Samantha Stanley
The Limits of Language in the Discussion of Fornication: Modern Issues of Sex Contrived from Archaic Beliefs
My group edited the 17th century document “A DISCOURSE ON FORNICATION” by John Turner. Turner argues against fornication outside the confines of marriage, making three main points about the act of fornication and the evils derived from going against God’s word: “That Fornication is a Violation of God’s positive Law, in the original Institution of Marriage. That it is expresly forbidden in the Gospel, and absolutely inconsistent with that pure and holy Life, which the Christian Religion requires from us. Lastly, From the natural Turpitude of it, and the Evils and pernicious Consequences that attend it.”
While the text itself is dated and lacks total consequence in society today, these ideas still exist in our lawmaking practices and in religious groups which participate in politics. Political issues centered on abortion, women’s health, contraceptives, and STDs all come back to these basic ideas of religion and sin that Turner discusses. While western society currently is becoming increasingly more socially aware, political debates around sexual health and women’s rights still lean heavily on ideas rooted in Turner’s rhetoric. By the end of his piece Turner states “Deliver thy self therefore from the strange Woman, even from the Stranger that flattereth with her Words” (Turner 53). The patriarchal construction of gender is therefore the basis of the sin of fornication.
The men Turner is attempting to protect, he believes, are only tempted to sin because women are consciously inciting temptation. Judith Butler, in Gender Trouble, explores the distinction between sex and gender which relates to the construction of the self and the “temptations” Turner believes are incited by women. As Butler points out “If gender is the cultural meanings that the sexed body assumes, then a gender cannot be said to follow from a sex in any one way” (Butler 6). The cultural meanings Butler mentions are those which have been established by men themselves. Turner attempts to blame women for the sin of fornication, conflating sex and gender as based off the two-sex model, but when he does this he is failing to acknowledge the construction of women as created by men in order to please men. That is, “Womanhood” is a construction perpetuated and problematized by men. It is also constructed so all blame of sin within religion can be put on women instead of the main perpetrators of rape.
I was fascinated by the construction of gender which Turner conflates with sex and the limitations of his rhetoric. He relieves men of all responsibility and uses religion to blame women for all sins of fornication, often repeating himself instead of using substantial evidence to condemn women. All of his ideas on fornication and why human beings need to resist the sin, however, seem pointless, as he prefaces the piece with “This is in no Sin more practised than in those of Adultery and Fornication. Adultery may possibly be allowed to have somewhat of Ill in it; especially on the Womans Side” (Turner 1). By stating that the sin is heavily practiced and then relieving perpetrators of any responsibility, and then blaming the nature of women, Turner is undermining his own argument. He blames women but does not suggest any modes to deal with the issue. The argument is limited by set definitions of words which have been defined in a patriarchal context; “Whether gender or sex is fixed or free is a function of a discourse which, it will be suggested, seeks to set certain limits to analysis or to safeguard certain tenets of humanism as presuppositional to any analysis of gender” (Butler 9). While the problems Turner analyzes are modern and consistent, he is undermined by his own use of language which is closely defined as only existing in a smaller, less informed sphere than what our current society inhabits. The definition of gender used by Turner is patriarchal because the construction is based on the two-sex model which describes women as being inferior and morally weak in comparison to men. As parts of Western society still cling to these inherently oppressive concepts, we still have laws which work to harm and target women; namely, abortion, access to contraceptives, and access general sexual health practices.
The publication of this document in 1650 seems redundant when looking back on the numerous arguments made against fornication by the very same men who were easily tempted by prostitutes and other women in servile positions. By examining this document through the lens of twenty-first century feminist rhetoric the argument against continually subjecting our people to these archaic beliefs through unfair laws seems like the only plausible argument. While a significant portion of our society has deserted religion in favor of living according to one’s own ideas of morality and freedom, and even more so a diversity of religion has taken the place of a focus on Christianity, our laws still seem to uphold a rigidly patriarchal concepts due to the heterosexual white cisgendered men who remain in power. By examining these texts through feminist ideologies, we can construct a new rhetoric to better combat injustices that have been reoccurring for many centuries since.
Works Cited
Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York:Routledge, 1990. Print.
Turner, John. A DISCOURSE ON FORNICATION. Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) Creation Partnership. 1698.