Raped 'Too Much'?

In the Christian communities of the 1st and 2nd centuries, some women actually joined the Christian movement to escape the trials of marriage and sex.  Women were property and legally had no rights or hope of supporting oneself, but as someone’s wife, put themselves at risk for death by childbirth.  The early Christian communities, by contrast, believed the Messiah would be returning within their lifetime, so marriage was not embraced. Their duty was to live in loving Christian community, elevating the values of generosity, compassion, and forgiveness.  It was a safe place for women to live out their life without harassment, the risk of childbirth, or impoverishment, but using their gifts to live the Gospel.

Fastforward to 2012, and women’s livelihood is still threatened by their biology, as we heard several times this week. 

On Sunday we heard Fox News Commentator Liz Trotta complain women in the military have caused a second bureaucracy to counsel women who are being raped “too much”.  What do we expect, she went on to say, when women put themselves in such close quarters with men?  Rape is a natural outcome, Ms. Trotta seems to be saying.  Of course, the early Christian communities would demonstrate otherwise.    

Then, in addition to the now infamous photo of the all-male panel testifying on the religious infringement of allowing women to control their reproductive organs, we were all treated to sage advice from 1950’s farcical morality.  Rick Santorum’s spokesperson, Foster Friess, explained that if women would just keep their legs together, we wouldn’t have to argue about contraception at all.  Never mind that when women did get pregnant in ‘his day’, they were sent away to have the child in secret or possibly maimed in back alley abortions.  Never mind that women bore this burden while the father of the child rarely had his life affected.  Never mind that most of his generation are now enjoying the benefits of Viagra while STDs are rising fast among seniors.  Friess seems to be saying that women’s morals alone are responsible for a promiscuous culture.  Which begs the question, do women have the right to both engage in sex and determine their own destiny by delaying or foregoing pregnancy?  Do women have the right to educate themselves, succeed in their career, and contribute to society without being chaste?  Or do we really feel that only half our population should be able to have sex freely?

These examples exempt men from any fault in their poor sexual behavior.  It both finds women incompetent in some way but also blames them for being the provocateur – either by opening their legs at all, or in the case of Liz Trotta, just for being present.  Contrast this to the communities living with Christ in their recent memory - communities where women were welcomed as sisters in bringing about a new way of living together – not with an eye for sex, but for brotherly and sisterly ‘love’.  Focusing on a woman’s reproductive function diminishes all the other incredible traits we possess.  But ignoring men’s role in any sexual situation is delusory and slanderous. It’s enough to make a girl long for the 2^nd Century.