The Clitoris and Corinthians

I posted this morning about the happy compatibilities between vibrant faith and activist pro-feminism.  I believe everything I wrote, of course, but sometimes, sometimes, sometimes... I wander into what I worry are unfortunate contradictions.

This will be long:

My lecture in women's history this morning was about nineteenth century attitudes towards women's sexuality.  It's the same lecture I wrote about in this April 2004 post.   In addition to talking about clitoridectomies, and the shift to the "medicalization of morality", we wandered on to the topics of sexual ethics, masturbation and "contingent happiness."  (Hey, they were awake and interested, and I was on a caffeinated roll!)  We talked about the difficulties 19th century medicine had with the clitoris, as it represented women's capacity for their own pleasure, unrelated to either a man's delight or (at least directly) to reproduction.  We talked about the biological determinism problem: if all of our sexual organs are for reproduction, and sexual pleasure is about reproduction, why is the clitoris placed to be easily reached by a woman's fingers -- but not by a man's penis during intercourse?  (I did not suggest that this was a problem to be solved, rather that it threw the proverbial "wrench in the works" of many 19th century theories!)

I shared with my students the classic feminist argument (ala Betty Dodson et al) that the clitoris is symbolic of women's right to pleasure and fulfillment without being dependent upon another person.  While traditional sexual mores, and a considerable amount of religious teaching, stress that our sexual happiness ought always be contingent upon relationship with another (usually our spouse), some feminist theory sees the clitoris as the small, powerful, and physical manifestation of the larger truth that women as well as men have the capacity for pleasure "uncontingent" upon another.  The anti-masturbation screeds of the 19th and 20th centuries have always emphasized that our sexuality is not our own, that it belongs to God and our spouse.  The clitoris, with no direct function other than a woman's delight, stands (sorry!) in stubborn defiance of the notion that our sexual happiness should always be contingent upon relationship with another.  In a very real sense, one can thus argue that female masturbation is an inherently feminist act!

At the same time that I say all this, teach all this, and believe all this, I've got 1 Corinthians 7:4 (which I mentioned in this morning's post) running through my head:

The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.

I've loved that line from Paul for two reasons.  One, as a pro-feminist, it is a reminder of radical equality in marriage.   Men and women both surrender their autonomy over the most precious part of themselves, and they are to do so equally.  It's a nice counter-balance to other areas where Paul seems to imply the superior position of the husband in the family. 

But I also like the verse because it reminds me that in Christian marriage, we are called to live sacrificially for one another.  This doesn't just mean sexually; as Cait points out, it's 1 Corinthians 7:4 that allows her to have veto power over her husband's desire to do dangerous things, like ride a motorcycle without a helmet.  It's what gives my wife the right to demand that I see a doctor when I am ill; it is not merely my body that is ailing, but hers as well.   At its best, this ideal summons up a magnificent image of devotion, reciprocity, and mutual care.  It's both deeply romantic and profound holy, and as a newly married man, I find it inspiring.

I don't lecture to my women's studies students about Pauline images of marriage!  My lectures in class are classically feminist in their emphasis on the notion that women's overarching right to pleasure, individual happiness, autonomy and independence is the sine qua non of the movement.  In my marriage, however, and in my faith life, I've long since given up the notion that autonomy and personal pleasure ought to be the highest goals for myself or anyone else.  To the best of my clumsy and sinful ability, I am embracing sacrificial living.  My sexuality is no longer my own; I did surrender it to my wife as she surrendered hers to me.  We are not each other's jailers, mind you, but we are committed to a joint vision of sexuality that is ours (rather than hers, or mine).  No, I'm not sharing any more details than that, but I can say it is a practice that is modeled on what I read in Paul.

So what do I want for my students of both sexes?  I suppose I reconcile the secular feminist ideal of autonomy and the Christian ideal of sacrificial loving in my own mind by suggesting that the former is a necessary precursor to the latter.  After all, we can only really give to another what we first know to be ours! Thus, I think I believe (note the hesitancy in my tone) that a healthy model of sexual development encourages young people, boys and girls alike, to take ownership of their sexuality and delight in their own bodies as sexual creatures.  They will experience their bodies as their own, a gift of God for their own wonder and delight.  I hope they will do so without shame.  Then, after a suitable period (which will vary from person to person), my hope is that they will find one person to whom they can make a lasting commitment.  In the safe and loving context of that commitment, they will offer their sexuality -- their very body -- as a gift to their partner.  They will live out the vision of 1 Corinthians 7:4 regardless of their individual religious beliefs.  Their sexuality will be freely and lovingly surrendered to a partner who offers his or her sexuality in return.

Is this hopelessly muddled?  Is my psychology of the human person woefully defective? Am I mixing secular morality with Scripture and ending up with an incoherent mess?    Or does it make as much sense to anyone else as it seems to to me?

Do I post too much about my doubts?  Do I post too much, period?

Time for a short lunch break.  Jello awaits, and that is a happy thought.

Comments

[sparklegirl]

Nope, it's not muddled--it makes perfect sense. That's pretty much the same way I feel, and I'm not coming from a Christian perspective, so I think you've pulled together a rather coherent and balanced view of sexuality and relationships.

[Rainbow]

Why can't you teach about the pauline view, and other religious or philosophical viewpoints of marriage and fulfillment of the person. We are not doing our young people any favors educationally or socially by only cramming one viewpoint, ie, godless, individual worshipping secularism, down their throats. College students are very impressionable and listen to their professors. It is great when a professor discusses multiple viewpoints including the one that professor actually believes.

[Hugo]

Most of my students -- the majority of whom are Latina, Asian, and Armenian and are first or second-generation in this country -- have already heard the traditionalist arguments. They need the feminism in this class. If they want my religious views, well, I don't keep 'em a secret, but in a women's studies class, they would be a distraction from our chief goal.

[sparklegirl]

Rainbow, why do you assume that secularism and a sense of community/sharing with others are mutually exclusive? I don't think people need religion in order to care about other people and desire to connect with them.

[Caitriona]

Most of my students -- the majority of whom are Latina, Asian, and Armenian

Hugo, I forgot that a large number of your students are Armenian. One of the two exchange students living with us this year is an Armenian girl.

[Rachel]

I suppose I reconcile the secular feminist ideal of autonomy and the Christian ideal of sacrificial loving in my own mind by suggesting that the former is a necessary precursor to the latter.

Nice going, Hugo! I like the way you're putting these two modes of thought into dialogue, and I happen to agree with you on this point entirely.

Do I post too much about my doubts? Do I post too much, period?

No, and no. :-) Not for this reader, anyway.

[Hugo]

Thanks Rachel; thanks sparkle -- maybe I'm not as confused as I thought I was!

[Caitriona]

My sexuality is no longer my own; I did surrender it to my wife as she surrendered hers to me. We are not each other's jailers, mind you, but we are committed to a joint vision of sexuality that is ours (rather than hers, or mine). No, I'm not sharing any more details than that, but I can say it is a practice that is modeled on what I read in Paul.

Paul? I thought sure you would be modeling what is written in Song of Solomon. ;-)

[Stentor]

I do find your position a bit muddled, or at least difficult to understand. It's unclear to me what your hybrid Pauline-feminist view entails in terms of actual practices that are different from what a pure Pauline or pure feminist would do. Of course, I respect your desire to keep your sex life private, so I'm not necessarily expecting an answer.

[Rainbow]

Your students should feel free to discuss their traditionalist views in their class. By not allowing them to "recognize" the existence of other viewpoints, you are censoring discussion, promoting a particular lifestyle, and giving the "Herr Professor" imprint on one, particular viewpoint. Even you advocate education as growth and questioning. the questioning should include the liberal popular culture.

[Rainbow]

By the way, Doug Weiss does a good discussion on the Christian theory on surrendering your sexuality to your spouse in some of his tapes.

[djw]

By not allowing them to "recognize" the existence of other viewpoints,

I'm not sure how he could do that if he tried.

But your point just isn't right. First of all, even when you include multiple perspectives, we (college teachers) have students for a 40-50 hours of facetime over 10-15 weeks. That's not much time to cover a lot of difficult material, and with a lot of courses the breadth we're asked to cover is absurd. So while most of us, including Hugo, include multiple perspectives in our courses, we have to use our judgement about what to include and exclude. One factor I always think about is what my students are already likely to be familiar with--those things tend to get cut first.

But it doesn't matter anyway, as long as you encourage critical examination of the perspectives you do use. I can do a course fairly to the satisfaction of almost all my students, including conservatives. Almost everyone with preconceptions about what's important will think I'm not "balanced" in my course construction. That's fine. I'll take fair but not balanced.

[Caitriona]

Rainbow, I think I understand his reasoning for focusing more on feminism and it's history in class. He is exposing his students to thoughts and ideas that many of them may not have encountered before. I've surmissed enough by reading Hugo's blog to trust that if a discussion arose comparing the feminist views to more traditional views, that comparison woutl be allowed - within reason.

But for even the most traditional person to have an understanding of concepts far from traditionalism, those non-traditional philosophies have to be examined and explored. After that, the traditional person is traditional by *choice* rather than by not knowing any other way to be.

[Rainbow]

I definitely get the feeling that sex workers and porn actresses feel more comfortable in Hugo's class saying how their job is liberating than a student who might say she wants to be the best wife and mother ever and will carefully consider the husband proposed by her father. I am sorry, but any good classroom discussion involves multiple viewpoints as long as it does not get out of hand. I had professor who taught early Christian texts who could not abide his class with the 3 born again Christians and the 1 Satanist. The discussions were too heated!

[Caitriona]

What is it that gives you the feeling that sex workers would feel more comfortable in Hugo's class than would a young lady whose father has chosen her husband? FWIW, the feeling I get is that Hugo is good at helping his students feel comfortable enough in his classes to participate in the discussions, no matter their personal philosophies.

Of course, I was the one in my philosophy classes oh-so-long-ago who greatly enjoyed those deep discussions that made the other students' eyes glaze over.

[Noumena]

Somewhere in, I think, the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant identifies what contemporary feminists would call objectification as a major dilemma inherent in sexuality -- using a body (one's own OR another's) strictly for pleasure is using the embodied person as a means (to one's sexual satisfaction) rather than an end in themselves. And, of course, Kant's basic moral law (the Categorical Imperative) is that persons are to be regarded as ends in themselves; using anyone, even yourself, strictly as a means is fundamentally wrong. (And are there some stories, most likely apocryphal, about the measures Kant would take to avoid touching himself!) It actually all sounds rather like something Dworkin might have wrote!

Kant's solution is this weird and problematic idea of "mutual ownership" in marriage: since I "own" my wife, I don't disrespect her when we have sex, and since she "owns" me, she doesn't disrespect me when we have sex either (I'm speaking hypothetically here; I don't even have a girlfriend, much less a wife). I find the whole language of possession, ownership, and property to be weird in this context, and the theory is problematic in the context of the MM because this is ownership without any transfer of title or rights -- the "right of sexual use" just springs into existence ex nihilo -- contradicting Kant's general theory of property.

I find this all rather amusing. How often do you see Kant and Dworkin in substantive agreement, or Paul and Kant?

[Hugo]

Noumena, that's fascinating -- I'll have a chat with my Dad (who has been teaching Kant for forty years, and wrote a book on him) about this...

Rainbow, I've had porn stars and virginal conservatives in my classes before, and they have coexisted happily -- and both, I think, felt heard and validated.

[Rainbow]

All I have been trying to convey the last few months is that to me you come across with a liberal, sexual freedom bias in your posts. You bemoan the hookup culture but defend a young person's right to choose it. If I were in your class I think I would shut up totally after the first 2 weeks in order to protect my gradepoint average. Maybe, you encourage social conservatives enough in class that they are not afraid to talk.

[Hugo]

I promise you, Rainbow, I do just that. A couple of semesters ago, I had the president of Campus Crusade take my class -- I was the advisor, of course -- and she was quite willing to debate, in an irenic and charming way.

[mythago]

if all of our sexual organs are for reproduction

Well, there's your problem. The assumption that evolution is efficient and functional should have fallen apart the first time humans figured out what the appendix is for.

[Hugo]

Hah, mythago. One would think, wouldn't one?

[Noumena]

Hugo -- The relationship between Kant and contemporary feminism is surprisingly rich. Not to step on your dad's purview (I'm still just an apprentice philosopher, after all), but there's a

[anonymousgirl]

For what it's worth, I (as a 20-year-old, never-been-kissed-or-even-looked-at, straight Christian girl) agree with you on this (with my information only coming theoretically and from observing other people, of course). However, I don't see the real need for the concept of "autonomy" in the description of the stage I am in now :). Knowing about how one's body works does not make one autonomous; the means I assume you are referring to *cough* are both a preparation (so that one doesn't rely on one's spouse knowing everything when one gets married) and, well, a way of keeping oneself from going crazy *ahem*. I am not thinking, "Hey, I can make it on my own."

[LAmom]

My sexuality is no longer my own; I did surrender it to my wife as she surrendered hers to me.

Perhaps you didn't mean it this way, but the way you expressed this sounds more like an "either/or" proposition, while the scripture sounds like more of a "both/and":

The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. (emphasis mine, obviously)

I wouldn't say that my sexuality is no longer my own. It is still mine, but it is also my husband's.

In a very real sense, one can thus argue that female masturbation is an inherently feminist act!

Love that!

[Hugo]

LAMom, as someone who is normally enchanted with "both/and" concepts rather than "either/ors", I'm delighted to have you point this out -- and embarrassed that I didn't get it.