Christopher Hitchens’ Foot, Meet Mouth
How disappointing. In the midst of Hitchen’s new book, the NY Times best seller god is not Great, (specifically on page 55), I read the following line with dismay:
Orthodox Jews conduct congress by means of a hole in the sheet, and subject their women to ritual baths to cleanse the stain of menstruation.
What makes this so disappointing is that so much of the book is well-written, articulate and compellingly argued. I’m not an atheist. In fact, I associate myself with the religion he claims has sex through a sheet hole. Yet until this point, I read with interest and an open mind. So it’s a shame that Hitchens had to eradicate all of his credibility by putting in a false, cheap shot. Particularly, it makes it difficult to trust him when he takes hits on other religions.
Hitchens, next time use a fact checker.
“conduct congress”? Maybe he’s not talking about sex at all. Maybe he means the knesset has its members wear sheets with holes.
—Amit · May 30th, 2007 at 3:54 am
I felt the same way about the issue of Heeb magazine on the same subject - and they should have known better.
—rod · May 30th, 2007 at 4:37 am
So is the “hole in the sheet” thing a total invention, or is it practiced by just a lunatic fringe (not all orthos)?
—jay · May 30th, 2007 at 6:45 am
Total invention, which may have derived from a misunderstanding of the tallit katan.
—BZ · May 30th, 2007 at 6:50 am
more than that - it’s not just an innocent little piece of nonsense - it’s actually NOT permitted to do it through a sheet! that’s what’s ridiculous about this whole thing. there is not supposed to be anything AT ALL btwn the couple whatsoever. no clothes, etc. the whole point of sex is a total unity btwn the partners. you can’t have total unity with something btwn you…
—julie · May 30th, 2007 at 7:26 am
of course the sheet thing is bullshit, but the snopes piece is not well-researched. apparently, they prefer to utilize apologists like boteach than real scholars. it really made my blood boil when he made the triumphalist claim of judaism being the only religion with a sex-positive tendency. also bullshit.
—invisible_hand · May 30th, 2007 at 8:43 am
but how much of Hitchen’s argument is based on amassing lists of silly and trivial things that religious people supposedly do and how much of it is based on the huge amounts of violence and systemic opression perpetrated in the name of religious fundamentalism?
—ephraim · May 30th, 2007 at 9:26 am
julie–
I’ve seen rabbinic recommendatons from way back when (1500’s, I think) that actually do tell people to leave clothes on. that’s just not the view that has won out in most circles today.
—rebecca m · May 30th, 2007 at 10:01 am
who gives a crap if it has basis or not? it’s silly! it’s silly that in 2007 in a well known book there’s sillyness! and ignorance! and perhaps that’s more the point. but to argue what we view sex as- recs from the 1500s or full on nudity- whatever! the point it is that hitchens is a retardo. i hope to shake his hand one day.
—pastaeater · May 30th, 2007 at 10:33 am
It doesn’t really matter what Hitchen’s argument is based on. If he can’t get the facts right, then it puts a general sour feeling of distrust on the whole work, up to and including whats is right and true.
—Seraphya · May 30th, 2007 at 10:36 am
rebeccam:
really? cool. but yeah, you’re always gonna have someone spearheading a new idea and the test is if it stands the test of time. the fact that this trend didn’t, speaks volumes, imo.
—julie · May 30th, 2007 at 11:14 am
i wouldn’t be surprised if some couples actually tried this…just for shits and giggles.
I’m surprised he didnt say we use kipot to cover our horns. Lame.
learning about religions from an athiest is a bad idea.
—shmuel · May 30th, 2007 at 11:34 am
learning about religions from an athiest is a bad idea.
True. But learning about it from its most fanatical adherents ain’t too hot either.
—david smith · May 30th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Hitchens is right-on re: the threat of Islamic extremism.
But Hitchens is consistently wrong on Israel and Judaism.
PS can we all agree to refrain from the phrase “shits and giggles”? that shit is just icky.
—rootlesscosmo · May 30th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
shmuel: learning about religion from an atheist is not a “bad idea.”
it depends what your goal is. if you want an “authentic” insider’s experience, then that of an atheist is useless. however, if you want an analytical, outsider’s perspective, then it is of the utmost value. while an atheist may not be able to relate to certain religious elements, the exact same closeness that gave the believer his intimate perspective also may skew his notions of what the religion means/stands for.
—invisible_hand · May 30th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
the fact that this trend didn’t, speaks volumes, imo
wrong. There are many - mostly hassidim - who to this day are very “modest” about having sex. A proponent of the approach is ZIonist rabbi Shlomo Levi, of Yeshivat Har Etzion, aka “gush”.
And its no stranger to have sex with clothes on than any of the other weird things people do today when they have sex. it doesn’t hurt anyone, so why be judgmental?
—Amit · May 30th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Just out of shear irrelevance, here’s Hitchens’ piece about discovering that he, too, was Jewish (no horns, though):
http://users.rcn.com/peterk.enteract/pftw.htm
But I guess this means he really should know better. If only because Larry David and Gina Gershon have already provided the last word on the sheet thing.
—htrouser · May 30th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Amit:
what on earth are you talking about? i have so many problems with what you wrote for a plethora of reasons:
a) there is a diff btwn doing it with the sheet versus “being modest.” when you talk about the trends of hassidim, what are you referring to? what do you know about the hasidic approach to initimacy? (i don’t mean that condescendingly. but rather literally.)
b) i just graduated the women’s branch of Gush and will be starting their master’s program this sept., so i know a little bit about the place and i have no idea what you are talking about. and btw - who is shlomo levi? do you mean Rav Yitzchak Levi from Gush?
c) i wholeheartedly agree with you that it is not our place to condemn various sexual practices b/c it’s true that people do stuff that is a lot more freak-ay… but my whole point was acknowledging that judaism is not some prudish religion that has neuroses about sex, as that stupid myth perpetuates. you wanna do it through a sheet? gezundterheit. you wanna do it on the kitchen floor? gezundterheit. do it while suspended from a bungee chord? gezund… you get the point.
but what i will add is that the various “suggestions” that there are within jewish literature (mostly kabbalistic and hasidic) on intimacy stem from mystical reasoning and is not a) halakha or b) connected to a worldview where sex is something dirty/undesirable (no pun intended). just as there are buddhist positions to attain enlightenment, so too there are positions within sex to attain the enlightment of the Shekhinah…
—julie · May 30th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
julie:
1. Not really. guerer hassidim are instructed to be dressed - replete with hats - when they have sex, for instance. There is a very strong stream within Judaism that views sex as something of a neccesary evil. Its quite a new idea that “sex is holy”. its not holy. why else would you have to cover your tefillin and mezuzah in a room where you have sex.
2.I mean Rabbi Shlomo Levi. the other levi is not an halakhic authority of any kind. He wrote a book on niddah which has become quite popular called Shaarei Orah.
3. Its not a question of prudish or neurotic. Its a question of religion. Judaism has nothing common to all people who practice it, but it does have its share of practices looking at sex suspiciously.
Your thing on the shekhina makes no sense, especially if you are a graduate of “gush”. sex is sex.
—Amit · June 1st, 2007 at 5:31 am
Amit, you have created a non existent hassidic group and given them sexual habits that don’t exist in Judaism. There is no such group as “guerer”s. If you mean ger (spelling per Wikipedia: “Ger, or Gur (or Gerrer when used as an adjective)” you are as wrong about their habbits as you are wrong about the spelling of their name - I have Ger relatives, and they would either laugh at you outright or explain to you that Judaism exhalts sex.
Please let’s stop the “hole in the sheet” misinformation, its real basis is probably antisemitism by Xtians trying to make Jews into the evil “others”. We Jews shouldn’t perpetuate the misconceptions out of our ignorance about our own religion and our observant members.
—incorrect · June 3rd, 2007 at 9:25 am
R. Yehudah Leib Alter, 1847-1905, of Gour (Poland), 3è Rebbe of the Dynasty of “Guerer Hassidimâ€
—dz alexander · June 19th, 2007 at 3:12 am