The Shame of Conjugal Sex

Melissa E. Sanchez
{"title":"The Shame of Conjugal Sex","authors":"Melissa E. Sanchez","doi":"10.18574/nyu/9781479871872.003.0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter traces the effects of Pauline and Augustinian soteriology on Protestant views of marriage. The Reformation is conventionally understood as elevating conjugal love above the lifelong celibacy privileged by the Catholic Church. But this redemptive vision of marriage overlooks a key argument of leading reformers like Luther and Calvin: both deemed marriage superior to celibacy not because marriage sanctifies shameful creaturely desires, but because it publicly acknowledges them. This view of marriage as humbling confession of impurity runs counter to the ideals assumed by the US Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the majority affirmed the constitutional right to marriage equality on the grounds that marriage confers unique dignity. By contrast, Protestant anxiety that nuptial sex shares the excess and indignity of fornication structures the sexual and racial fantasies of Shakespeare’s sonnets and Spenser’s Amoretti and Epithalamion. When Shakespeare’s procreation sonnets cast poetry as a reproductive technology free of the contamination of lust, they valorize not only same-sex desire but also the preservation of specifically “fair”—white—life and culture. Spenser reveals that the ideal of chaste romance generates sadomasochistic fantasies that naturalize white male sexual violence and racialize female innocence.","PeriodicalId":394925,"journal":{"name":"Queer Faith","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Queer Faith","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479871872.003.0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This chapter traces the effects of Pauline and Augustinian soteriology on Protestant views of marriage. The Reformation is conventionally understood as elevating conjugal love above the lifelong celibacy privileged by the Catholic Church. But this redemptive vision of marriage overlooks a key argument of leading reformers like Luther and Calvin: both deemed marriage superior to celibacy not because marriage sanctifies shameful creaturely desires, but because it publicly acknowledges them. This view of marriage as humbling confession of impurity runs counter to the ideals assumed by the US Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the majority affirmed the constitutional right to marriage equality on the grounds that marriage confers unique dignity. By contrast, Protestant anxiety that nuptial sex shares the excess and indignity of fornication structures the sexual and racial fantasies of Shakespeare’s sonnets and Spenser’s Amoretti and Epithalamion. When Shakespeare’s procreation sonnets cast poetry as a reproductive technology free of the contamination of lust, they valorize not only same-sex desire but also the preservation of specifically “fair”—white—life and culture. Spenser reveals that the ideal of chaste romance generates sadomasochistic fantasies that naturalize white male sexual violence and racialize female innocence.
夫妻性行为的耻辱
这一章追溯了保罗和奥古斯丁的救赎论对新教婚姻观的影响。传统上,宗教改革被理解为将夫妻之爱提升到天主教会所赋予的终身独身之上。但这种救赎性的婚姻观忽视了路德和加尔文等主要改革者的一个关键论点:他们都认为婚姻优于独身,不是因为婚姻使可耻的肉体欲望神圣化,而是因为它公开承认了这些欲望。这种将婚姻视为谦卑地承认自己不纯洁的观点,与美国最高法院在奥贝格费尔诉霍奇斯案(Obergefell v. Hodges)中所设想的理想背道而驰,在该案中,多数法官肯定了婚姻平等的宪法权利,理由是婚姻赋予了独特的尊严。相比之下,新教徒担心婚姻中的性行为会分享通奸的过度和侮辱,这构成了莎士比亚十四行诗和斯宾塞的《阿莫雷蒂》和《上节课》中的性幻想和种族幻想。当莎士比亚的生殖十四行诗将诗歌作为一种不受欲望污染的生殖技术时,它们不仅强调了同性的欲望,而且还强调了对“公平”白人生活和文化的保留。斯宾塞揭示,贞洁浪漫的理想产生了施虐受虐幻想,使白人男性的性暴力自然化,使女性的纯真种族化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信