Male Sexuality and Its Enemies (Part Two)


Male Sexuality and Its Enemies (Part Two)


This is a sequel to “Male Sexuality and Its Enemies (Part One)”.


Dennis Prager’s short article: “Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality”(1993) sums up the conservative criticism of both male homosexuality and the gay lifestyle in an informative and understandable fashion. If Communism really started with the publication of the “Communist Manifesto” (1848), modern onslaught on both the male sexuality and the gay lifestyle started with the aforementioned and hotly debated Prager’s article.


Prager starts by producing one of the historically most fallacious statements regarding human sexuality to the present day.


“When Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, it changed the world. The Torah’s prohibition of non-marital sex quite simply made the creation of Western civilization possible. Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity.”


The notion that presumably pre Judeo-Christian “Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development.” both attempts and fails to nullify all the material evidence universally available.


It is profoundly fallacious to describe the civilizations that created Seven Wonders of the Ancient World as “stymied in their development”. Furthermore, much of the Western civilization that Prager professes to defend and uphold was based upon the cultural achievement of the Graeco-Roman world. The entire continental Europe still bases its legal systems to a large part upon the Roman Law, produced by one of those “societies stymied in their development” that while being “stymied” managed to produce such insignificant achievements as Democracy, Roman Empire and ancient Greek philosophy, to mention just the very few.


If anything, there is absolutely nothing even most remotely “stymied in their development” as far as the Ancients go.


Prager rightly recognizes that the “Throughout the ancient world, and up to the recent past in many parts of the world, sexuality infused virtually all of society.” The good news is that sexuality unabatedly continues ‘to infuse all of society’. Those familiar with the modern popular culture and use of Internet will readily agree. I typed “sex” into my Google search this morning, and came up with the modest 62,800,000 links only. If you start counting, at a rate of one link per second, you’ll need two years of your life to count only, without a wink of sleep or doing anything else for that matter.


Prager goes on to extol the virtue of Judaism:


“Judaism placed controls on sexual activity. It could no longer dominate religion and social life. It was to be sanctified — which in Hebrew means “separated” — from the world and placed in the home, in the bed of husband and wife. Judaism’s restricting of sexual behavior was one of the essential elements that enabled society to progress. Along with ethical monotheism, the revolution begun by the Torah when it declared war on the sexual practices of the world wrought the most far-reaching changes in history.”


There is no doubt that Judaism revolutionized the world. It is however, completely inaccurate to claim that “Judaism’s restricting of sexual behavior was one of the essential elements that enabled society to progress.” Historical evidence shows beyond a shadow of doubt that the pre-Judaic societies displayed great capabilities of progress and achievement in every conceivable fashion.


This brings us to a most important question, the one which Prager studiously omits to address: Why would Judaism, being a pre-cursor to Christianity among many other things, introduce such a ban, in the first place?


At the time of its appearance on the historical stage, just like any other ‘new’ religion Judaism had to compete with the number of existing religions and accompanying ideologies. Introducing such bans must have been the worst conceivable way of gaining popular support for its cause. I believe that the inspired authors of Judaism very well understood that they stood hardly any chance of winning the popular support by making their program more popular in populist terms. The other players on the stage (or on the market of ideas, if we wish to use more contemporary phraseology) must have been at the top of that game for almost two thousand years at that time. The only way for Judaism to propagate its teachings was to start from the scratch, and create its own tribal religion in a bubble of its own tribe-nation. Its followers were to propagate and their children were to propagate spreading the truth amongst themselves as their religion envisioned it to be. Judaism was largely based on the idea of its own, indigenous growth as opposed to gaining the popular support by the massive conversion of those who practiced other religions. Even today, many centuries later, orthodox Jewish traditions place serious obstacles on the way to conversion requiring the Rabbi to initially reject converts for three times echoing the notion that converts have never been the main focus of Judaism’s drive to become a major religion.


Judaism’s placing of sexuality “in the home, in the bed of husband and wife.” was a largely self-serving discourse, fundamentally aimed at enhancing its growth by the means of natural propagation of the members of its own nation. Unlike Christianity, Judaism disapproves of celibacy. Prager quotes Talmud “He who does not engage in propagation of the race is as though he had shed blood.” The issue of the ‘propagation of the race’ is the survival issue of traditional Judaism.


Prager further on contends that “Indeed, Judaism may be said to have invented the notion of homosexuality, for in the ancient world sexuality was not divided between heterosexuality and homosexuality. That division was the Bible’s doing. Before the Bible, the world divided sexuality between penetrator (active partner) and penetrated (passive partner).”


The Ancients have been fully aware of the existence of homosexuality in humans. Crediting Judaism with “Inventing homosexuality” is both preposterous and fallacious. Judaism, for its own purposes criminalized homosexuality, and Prager indirectly admits to this very obvious fact when he writes: “It is Judaism’s sexual morality, not homosexuality, that historically has been deviant.”


Prager confirms without any reasonable doubt that Bible condemns homosexuality. Much to his credit, he does not go on to confirm the fact that the Pope is Catholic, though.


Next, Prager raises the issue of women and their role in society, and confirms the fact that Judaism “began the arduous task of elevating the status of women.” He also goes on to say that “Men rape. Women do not. Men, not women, engage in fetishes. Men are more frequently consumed by their sex drive, and wander from sex partner to sex partner. Men, not women, are sexually sadistic.” Such statements do not need any further comment. Save for the notion that the author lacks some serious reading and further education.


Prager concludes by defending the much-abused ‘family values’:


“The bedrock of this civilization, and of Jewish life, has been the centrality and purity of family life. But the family is not a natural unit so much as it is a value that must be cultivated and protected. The Greeks assaulted the family in the name of beauty and Eros. The Marxists assaulted the family in the name of progress. And today, gay liberation assaults it in the name of compassion and equality. I understand why gays would do this. Life has been miserable for many of them. What I have not understood was why Jews or Christians would join the assault. I do now. They do not know what is at stake. At stake is our civilization.”


Now, that we have been duly informed by Dennis Prager that “Life has been miserable for many of them.” meaning ‘gays’ and that the Jews and Christians alike are ignorant, we are left with the choice of either embracing his ultra-conservative Judeo-Christian values or destroying the very tenement of the Western cannon.


None of which is true, whatsoever.

~ by silverrrcloud on March 29, 2009.

One Response to “Male Sexuality and Its Enemies (Part Two)”

  1. Great site this and I am really pleased to see you have what I am actually looking for here and this this post is exactly what I am interested in. I shall be pleased to become a regular visitor 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: