I'm asleep on a pile of paper

[sovay]

Well, I guess Tuesday was spring. It was so sunny and mild and so blooming that I walked around my neighborhood taking pictures of flowers and and I looked forward to visiting the Arboretum in the next week or so. And then yesterday, on top of the computer-related emotional roller coaster, the temperature spiked past eighty degrees and the cats melted onto the hardwood and we needed two fans in the windows of the bedroom for me to get to sleep after dark, which made so little difference to the heat that spatch and I both had trouble believing it was one in the morning when it was. Today it is sticky and hazy and distinguishable from August only in that the trees are still in flower instead of that late dry green leaf. I am not looking forward to trying to sleep tonight. I hope our air conditioner is up to it.

Bertie Owen and his twenty-year-old external keyboard are still hanging in there. I am pleased that I was able to finish my interrupted review. I am now trying to decide if I really want to watch Four Daughters (1938) for John Garfield and Jeffrey Lynn now that it's handily on TCM or if it's going to be like that time Seven Sweethearts (1942) happened to me.

spatch found me this excellent Talmudic commentary on incels.

It is too hot.

Comments

[asakiyume]

I found the Talmudic commentary so fascinating that I went to see their explanation for their judgment. It was less forward looking than the judgment, taken in today's context, sounds, but still interesting. Some imagined the woman married; in this case everyone agreed with the judgment, but what, the text asked, if the woman was unmarried?

"But according to the one who says that she was unmarried, what is the reason for all this opposition? Why did the Sages say that the man must be allowed to die, rather than have the woman do as was requested?"

In this case, they say it's no good because if the woman were to satisfy the man, it would disgrace the woman's family. Well then, what if the man will marry her? And then comes this insight:

"The Gemara asks: But if the woman was unmarried, let the man marry her. The Gemara answers: His mind would not have been eased by marriage, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak. As Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Since the day the Temple was destroyed, sexual pleasure was taken away from those who engage in permitted intercourse and given to transgressors, as it is stated: “Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant” (Proverbs 9:17). Therefore, the man could have been cured only by engaging in illicit sexual interaction." (text here)

Very clearly stating that the problem is with the guy, and that no legitimate action will satisfy him.

[sovay]

Very clearly stating that the problem is with the guy, and that no legitimate action will satisfy him.

Thank you for tracking the additional references down! I would like to know more about the different layers of time in this argument, but I like how thoroughly the various scholars work through the counter-arguments and still eventually conclude, no, this is not the woman's problem.

[asakiyume]

Yes, "those who say" shift what they say over time.

I got shivers somehow looking at the link, maybe the closest I've ever felt to "the ancestors" as a sentient presence.

background

[lauradi7dw]

Thanks for that. When discussing the twitter thread at home the other day, it seemed to us that the woman was being denied agency - what if she would have been willing to stand on the other side of the wall, as the doctor suggested, not that was likely to help? But then, being me, I slid into Sages/Shakespeare fan fic, and started imagining that it was Tom Snout, presenting wall (including chink in the wall), time traveling into another time and place.

Re: background

[asakiyume]

You should write up the Sages/Shakespear fan fic; it would be awesome.

And yes, I think the commentary absolutely does deny the woman agency, probably for the simple reason that women in ancient times seem to have been somewhere between cattle and male humans in the views of men. Nothing in the text seemed to suggest that the *woman's* feelings/suffering/desire/personhood are of any consequence. It's all a matter of how family/husband/horny dude's various rights and needs line up.

Re: background

[sovay]

And yes, I think the commentary absolutely does deny the woman agency, probably for the simple reason that women in ancient times seem to have been somewhere between cattle and male humans in the views of men.

I don't think it's quite that monolithic—the ketubah, for example, the traditional Jewish marriage contract, which was codified about two thousand years ago and therefore predates the scholars being quoted in this passage, exists specifically to protect the woman's rights, not the honor of her family or the man she's married to—but I would prefer someone with more Talmudic knowledge than me to make the argument. I linked a further tweet from the thread to lauradi7dw, below.

Re: background

[asakiyume]

I'll go look below. And I'm sure you're right. It's **not** as dire as my sour remark above--there are all sorts of Old Testament stories that show that. So... yeah, that was just my resentment coming out.

Re: background

[sovay]

So... yeah, that was just my resentment coming out.

I'm just trying to be fair to the parts of the past that deserve it. Other parts of the past are on their own.

Re: background

[sovay]

When discussing the twitter thread at home the other day, it seemed to us that the woman was being denied agency - what if she would have been willing to stand on the other side of the wall, as the doctor suggested, not that was likely to help?

I think the repeated "she may not" is less about curtailing the woman's behavior and more in the sense of "she has no obligation to". @drnelk addresses the wording in a later tweet:

"This translation makes it sound like she wants to, but that's not an accurate read of text. The rabbis are refusing the doctors' demands to use her as his treatment. I think of JJ Thompson's violinist."

Re: background

[asakiyume]

*nodding*--but now I want to know about JJ Thompson's violinist, but I think I'm googled out for the night. Tomorrow is another day!

Re: background

[sovay]

but now I want to know about JJ Thompson's violinist, but I think I'm googled out for the night. Tomorrow is another day!

This one I know! It's a reference to Judith Jarvis Thompson's "A Defense of Abortion" (1971), in which she famously argued that the right of a fetus to life—granted for the sake of argument—does not outweight the right of a woman to her own body, using the memorably absurd thought experiment of a woman who wakes up one day to find herself sharing a circulatory system with a famous violinist:

"He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, 'Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.' Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, 'Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him.' I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago."

Re: background

[asakiyume]

Wow, that is fascinating and makes me think yet again how problematic thought experiments are. Entertaining, but problematic.

But anyway, thank you for explaining the violinist (and sharing the source material)--I appreciate it.

[landofnowhere]

Thanks for the extra background! I was also fascinated by the quote in the twitter thread about how classical doctors actually did recommend sex with the object of desire as a treatment for lovesickness. It's a theme that comes up in Arthurian romance, also, but there (IIRC) the women are always willing -- and as Arthurian romance is basically fanfic written for a female audience, it's not really the same thing.

I'm also reminded of some versions of the ballad "Barbara Allen": the one I'm familiar with has http://www.celticlyricscorner.net/domhnaill/barbara.htmthese lyrics, in which Barbara Allen does a great job of standing up for herself, but then the song gives her a hard time for it afterwards.

[asakiyume]

The just-give-him-some-sex-and-he'll-be-cured thing is very, very widespread, apparently, because my husband is researching Edo-period potboiler fiction, and one story he looked at recently has a well-spoken (but evil) dude harass the object of his affection with this kind of pleading and threat "Just read my letter, I'm so lovesick--also, if you don't, I'll kill your parents; okay, now just have sex with me, or I'll kill your parents" etc.

[rosefox]

Sex has been prescribed to women, too! The English term for a woman's wasting away for lack of sex was green sickness, and masturbation and sex were both recommended as cures. This is my favorite song about it, provenance unknown.

[asakiyume]

That ballad is **awesome**!

and it's interesting how green sickness, in the link you provide, seems connected with pico (eating non-food things). I guess that's what happens when you have a powerful hunger that food won't satisfy!

[sovay]

It's a theme that comes up in Arthurian romance, also, but there (IIRC) the women are always willing -- and as Arthurian romance is basically fanfic written for a female audience, it's not really the same thing.

I like that distinction: it reminds me of the way that romance tropes can be terrible ideas in real-life relationships, but a real-life relationship is not the point; the point is the fantasy.

I'm also reminded of some versions of the ballad "Barbara Allen"

Yes! I have positive associations with that song because of its use in Scrooge (1951), but narratively, the hell?

[asakiyume]

And speaking of tropes and reality, the fact is, people don't die from lack of sex. **Feeling** like you're going to die ≠ actually going to die.

[cmcmck]

I've always been proud of my Jewish ancestry and that judgement makes me prouder than ever!

[sovay]

I've always been proud of my Jewish ancestry and that judgement makes me prouder than ever!

I have just tonight found it extremely useful.

[batdina]

thank you/Spatch for the Talmud piece. I love it when the rabbis are pointedly relevant to the present.

[sovay]

thank you/Spatch for the Talmud piece. I love it when the rabbis are pointedly relevant to the present.

You're very welcome! Yes.