"'It is well for a man not to touch a woman.' But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does" (1 Corinthians 7.1-4, NRSV).
When I read this statement, I openly laughed aloud. First, Paul is stating that it is not okay for a man to touch a woman unless it is for purely for reproductive means. He is denying the right of touch in the name of Christianity. How insane is this? We give up our right to touch one another for the right to go to heaven? Then, he goes on to give man's conjugal rights and his own body to his wife, and in turn, give the women's conjugal rights and her own body to the husband. How does this even make sense? We give up a right we're not even supposed to use unless for reproduction to our husband/wife. In the twenty-first century, we can easily see this as taboo, but I wonder if this was taboo in Paul's time. Was sexual behavior seen as immoral? Diogenes had sex in the middle of a town with his wife to challenge taboos, so how can touching a woman in this time period, 400 years after Paul, be seen as immoral?
"The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does."
ReplyDeleteNot to mention that this would be considered by moderns as two-way sexual abuse. For as much as the early Christians hate "pleasures of the body", I am surprised that they did not come up with a more intricate system to avoid them in this context - like create a beehive-like group of people whose job is to reproduce, and order everyone else to abstain. But you look at this, and the reason why they didn't do that is clear as day: it. Wouldn't. Work. When it comes to sex, the early Christians may have reached a place where their doctrine does not coincide with human nature; sex and touch are natural for people, and they're not a bad thing when used in moderation. So because, despite the holiness of their doctrine, the Christians were unable to eradicate sex from the human experience, they compromised with these constrained, sexually abusive marital laws.