Woman solutions

[webofevil]

Beyond the Veil, Fatima Mernissi:

[For hardliners] the sexual act is considered polluting, and is surrounded by ceremonials and incantations whose goal is to create an emotional distance between the spouses and reduce their embrace to its most elementary function, that of a purely reproductive act. During coitus, the male is actually embracing a woman, symbol of unreason and disorder, anti-divine force of nature and disciple of the devil. Hence a dread of erection, which is experienced as a loss of control and, according to Ghazali [11th century], referred to as darkness in verse 3 of sura 113:

Say: I seek refuge in the lord of daybreak
From the evil of that which he created
From the evil of darkness when it is intense.

In an attempt to prevent a complete merging with the woman, the coital embrace is surrounded by a ceremony which grants Allah a substantial presence in the man’s mind during intercourse. The coital space is religiously oriented: the couple should have their heads turned away from Mecca. “They should not face the ‘holy shrine’ in respect for it” [Ghazali]. This symbolism of spatial orientation expresses the antagonism between Allah and the woman. Mecca is the direction of God. During intercourse, the man is reminded that he is not in Allah’s territory, whence the necessity to invoke his presence.

It is advisable for the husband to start by invoking God’s name and reciting “Say God is one” first of all and then reciting the takbir “God is most great” and the tahlil “There is no god but God” and then say, “In the name of God, the high and powerful, make it a good posterity if you decide to make any come from my kidney”. [Ghazali]

At the crucial moment of ejaculation, when the physical and spiritual boundaries of the lover threaten to melt in a total identification with the woman, the Muslim lover is reminded:

It is suitable to pronounce, without moving the lips, the following words: “Praise be to God who created man from a drop of water”. [Ghazali again]

(Other reports on the words a Muslim is supposed to pronounce during coitus are in Imam Bukhari, al-Jami’ al-Salih, and Imam Tarmidi, Sunan al-Tarmidi.)

They’re not just any old sacred recitations he’s muttering to himself as he ploughs away—they’re incantations specially chosen to protect him because he believes you’re the embodiment of evil! That’s got to make any girl feel special.

Comments

[chiller.livejournal.com]

Dude. That stuff actually makes me feel sick and frightened.

Not in the good way.

[strictlytrue.livejournal.com]

Bloody hell. And I thought Catholics had a f*cked up attitude to sex. I find this sort of thing just mind boggling. I mean, I know we all occasionally feel a bit guilty about sexual desire - it's a bit naughty, an indulgence etc. But at what stage did people allow it to become seen like this? And we're all used - sadly - to a bit of misogyny. Women can't read maps, get too emotional, blah blah - but how did it come to them being the utter embodiment of Satan laid out here?

Sex is good isn't it? It's necessary for procreation, it's part of our bodily design, which, if you're a theist, is all part of God's Plan. How f*cked up do you have to be to start organising your own life, and others' lives, according to principles like this? Would an omnipotent, omniscient being really be offended by two people getting it on for a little while?

Mind you, it might go some way to explaining al Qaeda, suicide bombers, Hizbullah, Ahmadinejad and the rest - what they really need is some decent sex.

[monkeyssk8.livejournal.com]

ah yes, and don't you ever think about the first thing God said to people, 'Go and be fruitful'...hello! We are suppose to be fucking and if we didn't enjoy it, the human race would be over with like adam's brother or something

[chiller.livejournal.com]

I know we all occasionally feel a bit guilty about sexual desire

Can I be the exception that proves the rule, please?

[strictlytrue.livejournal.com]

Oh yes. I believe the appropriate phrase at this juncture is "You go, girl."

[chiller.livejournal.com]

Why, thank you. :)

[webofevil.livejournal.com]

> we're all used - sadly - to a bit of misogyny. Women can't read maps, get too emotional, blah blah - but how did it come to them being the utter embodiment of Satan laid out here?

I would suggest that the "bit of misogyny" we're used to is actually a distant echo of the whole "embodiment of Satan" thing, just as the "stupid Irish" jokes I grew up with in the seventies were arguably a result of persistent propaganda attempts a century before to denigrate the Irish as witless, subhuman apes. Christianity has its own 11th-century (and beyond) ascetic, swivel-eyed sex-hating nutters in the closet, after all.

[strictlytrue.livejournal.com]

Christianity has its own 11th-century (and beyond) ascetic, swivel-eyed sex-hating nutters in the closet, after all.

Indeed, as I alluded to. What I was getting at here, though, was how the sort of casual everyday misogyny, which I reckon has probably been about since the dawn of time, got elevated to such a hysterical level - and not just in Islam of course.

[webofevil.livejournal.com]

> casual everyday misogyny, which I reckon has probably been about since the dawn of time

But not necessarily. The dawn of writing stuff down, maybe, but much of that has gone on under lumbering, patriarchial, monotheistic, "he's the creator of the entire Cosmos but he needs constant validation" belief systems. For all we know, under those prehistoric fertility cults men held the constantly-belittled status women are now so generously afforded.

[strictlytrue.livejournal.com]

For all we know, under those prehistoric fertility cults men held the constantly-belittled status women are now so generously afforded.

It's possible, and some Wicca types certainly do hold this belief. Personally, I doubt it. I don't really see any reason why monotheism, writing and other civilisation advances should have gone hand in hand with distrust and hatred of women. The major religions may have codified it, but there's probably something deeper at work. Sagan talks a lot about "reptilian" behaviour, referring to impulses that originate in the base functions of our brains. I imagine that's the origin of all this nonsense.

[webofevil.livejournal.com]

> I don't really see any reason why monotheism, writing and other civilisation advances should have gone hand in hand with distrust and hatred of women

Because the more a literal, male-minded monotheistic regime distrusts creativity, free thinking and chaos, the very things it associates with femininity, the more it will want to stamp on it. And I know, I know, everyone's got a story of this one Jesuit guy who was all about the free thinking—but these people are always the minority. You don't get to be a successful monotheistic deity without mindless obedience from most of your devotees.

And I'm suggesting the writing happened to follow the establishment of unhelpful "no god but God" superstition, not that writing is of itself a misogynist act, though there is the odd ultra-feminist who thinks so—the pen being phallic and all.

[webofevil.livejournal.com]

Though I should point out I'm not blaming monotheism for inventing most of this stuff, just for setting it in stone. Probably, after all, way back in prehistory, the very first time a man realised he was physically stronger than a woman, he thought less of her. And the first time his hormones went haywire because of her, he blamed her. How the fuck humanity made it this far is honestly a mystery to me sometimes.

[webofevil.livejournal.com]

> it might go some way to explaining al Qaeda, suicide bombers, Hizbullah, Ahmadinejad and the rest - what they really need is some decent sex

But then, for most of those you mention, sex is a powerful motivating factor—partly the rejection and hatred of it in this life, but far more the wild and limitless whoopee they're apparently guaranteed in the next. (Notwithstanding the tantalising suggestion that "houri" is some kind of mistranslation for "sultana", everything else in the Qur'an is so geared towards male believers that it would be about right for Muhammad to promise them the ultimate male (or lesbian) fantasy in return for man go boom.) No amount of lapel-grabbing and yelling of "But it's obviously not fucking true!" will convince the faithful; they know their holy book is true, because it says so in their holy book. And so the cycle of enlightenment and tolerance continues.

[monkeyssk8.livejournal.com]

Ditto, there is seriously something wrong with that, I am sorry, but there is. Every since the begining, women have been second class to men. Why? Well Plato gives the reason that they ONLY exist to have babies, you know, that easy task of CONTINUING THE SPECICES. Jerk faces.

[(Anonymous)]

It is difficult to know how to react to this, except to feel terribly glum. We are a long time dead, so we should be embracing AND ENJOYING all aspects of our physicality while we can.

Mind you, it's a wonder they can ejaculate at all, what with having to be master ventriloquists while they're on the job (all that 'pronouncing without moving the lips' would put me right off my stroke).

Also, why can't I get the scene from 'The Singing Detective' out of my head, the one where nurse Joanne Whalley is greasing up patient Michael Gambon's *ahem* tackle which is particularly badly affected by his psoriasis, and in an attempt to not get aroused, he lies there thinking of boring things like John Noakes and Shep the Blue Peter dog?

[webofevil.livejournal.com]

> it's a wonder they can ejaculate at all, what with having to be master ventriloquists while they're on the job

Well, Roger de Courcey [joke deleted on legal advice].