Damned if we do and damned if we don’t—my conclusion

 Here's the whole series, if you're interested in reading any of it:

"Taping" time

Why I don’t think I could become Orthodox (part one)

Why I don’t think I could become Orthodox (part two)

Why I don’t think I could become Orthodox (part three)

Damned if we do and damned if we don’t (part one)—the anecdotal evidence

Damned if we do and damned if we don’t (part two)—the textual evidence


Single male Orthodox Jewish bloggers blogging under their real names admit in print that one of the reasons why they hope to get married is for the sex. Would a single Orthodox Jewish female blogging under her real name dare to say that she’s horny, or would such a public admission leave her vulnerable to charges of being a slut? One has only to read some of the comments to the earliest posts by the extremely anonymous Nice Jewish Girl to realize that there are Jewish guys out there who are shocked to learn that women even have sexual fantasies and desires.

It’s been this way for thousands of years. “Boys will be boys,” the old saying goes. Guys are forgiven for “sewing wild oats.” But tradition would condemn the woman who even looks at a man. One need only read the law of the Trial by “Ordeal” of a wife accused of adultery ("sotah") cited in the previous post, for proof: Notice the glaring absence of any similar ordeal for a husband suspected of cheating on his wife. One need only read the story of Yehudah and Tamar, also cited in the previous post, for further proof: Tamar was nearly burned alive by Yehudah for committing the same sex act that Yehudah had committed, indicating that our Biblical ancestors thought that it was perfectly acceptable to seek a prostitute, but not to be one.


The arguments against kol isha, a woman’s (singing) voice—that is, the prohibition against a woman singing in the presence of a man—do not apply equally to kol ish, a man’s (singing) voice.

Go to Jewish reggae singer Matisyahu’s website and tell me that Matisyahu’s voice can’t be as sexually provocative for women as some say that Neshama Carlebach’s voice is for men.

Go to the video of the Jewish rock group Blue Fringe singing “Flipping Out” and listen to the young women scream at the guys in Blue Fringe just as my generation screamed at the Beatles.

Jewish men are not prohibited from singing in the presence of Jewish women.

And yet, do not the same reactions occur?

But there’s a big difference between Matisyahu singing about loving Hashem with all his heart, soul and might, and still, simply because Hashem gave him that kind of a voice, provoking interesting reactions in my imagination, and a guy like Michael Bolton managing to appeal to the prurient interests of both sexes by singing “Simply Irresistible” while standing in front of a line of scantily-clad women performing what I can only describe as a “bump and grind” routine.

There’s an equal difference between Madonna prancing around the stage in her underwear and Neshama Carlebach singing religious music. Yes, some would say that Neshama’s voice is sexually suggestive, but if she intended to provoke that kind of reaction, she certainly wouldn’t be singing the hymn Adon Olam. As with Matisyahu, that’s just the kind of voice that Hashem gave her.

The problem is that the halachah of ervah (matters of sexuality, or nakedness) makes no distinction between Madonna and Neshama, between deliberate sexual provocation and something that just happens, where women are involved.

If my reading of Rabbi Jachter’s explanation of rabbinic rulings is correct, then, in terms of halachah (Jewish religious law), there is, at best, a debate among the rabbis as to whether there is any difference whatsoever between a choir of teenaged yeshiva girls singing divrei kodesh (holy words) and a Jewish Tina-Turner-wannabe singing “What’s Love Got to Do with It?” Both are equally “ervah,” and both are equally forbidden to men.


In those communities that observe such stringencies, a man will cross the street to avoid a woman, whether her top covers her collarbone and elbows and her skirt covers eighty percent of her legs, or whether she’s dressed like a hooker.


When it comes to issues of “ervah,” sexuality, halachah does not necessarily concern itself with what kind of music a woman is singing, or how modestly a woman dresses. What, when, where, why, and how are totally irrelevant. The only thing that matters is “who.” What matters is that a woman is a woman, and, in terms of the laws of ervah, every woman is automatically a michshol, a stumbling block, tempting men to sin.


We women are damned—condemned—if we do, and condemned in equal measure if we don’t.


It’s a classic, folks.

Every Jewish woman is an Eishet Chayil, a Woman of Valor, part of the bedrock of the Jewish community.

But every Jewish woman is also—believe me, if I could find a nice way to say this, I would—a potential isha zonah, a potential prostitute.

If you don’t wish to take my word for it, read this excerpt from 1. Berachos 24a, courtesy of Rabbi Gil Student (these quotes from here):
“. . . Rav Sheshes said: Why did the Torah count outer ornaments with inner ornaments? To tell you that anyone who looks at the small finger of a woman is as if he looked at the obscene place. . . .”


I ask you this: Isn’t the halachic attitude toward men a bit infantilizing? The assumption seems to be that adult men have limited self-control and that only their “mommies” can keep them in line. Why should it be assumed that men can’t walk on the same side of the street as women, or inquire as to their wellbeing, or greet them after services, or listen to them raise their voices in song—even if the words are from sacred music, such as z’mirot, and/or sacred texts, such as the Torah—without losing control of themselves sexually? Why does halachah, Jewish law, operate on the assumption that “boys”, even when adults, “will” continue to “be” like “boys”, needing someone else to take responsibility for ensuring that they behave properly?

Women get turned on and sexually distracted by men, too. (For the life of me, I can’t understand why some men think that males have a monopoly on “sex on the brain.”) But we just do what adults are supposed to do—we deal with it. We accept responsibility for our own behavior, rather than complaining that men should shut up and stay away from us so as not to turn us on. Why shouldn’t we expect the same of men?

Or perhaps I should phrase the question this way: Why don’t the rabbis expect the same of men?

As the anonymous blogger said, “I wondered why G-d would give me a mitzvah [commandment] that was wholly dependent on someone else. Tznius [modesty] didn’t make me a better person. It just made sure that men didn’t become worse people and I couldn’t think of a single mitzvah like that which applied to men.”


The rabbis said it themselves: I’m supposed to pray every day thanking Hashem “sheh-asani ki-r’tsono, Who made me according to His will.”

Then they turned around and made halachic rulings that, essentially, treat me as if “my body [were] an act of sin waiting to happen,” simply because I am as Hashem made me.

That, ladies and gentleman, in considerably more than a nutshell, is why I, personally, cannot accept the prohibition against “kol isha”: It’s part of a package of halachic interpretations and rabbinically-sanctioned behavior patterns, that, fundamentally, treat women as sinners, at worst, and/or as stumbling blocks leading to sin, at best, no matter what we do or don’t do, just because we’re women.

I won’t be blamed for being female.

Baruch sheh-asani isha—Praised is [the One] Who made me a woman.