“The upper streets were full of brothels; grog-shops and dancing houses were to be seen in almost every part of town.” In the area around Brunswick Street, “nearly all the buildings were occupied as brothels for the soldiers and sailors. The streets of this part of town presented continually the disgusting sight of abandoned females of the lowest class in a state of drunkenness, bare-headed, without shoes, and in the most filthy and abominable condition.”
Firstly, this account flies in the face of the modern-society-is-becoming-increasingly-degenerate myth. Not that that particular myth is at all difficult to debunk, but the above passage is a concise description of an entire town sunken in debauchery. Not even Las Vegas fits the above description today.
Secondly, and far more interesting, is that the writer notes the bare-headedness of the prostitutes. This could be understood in one of two ways. The first, and the way I think he meant it, is as a description of how disheveled these women were. In a society where it was customary for everyone to wear hats or bonnets outside, the lack of a head-covering is a sign of slovenliness almost as serious as being filthy.
The second way it can be understood is as a moral failing. He is describing women “of the lowest class,” prostitutes who are habitually drunk and so brazen as to go about bare-headed and barefoot.
Suppose, instead of merely being part of a memoir, this passage made its way into a text believed to be an eternal guide to the proper way to live. Would it be more likely to be interpreted the first way, or in the second way? If the latter, it would likely lead to a religious requirement for head-coverings. Say, you wouldn’t happen to know of a real-life instance of a similar scenario…
On another note, for a few years now I’ve been doing handyman work to supplement my income from my near-nonexistent career as a psychologist. Since I moved six months ago I haven’t bothered to get licensed in this state, figuring that the extremely slim chance of getting a job in my field doesn’t justify the expense and trouble, and have been focusing on the handyman business instead. Incidentally, I make more money per hour patching drywall and hanging blinds than I would as a school psychologist. Go figure.
Anyway, I was working last night in a young kollel family’s home. When I arrived, Mrs. X requested that I leave the door open because her husband wasn’t home yet. I was once that yeshivish too, and I understand how seriously yichud is taken in the yeshivish world, but:
1. She was expecting her husband to come home from night seder any minute, and told me so. Given that he could have walked in at any time, halachically, there was no reason the leave the door open. Even locking it wouldn’t be a problem, because her husband has a key.
2. The implication that I might jump her if the door were closed is mildly insulting. Now she’d never met me before, so perhaps it can be argued she has no reason to trust me, but that is itself the problem. Intentionally or not, halachos like yichud breed distrust between the sexes and help perpetuate the women = succubae/ men = satyrs stereotypes.
Maybe she was merely worried that her neighbors would perceive her as lax on hilchos yichud if she left the door closed, despite the fact it would have been perfectly OK.
ReplyDeleteHow silly of me... no one would be machmir because of their neighbors' possible reactions...
Very interesting passage from 1812, but I don't understand why you had to get proof from there. Haven't you ever seen the excavations of Pompi?
ReplyDeleteWhat about the city of Sodom, or Pilegesh b'givah, or Ammon with Orpah? The porn found in Egypt would seem to imply that they were pretty "developed" as well.
I don't think they believe wild horniness was invented in 1960, and prior to that there were no perverts. Every generation obviously has its share of sexually overactive individuals, and possibly even large groups or cities.
What you didn't have, was such a large scale change in the average human who had nothing to do with those places.
Similarly, the institutionalizing of sexual freedom and preference is a process which occurs with every passing generation, and that is a major no-no from the Torah point of view.
I agree with point two and with tesyaa's comment. Darn maraas ayin.
ReplyDelete> Very interesting passage from 1812, but I don't understand why you had to get proof from there.
ReplyDeleteI didn’t have to. I happened to be reading the book, came across the excerpt, had some thoughts and decided to write a blog post.
If you’d like a post-hoc rationalization, many people see the distant past as semi-mythical. They relate to the stories in tanach and stories about Ancient Egypt the same way they relate to the Lord of the Rings. On the other hand, 1812 was yesterday in historical terms.
> I don't think they believe wild horniness was invented in 1960, and prior to that there were no perverts. Every generation obviously has its share of sexually overactive individuals, and possibly even large groups or cities. What you didn't have, was such a large scale change in the average human who had nothing to do with those places
But it wasn’t an especially perverted city or especially perverted people. Halifax was an average town until large numbers of British soldiers were garrisoned there, at which point the town changed to cater to them. Of the soldiers, many were militia, average Canadian citizens called up to serve their country for a few months.
> Similarly, the institutionalizing of sexual freedom and preference is a process which occurs with every passing generation
Eh, depends on the time and place. There were times and places that had sexual mores which would horrify modern Westerners, and times and places that would be horrified by modern Western sexual mores.
> I agree with point two and with tesyaa's comment. Darn maraas ayin.
I’m inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she was ignorant. On the other hand, her husband, a yungerman, seemed similarly concerned when I spoke to him to schedule the job, so who knows.
I would give her the benefit of the doubt as well. I can see how you would be mildly offended, but how is that any different from not shaking your hand?
ReplyDeleteA serious question, do you get mildly offended at shomer negiah, in a similar way to the above scenario? Personally, I can't tell the difference.
> I can see how you would be mildly offended, but how is that any different from not shaking your hand?
ReplyDeleteShaking hands is a form of greeting. It has nothing to do with trust. Men and women don’t shake hands not because they find each other icky, but because of a belief that it is wrong for two people of opposite sexes who are not immediate relatives to touch each other. I might disagree, but it’s largely impersonal.
Yichud is because of the chance that if a man and woman are alone in private, they may have sex. While this might make sense in some cases, it was generalized, probably for practical reasons of not having to make fine distinctions between cases. Yet in this case I’m pretty sure she wasn’t going to proposition me if the door was closed, and the setting was decidedly not romantic. That only leaves me trying to seduce or rape her as a practical reason to worry about yichud. Which is insulting.
It’s only mildly imnsulting because I’m pretty sure she never thought through any of the above. She probably worries about yichud as a halachah, not as something done for specific rational reasons.
I can see what you're saying about feeling insulted at the implication, but like you said, she was almost definitely only thinking about the halacha and not its reasoning.
ReplyDeleteOnce something becomes a ritual, it sort of loses the meaning it would have had if done in a regular scenario.