In Tennessee, a newly enacted sex-education bill, which takes an unabashedly pro-abstinence stance, prohibits public schools from promoting so-called "gateway sexual activity." Unfortunately, the grown-ups who argued in favor of the bill were too polite to define exactly what "gateway sexual activity" is, prompting the opposition to sneeringly dub the legislation "the no holding-hands bill."
What's fascinating to me is that the Nashville debate reveals in microcosm the confusion that reigns in the American political discussion about sexuality as a whole. To oversimplify, the Left thinks the Right are prudes and the Right thinks the Left are perverts. What both sides have in common, however, is they are far more comfortable with ambiguity than with clarity. And that's why neither camp is ready to have an honest discussion about sexuality.
Maybe it's a remnant of the Puritanical roots of this country's founders, but it seems that when it comes to all other forms of human behavior we Americans can at least agree about what it is we're disagreeing about. Discussions of human sexuality, in contrast, are mostly left vague. Even the highest court in the land is famous for its shameful lack of clarity when it comes to the subject of s-e-x. As Justice Potter Stewart famously wrote in his 1964 opinion about the definition of pornography, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."
As a rabbi, I find the reluctance to talk clearly about sex rather odd. In Talmudic tradition, human sexual behavior is discussed with the same unflinching analysis as matters of commerce. It's part of life. The rabbis never shied away from a discussion because it might reveal something dark about our basic nature. To the contrary, they brought these matters into the light to look at them in full view. Hence we find some pretty earthy admissions implicit in Talmudic law such as the prohibition of physical contact between the genders. According to Jewish law, men and women don't greet each other with a peck on the cheek. They don't exchange friendly hugs. Many legal interpretations prohibit shaking hands. I know, it's fashionable today to scoff at such perceived extremism. But for all its sophistication, the fashionable response fails to own up to the fact that sexuality is not a switch that we can turn on and off whenever it's polite or convenient. Sexuality is an underlying reality. And that is the crucial fact that is being overlooked by both sides of the debate in America.
Contrary to the opinion of the well-meaning legislators in Tennessee, there's no such thing as "gateway sexual activity." Holding hands doesn't lead to sexual behavior. Holding hands is sexual behavior. It's just that in our sexually overloaded society, it may not feel like it anymore. In 1963 when the Beatles sang "I Want to Hold Your Hand," the girls swooned. Today, top-40 radio lyrics coldly describe the most private behaviors without so much as a hint of excitement.
I respect what they were trying to accomplish in Tennessee, but allow me to humbly suggest that if the pro-abstinence camp wants to really make a difference, what they need to do is go home now and teach their own teenage sons and daughters how powerful a force their own sexuality is and that the power of sexuality is not limited to one very specific mechanical act. Sexuality can be holding hands; it can be a smile; it can be a glance.
As an aside, it baffles me when I see how culturally acceptable dating is among religious Christians who preach abstinence. I find it remarkable that you can you tell a teenaged boy and girl that it's alright to act like boyfriend and girlfriend in every way -- emotionally, socially, yes even physically -- but just make sure you don't end up crossing the line.
It reminds me of an old joke. A cop pulled a guy over for rolling through a stop sign. The cop asks the guy why he didn't stop. The guys answers, "Stop or slow down, it's the same." So the cop starts hitting the guy on the head with his nightstick and says, "You want me to stop or to slow down?"
Americans on both sides of the political spectrum will be able to intelligently discuss matters of sex and morality when we give up the finely crafted nuances and admit the truth about human nature. Tonight, every parent who cares about their kids' future should go home, go into a room together with their spouse, close the door and hold hands. And it should mean something.
When it does, we'll be able to have a conversation.
James Peron: Sex, Teens and Risk: Conservatives Have It Wrong
Shannon Bradley-Colleary: Abstinence Got Me Pregnant
Soraya Chemaly: A Message to Girls About Religious Men Who Fear You
Elizabeth Kantor: HBO's "Girls" -- Is it Really Less Humiliating Now Than it Was in the '50s?
Holding hands has some minimal similarity to sex. (If you have both held hands with someone and had sex with someone you should see how minimal that is). That does not mean that it is wrong to call holding hands a type of sex, it means that in doing so one contributes very little to the discussion.
When is it that people should have sex and when should they not? Why should there be these limitations? Only very simpleminded answers to the latter question will make it the case that saying that holding hands is sex indicates that only people who should have intercourse should hold hands.
The problem is not that the rabbi's argument gets the important questions wrong. It's that the rabbi's argument does not even hint at what the important questions are and how the argument is supposed to work. The argument is that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Holding hands can cause sexual excitement so it's sex and therefore wrong.
The only part of the argument that's defended, and not too strongly is that Holding hands is sex. Of course for a teenager existing causes sexual excitement, so existing would seem to come out wrong on this view.
To me the problem begins when you split sexuality off as a separate part of life. Sure, intercourse is sexuality, but from there you have increasing problems defining where sexuality ends and the rest of life begins. Life is complex, and using labels for parts of it oversimplifies the underlying reality. A lot of this originates in our minds, which try to classify unique things into categories in order to better cope with them. There's a lot of truth in the saying that in humans, the mind is the largest sex organ.
For me, a start would be to stop acting like sexuality is so different from the rest of life. I find it peculiar that the rabbi seems to be advocating a complete lack of anything remotely sexual in single people, and then, I presume, expecting it to be a major factor in the couple's life beginning at their marriage. I can't come up with any examples of other human activity which for which complete abstinence is expected until a certain date, where, with no prior education or practice, that activity is supposed to be a major part of a person's life.
1. No sheet! (Unless that kind of thing floats a married couple's boat.)
2. Sex with underage girls is forbidden. (Keep in mind that in Judaism, once a girl turns 12--Bat Mitzvah age--she's technically no longer considered "underage" and could in theory get married to a male over the age of 13, but in modern practice that doesn't happen. Even in the most right-wing communities nobody marries until they turn 18, and sex with anyone outside of marriage is forbidden at all times and all ages.)
3. Clothing is optional. Whatever enhances a married couple's sexual relations is not just OK, it's encouraged.*
(*swingers and animals excluded)
Overall, Judaism looks upon sexuality as an aspect of our humanity to be celebrated and encouraged within marriage. In fact, if a husband refuses to satisfy his wife, that's considered legitimate grounds for divorce!
One linguistic nit I wish to pick: There's no "Orthodox jewish religion [sic]." There's Judaism--one religion--with different branches--Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist among the main ones--and each branch interprets Jewish Law and practices it differently.
Peace/Shalom!
MCR
The Rabbi writes, “HENCE, we find some pretty earthy admissions implicit in Talmudic law such as the PROHIBITION OF PHYSICAL CONTACT between the genders”. Platonic love seems to be the rule.
Holding hands? Not in public, please.
Hugging? Not in public, please.
A peck on the cheek? Not in public please.
But my favorite is; “Many legal interpretations prohibit shaking hands.”
Would these “Legal implications” have anything to do with the law of stoning (or shooting) and killing in various (sophisticated) forms of an adulterous woman (and rarely of a man)?
He continues, “I know, it's fashionable today to scoff at such PERCIEVED extremism. But… sexuality is not a switch that we can turn on and off whenever it's polite or convenient.”
It reminds me of the innumerable begetting of the scriptures. It seems that the more religious some men become, the harder it is for them to keep their zippers closed.
The epitome of all of this is to see people using the scriptures for sex education.
It seems that every parent who cares about having kids and /or their kids' future can only go into a room together, in the dark, close the door and make sure that god is not listening.