WARNING: This content may be unsuitable for children under the age of 12. This text contains adult content and refers to content with strong language.
A Modern Jewish Review of
Female Chauvanist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture A SECULAR READ I found this book to be extremely important for understanding the moral issues surrounding the role that sexuality currently plays in American popular culture.
Ariel Levy makes a strong case for there being a problem of many American women giving in to expectations of male chauvanism and calling that giving in "empowerment." Levy ultimately brings the point home and shows that young girls are all too often confused and manipulated into conceding their sexual choices to the unrealistic and sexist expectations of male chauvanists. Levy examines both the hesitant girls who are pressured into being featured nude in Girls Gone Wild videos and the businesswoman in the TV and film industry who sell the images of women's bodies. Though these persons claim that offering these sexual conveniences to heterosexual males proves women's sexual liberation--because women are playing an active role in the creation of a sexual culture--Levy argues that women creating a sexual culture that portrays women as sexual objects is ultimately counterintuitive to the feminist goals of an egalitarian society. Levy proposes that, instead of creating a society in which men and women are equal, American women in the 21st century are just playing by the rules of (and attempting to enjoy) a sexist game designed by trashy sexual values.
THE JEWISH READERPersonally, as a moderate, observant Jew concerned with the clash between the demands of American sexual culture and Jewish ethics, I found the book to be a compelling re-evaluation of secular sexual values. My concerns as a Jew, with regard to American sexual culture, amount to three major things:
(1) non-marital sex (and other forms of non-marital sexual activity),
(2) fashions of dress (and their sexually provacative implications),
(3) and the equality of men and women (and those who may feel they do not classify as either men or women) in all parts of life.
The reason that these matter to me as an observant Jew, and not just as a human being, is that, historically, Judaism (unlike many religions) has seen sexuality as holy. Therefore, sexuality, the sacred expression of sensuality between God's creatures, is very personal and should be reserved as much as possible for only sanctified relationships. Judaism sees the benefits of immense sexual pleasure in holy relationships, but Judaism finds sexual pleasure gained through nonsacred relationships to be harmful to the sanctity of sexuality within a holy union.
I ABSTAINHypothetically, sex only in the context of marriage might sound reasonable. But Levy writes that statistics show that abstinence-only education (teaching that sex must be preserved solely for marriage) does not work for most people. Levy argues instead that teens should be taught about birth control and the positive and negative effects of sexual activity. Since she is writing from a scientific and secular standpoint (and not a perspective of Jewish ethics), Levy acknowledges that consensual sex is a frequently pleasurable activity. Levy says though that, since statistics show that people do not naturally wait until marriage for sex, people who believe that sex should be preserved for marriage must recognize sexual activities that are not sex itself (i.e. masturbation, groping, etc.) as reasonable ways to hold off on sexual intercourse until marriage.
Since Judaism permits masturbation (and has traditionally interpreted the story of Onan in Genesis as a sin of coitus interruptus, sexual intercourse that began but did not end), Jews can listen to Levy's advice on masturbation. But is masturbation the only sexual pleasure that may be attained by Jews before marriage?
DO NOT TOUCH?Many observant Jewish communities often observe Shemirat Negi'ah (refraining from touching a non-family-member of the opposite gender). From a very literal or traditional standpoint, this would imply that, when a Jewish male and female who observe Shemirat Negi'ah are dating, they will not hold hands, hug, kiss, or touch each other at all because they are not married. If they get married though, they can engage in regular sexual relations with each other (since they are still observing Shemirat Negi'ah with everybody else to whom they still aren't related).
However, it is important that modern observant Jews realize the excessively stringent and contradictory nature of Shemirat Negi'ah today. It would seem that the purpose of Shemirat Negi'ah is to avoid any form of touching between the sexes to be understood as sexual. But if the purpose of this traditional form of Shemirat Negi'ah is to avoid sexually arousing Jews, then the system does not work for Jewish homosexuals. Even if homosexuals were prohibited from touching non-family members of the same gender and unrelated heterosexuals of the opposite gender, then the only non-family members whom homosexuals would be able to touch would be homosexual non-family members of the opposite gender. As Judaism values Mar'at Ayin (how a situation appears to fellow Jews), the sight of an observant Jew who will only touch Jews of the opposite gender creates an awkward and uncomfortable social rift for homosexuals: a denigrating of homosexuals that is a violation of Kevod Ha-Beriyyot (honoring the dignity of one's fellow human beings). As Judaism welcomes people of all sexual orientations, Shemirat Negi'ah, in order to fulfill its intentions for a complete community that may include homosexuals (let alone bisexuals), would have to call for no touching whatsoever between any two Jews who are not related
1.
A Jewish community where no two unrelated Jews may touch each other would mean no handshakes, no hugs, no arms gathered in dance, no pats on the back, and no social pleasantries or rituals that would involve any sort of physical contact! This would create for a dead community, and I do not believe that any society can expect to operate under these conditions.
Yet, it is comforting to know that the intellectually honest Orthodox Jewish world is re-evaluating Shemirat Negi'ah. Rabbi Avi Weiss, founder of the Open Orthodox rabbinical school, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, is known as a "hugger." As a "hugger," Rabbi Weiss will hug men and women as a simple greeting of "Welcome." Also, when I visited Yeshivat Chovevei Torah on May 18 2009, Director of Student Services Ruthie Strosberg Simon greeted me with a handshake upon meeting me in person. Beyond Rabbi Weiss's school, I know many observant (and many Orthodox) Jews who will shake hands, hug or high-five Jews of the opposite sex. The honest Jewish world knows that hugs and handshakes are not sexual, and they know that these gestures are extremely comforting to the strangers and friends among us.
TISSUE!? I HARDLY KNOW YOU! As honest re-evaluation breaks down the stringency of Shemirat Negi'ah, the observant Jewish world must proceed to re-evaluate the permissive and prohibitive limits of non-marital sexual activity, most significantly in observant Jews who are dating. While permitting sex or even permitting oral sex, would be too close (if not absolutely identical) to sexual activities that observant Jews must reserve for marriage, I do not believe that kissing, hugging or hand-holding must be off-limits to a pair of observant Jews in a committed non-marital relationship. I believe that groping and similar activities that may be called "foreplay" may serve as a reasonable limit of sexual activity between two observant Jews
2. (On a technical and literal note though, these activities must be seen as premarital "peaks" or "limits", rather than premarital "foreplay" since "foreplay" would imply that the sexual arousal characteristic of foreplay is for the purposes of impending sexual intercourse.)
WHAT NOT TO WEAR (IN ACCORDANCE WITH JEWISH LAW)Returning to Levy: though her book briefly discusses the effects and implications of fashion with regard to the remainder of American sexual philosophy, Levy makes very strong points in her intermittent comments on the sexual provokability of American fashion. Levy, aside from telling us her own thoughts, quotes a few ethnographic subjects (often teen girls or young adult women) who criticize modern fashions; for example, one girl refers to short skirts as "belts" since she feels that these skirts covered only about as much as belts would. Levy tells us of the problems feminism faces in the light of low-cut shirts, visible (and provacative) underwear (or lack thereof), low-riding jeans, and short skirts. The fact that feminists may be concerned that such clothes turn people into public sex products is not so different from the fact that observant Jews must be concerned that such clothes, when worn in public, are inclined to catch the sexual eyes of people outside of the kosher sexual relationship
3.
The Jewish concern with dress, Tzeni'ut, demands that women wear skirts with lengths that differ from community to community, that men wear pants of lengths that differ from community to community, that both men and women wear shirts with sleeves of particular lengths that also differ from community to community--and all sorts of other demands that differ from community to community. Since the laws and traditions of Tzeni'ut are various and complicated, all I can recommend for the observant Jew is that he or she dress, when in public, in a way that comfortably does not reveal or invite examination of one's thighs, buttocks, genitalia, back, stomach, chest or shoulders. In line with Levy's vision of an egalitarian society, I believe that such "modest" dress helps guarantee a society in which people of all genders are respected for their internal character and judged less by their physique.
A FEW LAST WORDSUltimately, I believe that a society where heterosexual men do not expect heterosexual women to be sex objects (and vice versa) and where heterosexual women are not heterosexual men's sex objects (and vice versa) is a society wherein heterosexual men and women can be on equal footing: earning the same respect, enjoying the same social groups, learning the same intellectual truths, making the same money, and so on.
Similarly, just as Levy finds sexual debasement among homosexuals to be emulations of heterosexual debasement (most often of women), the creation of a truly egalitarian society among heterosexuals helps--and is necessitated by--a society wherein homosexual men or women do not expect the homosexual members of their fellow gender to be sex objects and will not be sex objects for each other.
Even though I saw
her on The Colbert Report and
she has been on NPR, I do not know whether or not Ariel Levy is the leading voice in feminism today. And even though you're reading this sentence, I do not believe that I am the leading voice in today's moderate, open, observant Judaism (and nobody has ever told me that I am). Yet, I believe that my Judaism is compatible with Levy's feminism in the end. I find that both Levy and I are interested in all of us building a society that preserves the integrity and exclusive intimacies of sexuality for the right times and places so that each of us can see one another as stronger people all the time.
NOTES:1. While homosexual activity is often forbidden in traditional streams of Judaism, many traditional streams of Judaism do recognize homosexuality as a psychological inclination--..not just instances of sinful behavior. Whether or not a stream of Judaism has ruled against any homosexual behavior, nearly every stream of Judaism that believes homosexuality to be a psychological disposition calls for some form of dignified recognition of homosexuals in the Jewish community.
2. I believe that the sexual limits of a normative Jewish relationship is a limit that may be determined by the two dating Jews themselves or, if they feel uncomfortable designating a limit for themselves, by a Jewish authority whose advising they can comfortably seek. Some couples may be comfortable not kissing until the wedding, and some couples may be uncomfortable without groping before marriage.
3. The largest exception to my advice may be in beachwear. I have never seen a man choose trousers and a long-sleeved shirt as regular swimwear, and I've never seen a woman swim in a skirt and long-sleeved shirt. I believe that the permissibility of beachwear is a sub-category of Tzeni'ut that would require more knowledge on the subject that I can offer at the time of this writing.
