|Willow (the_willow) wrote,|
@ 2011-06-14 23:46:00
|Entry tags:||#sexuality issues: gender, #sexuality issues: general, thinky thoughts|
The Bible Says
Thou shall not sleep with a man, as with a woman.
I've always, always wondered at that bit, and at how lesbianism (the possibility of woman to woman sex) isn't mentioned at all and it has finally hit me; the misogyny of it all. To sleep with a man, as with a woman would be degrading and wrong. To treat a man as a woman, would be wrong. But that doesn't actually have to happen in order for there to be sex between men.
I wish I could find the key to see it differently. But the missing piece I've puzzled over for years, pondering the concept of respect and substitution, is misogyny. Call a man by terms usually said to a woman? Put a man in sexual positions, usually reserved for women? The modern (not so modern) leap from gay to gay sex to penetration to who becomes subservient/submissive - all about that 'but then someone is a woman'.
Which I guess is not at all news to a great many people who're queer, queer and spiritual and the rest of it. It' just that, I missed it. I completely missed how misogyny plays into it. I was caught up on it not being respectful to another man to be thinking of someone else while with him (just as it might not be respectful towards any sexual partner). And I missed it, completely missed the; power plays and inheritance issues, an the ability to protect oneself and one's family all tied into the presentation of masculinity and strength intertwined.....
And there it is, threaded into queer culture via the homophobia and misogyny and general assholishness we all have to live through; dehumanize and be disgusted by the one in positions/scenarios reflecting traditional dependence for life. Children's rights, women's rights, rights and freedoms and respect for the disabled - it's all tied in.
Not that I have a clue if there's a culture somewhere where what happens sexually between men is a manly thing between equals as long as who knows what requirements are satisfied.
And yet, I don't want to believe this as just a blanket generalized ahah; because I believe in the 'A husband should satisfy his wife, if not that's grounds for divorce'. There are shared facets of culture due to environment and geography between the religion and cultures of muslim/jewish, arab/persian/varied desert tribes & civilizations. Or was that bit, yet another way in which Jews were meant to be different than the societies surrounding them?
Then again, I'm never going to make sense of things following the paths as currently laid out - because I ponder stupid questions of; Well, theoretically it could have been Adam and 'Steve' (Or Lilith and Eve) until 'expulsion' and then the need to procreate. Why have breasts without children to suckle nourishment? Why assume in a religious depiction of the creation of mankind, within an age of innocence, that gender or genitalia would play any part? (I remember one case at least where the Greeks didn't).