As Tanya Luhrmann’s osculation of faith grow weirder and weirder in the New York Times, so that her most recent piece points out the benefits of the evangelical Christian purity cult, Jeffrey Tayler’s criticisms of religion get more and more “strident.” Yesterday’s jawbreaker-titled column, “Oh God! The Lord’s my sex guru: Pious perverts, incestuous misogyny and the twisted world of religious sexual repression,” is in fact a criticism of Luhrmann’s column, and of her refusal to take sides against the insane prudishness of Christian cults. After all, she’s an anthropologist, and must maintain the stance of objectivity, although it somehow always manages to put a spit of approbation on her “objective” take.
All I can say is that I got there first, but Tayler says it better (and gets paid for it!):
Luhrmann presents us with disturbing material showing the baleful influence religion has on its female adherents. But, being an anthropology professor at Stanford, she refuses to take sides, evincing a frustrating non-judgmentalism that stems in part, no doubt, from her scholarly background, but also owes a good deal to the automatic respect our prevailing rules of discourse dictate we pay to anyone spouting faith-related nonsensicalities. [JAC: After all, she gets a column in the NYT to osculate religion’s rump, while those who slap its face get no say.] That person over there is muttering to an invisible boss in the sky? Shshshshsh! He’s praying! On your way to share your most intimate secrets with an old virgin male you hardly know? Must be confession-time! What, outlandish ancient fables tell us what to do about abortion? Oh, you’re talking about the Bible, so I have to take you seriously!
He then takes apart the use of the Bible as a guide to sex, and the ridiculous “purity balls” of Christians, in which, as the film The Virgin Daughters documents, fathers extort from their daughters pledges that they won’t have sex before marriage. Tayler:
The Purity Movement’s key message shines through the documentary with arresting clarity: The value of a young woman resides in the pristine state of her (father-policed) hymen, until such time as she is penetrated by father’s duly approved surrogate. Should her hymen be damaged before her wedding, would her groom have a right to return her to her father’s doorway to be stoned to death, as the Bible decrees? We don’t know, but we assume not. There are laws in this country, at least as long as we keep the faith-deranged from tampering with our legislation.
. . . The unwholesome obsession the Purity Movement parents display with the state of their daughters’ genitalia should set off alarm bells. Remember, a father concernedly intoning to his young teen, “I’m worried about your chastity, dear!” really means “I’m obsessed with your vagina, little one!” Richard Dawkins has suggested that forcing religion on children be considered tantamount to child abuse – something Child Protective Services might want to keep in mind if they are ever called to the homes of Purity Movement members.
I can understand why an anthropologist might want to document this bizarre phenomenon embedded within American culture, and refrain from judgmental overtones. But the phenomenon has been amply documented by others; what Luhrmann adds is simply a new and approving spin: the New Christian Puritanism is radical and thus appealing to those disenchanted by religion. This isn’t documentation, but unconvincing editorializing. After all, Luhrmann ends her column this way:
The [Christian] sex manuals remind us that another factor is the sense of being a countercultural activist who sets out to remake the world.
That’s heady stuff. The mainstream churches offer nothing like this edgy rebellion, this nose-thumbing at ordinary expectations. Paradoxically, it may be this invitation that makes what seems like passivity feel so effective.
Would Luhrmann’s piece get published in the NYT if she documented how Americans who are not part of these cults, like Tayler, see them as obsessive and sick?
Luhrmann and the unctuous Krista Tippett are two of a kind: one with a faith-loving voice on NPR and the other giving the same spin at The New York Times. Where is the voice of secular rationality? You’ll find it every Sunday in Salon.
sub
sub2
Sorry, but I do not find the sentence “the New Christian Puritanism is radical and thus appealing to those disenchanted by religion.” to suggest approval by Luhrman.
Well, one might have expected a modern analyst to write, “the New Christian Puritanism is bizarre and is thus appealing to those who’s sexual obsessions stem from ridiculous ancient fables”. The use of terms like radical come off as euphemisms.
When I took freshman cultural anthropology 40 years ago the first thing the professor said was that the purpose of anthropology was to make strange things seem normal and normal things seem strange. (He immediately added that it was NOT the purpose of anthropology to figure out how to convert the natives to Christianity!)
I suppose in this sense Luhrman is doing her job, if she is trying to get us to understand how it feels to think like one of these folk.
But an abundance of material from the discipline of psychology as well as good common sense tells us these purity cults are harmful.
Luhrman is also a Unitarian. Many Unitarians stereotype all Christians as fundamentalist, while claiming any criticism of any other religion (including Scientology) is a an expression of “intolerance”. In this respect TL is a refreshing change from many Unitarians, but it’s too far a bend in the other direction for my tastes.
(My anthro teacher 40 years ago was a very young Arjun Appadurai. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjun_Appadurai)
After reading Luhrmann’s column, I don’t find much wrong with it. Yes, she tells the fundie side. But she also covers the secular downsides (unhappy marriages; greater risk of disease, etc.). In the paragraph where she talks about the ’empowerment of submission,’ she is clearly trying to describe or understand what the fundies (say they) feel, not what she thinks about what they feel. This is very clear from the fact that several of the sentences start explicitly with “they say they saw themselves as…” That sort of language is reporting, not supporting.
She *does* badly mangle things in the penultimate paragraph (and the ultimate one, since it’s a conclusion based on the one before). The latest PEW study shows all religious groups declining, including evangelicals. So whatever appeal there might be to ‘counterculture’ purity, its not as strong as the appeal of leaving ones’ religion altogether.
(I would also question whether this is really counterculture. Countering the culture of an outside group you don’t actually belong to doesn’t IMO count. Just as it’s not counterculture for an Amish to avoid ‘English’ mannerisms and dress, it isn’t counterculture for an evangelical to behave like an evangelical rather than a goth. Counterculture, to me, means going against what your parents and your social group thinks is acceptable social behavior).
It is the broad implications of assimilation into a particular culture that matter.
Consider if I were to abhor all other people as simpleton, pedestrians because they do not share my taste in wine, or post-modern opera, or country musak or van der Rohe furniture or xeriscape gardening then there is not much ‘counterculture-ness’ going on that is meaningfully harmful.
If I train my daughter to follow strict abstinence in a country where the majority of teenagers have no such restrictions, there will be unavoidable issues.
Sex and Death. If you can find yourself people who agree with what you believe…all is happiness. If not you might get f**ked.
The abstinence crowd can always find happiness within the abstinence crowd. Outside, not so much. The problem is the tentacles of the outside world have reached into the abstinence crowd and there is no turning back.
(Abstinence for teenagers is not a bad idea, in my opinion, but it should be viewed as an option, not some kind of religiously motivated mandate.)
sub
“Would Luhrmann’s piece get published in the NYT if she documented how Americans who are not part of these cults, like Tayler, see them as obsessive and sick?”
I think there are a great many cultural practices that many Americans would consider “sick.” I immediately thought of the film “The Nuer” which I often show to my intro classes and includes a graphic initiation ritual called “Gar.” But this, as a rite of passage, is not overtly religious. How should it be handled?
Anthropologists often do take stands against what are unquestionable violations of human rights. For example, female genital mutilation (I know of no anthropologist who would or could defend the practice, which, while traditional, has no cultural basis that I know of). But the authors of the pieces critical of Lurhman seem to recognize why she does not condemn the practices she observes (that isn’t what anthropologist do) but they seem to want her to.
To add on, she does say that secular Americans find this behavior strange, horrible and destructive. Paragraphs 6 and 7 say this. Maybe she doesn’t document it extensively but giving a paragraph to the critics in an op-ed is IMO reasonable. So to answer Jerry’s question: yes.
Your comments are spot on, thanks.
Nick… to say “while traditional, has no cultural basis” is to contradict yourself. Tradition IS cultural. It is like saying “while nutritious has no food-like properties”.
Written is a bit of haste. Many people who practice FGM do so because it is a tradition, but they are hard pressed when asked to explain any underlying cultural reasons, such as God demands it.
“God demands it” is a traditional cultural response.
Ahh, okay.
But, still. I’ve never heard such a distinction between tradition and culture. There are many, many cultural behaviors that most of the people enacting them couldn’t give you any underlying cultural reasons for beyond something like “because it has always been done that way,” or “because that’s the way we are taught.”
Give me a break! FGM is explicitly urged in many cultures as a means of destroying female desire, in its extreme form, by sewing up the labia [to ensure freshness?], It’s explicitly urged by Mustim clerics, often in areas where the practice was unknown a generation ago.
So too, the Purity game…
Good point. I mentioned FGM as an example of a practice that anthropologists have no troubled condemning. But those examples are few, even with practices that most Americans would view as “sick.”
Beat me to it. Can’t make sense of that.
Can you explain a bit more what you mean by that nickswearsky?
I do apologize, as I am not making myself clear. When asked to explain why they do FGM, many lack any answer beyond “we’ve always done it.” While that is certainly tradition, such traditions that lack more complex and deeper cultural foundation are usually more easily abandoned.
Shoot, no apology necessary. Thank you for taking the time to explain.
What is the term for keyboard equivalent of ‘tongue tied”?
For instance, FGM has no basis in Christianity or Islam. The practice predates both religions. Compare this to circumcision. The OT says that God commanded Abraham and all males to be circumcised as a symbol of the covenant.
And is maintained, and spread to new cultures by Muslim clerics..
Yes, it is. FGM was completely unknown in Indonesia, for example, before it was converted by Islam. There are Muslim areas there where men still don’t get circumcised (like before Islam) but women do.
The statement is accurate in the Christian parts of Africa where FGM is practiced, and also those where traditional religions still dominate. Health workers are able to focus on the health issues of FGM in getting it banned because there are no religious connotations to stopping it. They often can’t even get into Muslim areas,let alone try to stop it, because the practice has been absorbed into Islam in many (not all) areas, and there are fatwas recommending it from many leading Muslim scholars. (Fatwas aren’t compulsory, but are seen as describing “best practice.”)
I wonder how much tampons and maiden cups freak out the cult of the hymen. It just brings up a disturbing image of a father sternly telling his daughters that in his household only sanitary pads are used.
And then my imagination just wandered around the corner into a field of caterpillars and dandilions and away from what happens at those homes.
Sorry to drag you back, but that does happen. Further, instructions for most brands include the comment that no damage should occur to the hymen if used correctly, so it’s obviously a concern in some areas.
No, I’m staying with the caterpillars and dandilions because the thought of going shopping with my father for a church approved maiden cup is too much to handle.
What, pray tell, is a maiden cup?
Modern ones are flexible silicone cups you insert to hold the menstrual blood. They’re supposed to stay in with a small amount of suction, and you pull them out and clean them as needed and sterilize between uses. I’ve heard some people find them comfy, but having never tried them they seem messy, bothersome to use and you risk it falling out.
I think my daughter tried one – kind of like a diaphragm. Didn’t know they were called that.
I tried one of those things and didn’t like it. They aren’t for everyone I guess.
Wedding Cup –
German Jungfrauenbecher meaning “maiden’s cup.” The wedding cup originated in Germany during the 16th century, but only a few examples survive from that early time and is now often referred to as the wedding cup for the role it plays in nuptial feasts. The bridegroom drinks a toast out of the larger cup and then rights the figure, without spilling the wine in the smaller pivoted bowl, which is then to be drunk by the bride. The Jungfrauenbecher has also been known as the “wager cup” – the challenged having to drink from both cups without spilling the contents of either.
Oooh, kinky.
I suspect much of what happened during the 16th century was kinky.
I don’t remember seeing any of those comments about hymens on boxes of tampons ( not doubting you). I think a lot of women, myself included, don’t bleed “the first time”, so we’d be in deep trouble with the religious zealots ( or in the old day when they hung the bloody sheets out the window).
What song do these freaks make their daughters dance to? The Holy Hymen Hymn?
Does this answer your question?
Good call. Monty Python needs to do a companion piece to “Every sperm is sacred.”
This purity ball phenomenon is nothing but systematized prostitution with the father as the pimp promising his daughter’s virginity to a suitor. Didn’t they so this with geisha’s where men would bid on having the virgin? I see no substantial difference.
I heard that the situation in some parts of rural Texas is the polar opposite: if the bride’s hymen is intact on her wedding night, the husband sends her home on the grounds that if she’s not good enough for her family, she’s not good enough for him.
There’s more to, as H.L. Mencken (IIRC) described it, “the hookworm and incest belt” of the U.S. than Texas. I won’t tolerate your not acknowledging, and giving credit where credit is due, to the rest of us. 😉
I grew up in E. Tennessee, where a “good ol’ boy” maxim regarding reproducing/parenting was to the effect to “have a boy; that way you only have one pecker to worry about. If you have a girl, you have every pecker to worry about.”
BTW, I’m my own third cousin, and perhaps more than that, eh? Are my brother and I also third cousins, and my parents my second cousins once removed? (My mother’s mother’s father was a fraternal twin to my father’s father’s mother.)
I think it should occur to Prof. Luhrmann to be no less objectively, intellectually curious about why this vow of purity/chastity is not similarly imposed on male children, and with their mothers there to dance with them.
Re: your relatives, I find this chart helpful when going to family reunions.
You’re right, Luhrmann’s choice to ignore how boy children are treated (differently) is sort of a ‘dog that didn’t bark’ indication of her support of faith. There’s no reason a truly academic, anthropological study of the subculture wouldn’t point this out and talk about it.
Excellent point.
Every time I see this stuff – can’t help thinking of the movie, Deliverance and the guy on the banjo.
Strikes me as a gentle approach to the same end as FGM , the Alpha Male trying to curb the Female desire, forcing her to “save” herself for someone who Daddy approves of, so Daddy screws her by proxy.
Perhaps we should encourage the pledge makers to go a step further and refrain from sex after marriage too.
I do not see this purity movement as “edgy” as Lurhmann claims. Rather, I see it as reactionary, a desire to return to the days before 1960 and the Era of Free Love. It is a desire to put the genie back in the bottle.
The “Purity” movement is nothing more than a cover for the age-old, religion-based notion that women are “property”: of course, if you’re going to purchase property, you’re going to want to be sure that it’s in pristine condition and hasn’t been already “used” by anyone else. The misinterpretation of the Koran about the, “72 virgins” is another manifestation of the profound wish of insecure men that these, “rewards” for martyrdom are to be yours, and yours alone, to ravish as you wish; I’ve heard additional embellishments on this legend as to the virgins regaining their virginity after every sex act, so they remain really, REALLY pure (who cares about any discomfort on their part; this isn’t about THEIR pleasure,anyway).