to the female gender rather than the male one, and in addition connected to the earth since the earth can be fertile. Women then, stand for the earthly. Is there any question too why it is the female who gives birth to the world in most mythology sagas? As a quick example, we don’t need to go further than Gaia, which is probably the most well-known of all world birthgivers.

However, when the Abrahamic religions came into the picture and turned the world upside down with its monotheism, there was suddenly no room for a fertility godess. As a matter of fact, god is so divine that it is the very opposite of what is earthly. Men, who never were considered fertile in the sense as women then, were seen as closer to god. Why is that women cannot even sometimes leave their own house during their periods, or if they pray their prayers will not be reached? Periods if anything, is the very physical evidence of female’s fertility. Men, who do not have periods, and thus are not connected to the earthly are more pure, and also stands closer to the divine.

It is also noted that men not only are more divine, they are the actors, while women are merely spectators. Why is that the most romantic sex would be where the woman is passive, lying down on her back? This is a very old notion in Western society of how sex should be performed. Men once again, are the actors. This in turn refers back to god, where god created the world, not the woman. We call god the creator and god plants the seed. Men too, plant the seed in women, not only because you plant a seed into the ground but also literary, in English and many other European languages is the semen of men sometimes known as seed.

Why then is the earthly considered so bad that women’s sexuality should even become prosecuted? I cannot honestly answer, more than it seems to be an attempt to demonize pagan religions.

This is an analysis I based on Fall From Grace in Genesis:

My own tack on Fall From Grace? It’s a way to make a claim between the earthly and the divine. You see, in the Abrahamic religions and also in many pagan ones, women in particular are often considered being more “earthly”, because of their difference in fertility. This is primarily based on the fact that women can have children and have periods. This sets women further away from god, since god is divine and not earthly. Don’t you for example think it’s funny it’s Eve who ate the fruit first, not Adam? A serpent is often symbolized with cycles, notice how this seem to fit nicely with periods? Furthermore, this is probably a way for the Abrahamic religions to taint the pagan religions in where female fertility was seen as a positive thing. In paganism too, a cyclist thinking is not that uncommon. So in such a sense, the woman represents nature and paganism, which in Christianity is so far apart as you can get from god. Notice also how it is Eve who later suggested Adam to eat the fruit. Thus all the blame was to be put on Eve. Adam did nothing wrong, after all he is the man, and is closer to god. Even if he did wrong he did less wrong because he doesn’t have periods.

In addition, it is also the child who inherits the sin from its mother, not its father, further explaining that women are tainted but men are not. So frankly, I have actually no idea how some Christians could reproduce with this idea in mind. Going further to not have sex before marriage could be a part where a man who has sex with an unmarried woman will become tainted. Among gypsies, the skirt closest to the body is tainted as well, and among some Muslims women’s underwear cannot be mixed with men’s underwear during washing, or the men’s clothing will be tainted.

I would one day like to see where men’s semen is considered as tainted too, although that will probably not happen. Most often periods are also a sign with lack of body control, and to keep oneself clean and pure. This can be traced even further back from Ancient Greece where there some there were ideals a human should adhere to show dignity. One of those was to keep oneself pure. Of course, this notion too, was constructed by men for men, women were not often considered and even if they were, there were other ideals for them to follow.

Hm, I realize I am too tired to really think more clearly about the matter right now, so I will just continue when more ideas arise. I guess I call this part 1, so if there are anything else to discuss, it will be in part 2. Maybe a more elaborate analysis of From From Grace perhaps?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
14 Responses to “Female Sexuality in Christianity”
  1. jorrizza says:

    I can't help but sense a little feminism in your post ;) But in essence you've hit the nail on the head.

    And couldn't it be that several "unfriendly" practices were logical once, to prevent disease for instance, but were just passed down through religion and conservative cultures into becoming what they are now; a bunch of silly unnecessary rituals?

  2. christine says:

    Many good points made in this post. My understanding regarding patriarchal societies vs pagan/matriarchal regards this: In patriarchs, one can isolate a woman, through marriage/ownership/most fertile cycles and be more guaranteed to know who the Father of a child is, whereas in many pagan/matriarchal societies, the children are identified through the Mother, not the father. I see many patriarchal societies being more concerned with male ownership claims on women and children than allowing women and their children to be independent of male ownership.

    Basically, christianity is based on a patriarchal system of keeping the tabs on who gets to fertilze the women. If you don't force women into male ownership/marriage, how are you going to guarantee that the kids you are feeding are your own?

  3. jorrizza says:

    I meant the whole notion of purity and such. I think it's basically the same conservative utter nonsense as circumcision. It used to prevent all kinds of physical afflictions caused by bad hygiene. Washing women's clothing separately once a month isn't such a bad idea in a desert, really.

    You're completely right about female sexuality. I honestly can't think of any logical reason why anyone would demonize it. Maybe because they were afraid of the persuasive powers of free female sexuality. Usually women have an edge over men when it comes to persuading men into doing things against their will. Even Muslims use it (albeit indirectly) in their Jihad to persuade men into killing themselves.

  4. LeaT says:

    Well, it is hard to not make it sound like a little feministic (the original idea by Delaney did as well) and since we are arguing from a woman's point of view after all… How can it not sound feministic, since it argues in the favor of women? Maybe I could try to back it up describing male sexuality but there isn't much to write about there. Somehow male sexuality is either just completely ignored, seen divine and thus justified or just less bad, but men at least have "self control" (quite ironically I guess it's rather the opposite).

    Hm, what sort of practices are you thinking of exactly? Certain sexual activities or? Delaney herself doesn't answer why women's sexuality is so demonized throughout reilgion though, but I guess it is a feasible theory that yes, some practices were copied and then got stuck.

    It is very evident in less secular religions that women are considered tainted as I described about gypsies and Muslims. Actually, the very reason a womans' veil should be black is to show she is tainted, since white is the color of purity and thus, the color of god. They should also wear red belts when they are considered sexually active (read married).

  5. LeaT says:

    Yes, I think you got a point there, although circumcision at least on females also lead to physical complications later in life, albeit less for men. However, scientists now claim that the argument that male circiumcision would improve hygiene is void, particularly becaue the foreskin is there to protect the more sensitive part of the penis. This is also very true, and I see no reason why chimps or any other mammal would have issues with their sexual hygiene because they got a foreskin.

    It is also true that women in reality have control, but a control they seldom if never use. Coming back to the gypsies again, if a female would put the closest skirt to her body onto a male's head, he has to leave her immediately and wash himself, because he now has become unclean and tainted. Ultimately, the most striking question is, why do women consider themselves satisfied with their role of being inferior, when they obviously have means to change this actively? As a matter of fact, it is the WOMEN who uphold this power structure among themselves, not the men. This is very true for female circumcision as well, where the elderly women in the village (or society) will perform it on the girls, and same in societies where girls get married away where the MOTHER or any other close relative arranges the marriage, NOT the father or the man in the household. The man merely manages the economical part, but it is ultimately the mother who picks out the to-be-husband.

    There have been an argument for that women (and men accordingly) are considered more attractive by having a clear seperation between genders and gender roles. However, this in turn, merely stems from a sort of romanticism of the opposite sex, and question in reality whether this still would lead to say, better relationships.

  6. LeaT says:

    Yes, that is correct Christine, and I wonder why there is such a focus on ownership and patrilinearity to begin with. The biggest concern for the man is ultimately, am I the father of the child? This could be explained in a more Darwininan way saying that it is to ensure that their genes will be carried on with their offspring, but it doesn't explain why people in the West (and parts of Asia) then would prefer having a system of monogamy instead of polygamy then? In a Darwinian view, the man would then, to ensure the biggest possibility that just HIS genes will survive to the next generation, need to have sex with as many women as possible, but this obviously doesn't fit with the view of only having one partner. It is an interesting question which I would love to look into more further but I doubt such a question belongs to ACP, unless I somehow can connect it to religion. That however, will be hard in such a sense that I don't think monogamy is only supported in Christianity but pre-Christianity as well. Vikings, Ancient Greeks too, had only one partner and if you didn't it was considered adultery towards your husband/wife.

    Even in such societies as feudal China/Japan, one wife/husband was preferred. If the partner was found out to commit adultery, the punishment could be severe depending a little on which social status he/she belonged to. If it was a lord or somesuch, he/she had the will to remarry, but if you had a low social status, you could be completely disbanded or even be forced to commit seppuku, particularly if you belonged to one of the samurai families.

  7. John Taylor says:

    Great blog. Do you know of any relevant NLP forums or discussion groups?

  8. LeaT says:

    What does NLP stand for?

  9. nazani14 says:

    I think we need to look at the economic life of the culture in which the bias against women arose. Largely pastoral, with men who amassed larger herds able to acquire more wives or slave/concubines. Quite a few of the Old Testament patriarchs were polygamous, and the constant raids that took place in the ancient Middle East would have further decreased the number of available women. The Egyptians and Assyrians collected women from vanquished tribes, as did the Hebrews under David. It was pretty hard for the ancient Hebrews to continue to exist as a people, which helps explain some of the OT laws. Although it galls me to admit it, I do think that the customs that subjugate women may stem from the need to keep control over the "breeding stock." Anyway, men who had no chance of getting their own wife may have reframed celibacy as a positive, even holy thing.
    Suggested reading: The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley

  10. 999 SEO says:

    Just come accross your blog on digg, whats your favorite social bookmark site?

  11. Maximilliano says:

    I so much ought to get myself in gear and launch a weblog like this one.

  12. LeaT says:

    Interesting perspective.

  13. Cutlery Tray : says:

    mens underweare should be as comfortable as possible because men always engages in a lot of physical work”‘`

  14. liverpool riots says:

    Woh I love your posts, saved to my bookmarks! .

Leave a Reply