Spitting and Chewing Like a Major League Baseball Player

“They’re chewin’ toback

Bubblegum, Zwieback;

They’re swearin’ and scratchin’ and such.

All drivel and drool,

They’re lookin’ so cool;

No wonder we love ‘em so much!”

I love baseball. I started playing baseball as kid, and I enjoyed playing the sport in Little League, Senior League, and on my high school team. Later in life, I played in an adult league in my area. I love all aspects of the game. However, as I watch Major League baseball, I have a couple of questions about the propensity of players to do a couple of seemingly unnecessary things.

Why are baseball players allowed to eat and spit all game long?

As far as I know, no other sport – indoor or outdoor – condones all of this expectorate ejecting and grub ingesting during the contest. Players of professional basketball, football, hockey, soccer, tennis, golfing and other major U.S. sports do not follow these game-time indulgences. Why does baseball? It seems all players eat, chew, and spit.

Kevin F. Sherry of the New York Post wonders about this too. Let's explore these habits of the sport.

Eating

Kevin F. Sherry writes …

“Every MLB dugout is stocked with buckets – actual buckets – of sunflower seeds, chewing gum, candy and energy bars. And all the players take advantage of it. Why wouldn’t they? In the average workplace, when someone brings in snacks, it’s an all-out sprint to get to them first. If your default workplace setting is “buckets of tasty snacks,” you’re probably going to partake.”

Every baseball player is chewing seeds. Not only do players munch on sunflower seeds off the field, but also they consume them on the field – while playing defense and even at bat. Players constantly chew the nuts and spit the shells while playing. From original to bacon to dill pickle, there is a sunflower seed flavor for everyone. Sunflower seed debris litters the dugouts and the diamonds.

Other sports may have a halftime break for some energy refreshment, but one would think professional baseball players, who spend the vast majority of the game either standing around or sitting on the bench, could make it through nine innings without needing constant seed reinforcement.

Oh, what about all of that bubble gum consumed by players during the game? Various studies have shown that chewing gum can lower stress, improve alertness and mood, and increase reaction time. Throwing caffeine into the mix by chewing on “energy gum,” like Gorilla Gum or Jolt, directly before competing has been shown to additionally enhance performance.

How can one stick of gum achieve all of that? It’s thought that chewing gum increases cerebral blood flow to the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for regulating emotions and deciding on actions. Placebo or real? You decide.

How many other jobs can you think of where the employees, even the manager, routinely walk around looking like a chipmunk who has just had his wisdom teeth extracted? 

Spitting

“The pitcher steps back from the mound, his mitt arm extended to grab the ball from the catcher, he turns, he spits, faces the batter to focus on another pitch. The batter steps back from home plate, adjusts his gloves, spits into the dirt and returns to face the pitcher.

“By the fifth inning, it got to me. By the eighth, I wanted to switch to a different channel or turn off the TV. The incessant spitting, whether in the field, at bat, on base or in the dugouts, is, pure and simple, disgusting.”

(Richard C. Gross. “Baseball's Spitting Image.” The Baltimore Sun.

November 01, 2016.)

Kevin Sherry wonders if the need to spit so much has anything to do with the players' excess saliva because of all the gum and seeds they eat during the game. Can you imagine participants of other sports spitting loogies on the courts or fairways of their games? In 2011, Tiger Woods spit on the 12th green after missing a putt at the Dubai Desert Classic, and immediately after the contest meetings were held, and Woods was fined an undisclosed sum for his nasty behavior.

Baseball players seem to spit all the time. According to Sherry: “In a highly unscientific viewing survey by this fan, players, coaches and managers spit an average of once every 30 seconds.”

It is common belief that spitting originated in the days of chewing tobacco. Tobacco has been marginalized by MLB. As of May 2018, smokeless tobacco is now banned in half of major-league stadiums. Under MLB’s 2016 collective bargaining agreement, smokeless tobacco was banned for all new major league players.

Speaking of a the next oral stimulant, some players now have a new fixation. They’ve switched to filling their mouths with coffee grounds. Baseball players are sticking mini prepackaged pouches of ground-up flavored coffee beans into their mouths. Known by the brand name Grinds, the caffeine-packed product has become a way for addicts to wean themselves off traditional smokeless tobacco products (like nicotine, caffeine can be absorbed through your gums).

San Francisco Giants Manager Bruce Bochy was an early adopter of the tobacco alternative, and he introduced the product to the locker room of the World Series champs back in 2010.

“I don’t remember when I learned about Grinds, but you are starting to see them a lot more. I would say that about 50 percent of minor leaguers try them and use them,” says Josh Hader, a pitcher in the Houston Astros minor league system.

With most players not chewing tobacco anymore, why do they continue to spit? Many say it's just one of those baseball “things” – a ritual of the sport. I guess it's just a baseball tradition and an inherited behavior. But, so much spitting is disgusting and highly unnecessary. In the era of high-resolution, large screen television coverage, no one wants to view an expectorate exhibition of constant drool and dribble.

Dwight Hamner, journalist and biochemist, offers many reasons for Major Leaguers to eat and drink during a game. He says …

“For guys who are in the starting lineup, their adrenaline level is already sky high, so they have to manage that. Part of that management is what to do with the excess of spit that forms in high-adrenaline situations coupled with fear causing dry-mouth.

“And guys get scared: they're scared of failure, mostly, but occasionally there is a basic fear of someone throwing 100 MPH within inches of their vital parts, or there's a fear of injury, usually right after a collision.

“And there are occasionally some guys who need a little help getting amped up sufficiently, because maybe they were out a little too late or they got in to town at 4:00 am, etc. Coffee is the drug of choice these days, since amphetamines are no longer permitted. Ritalin is also over-represented among modern baseball players. But some guys chew a little nicotine for the steady little boost that gives.

“And some guys do it because it looks cool. At least to them. When they were kids, and they saw their hero with a wad of something in his cheek, they grew up wanting to do the same thing. Doubt that premise? Watch film of the Little League World Series. A few years ago, when my nephew's team was in the finals, every kid stuck his rear hand up to the ump just like Derek Jeter.

(Dwight Hamner. “What exactly do the players, coaches, etc. keep chewing during professional baseball games? Why?” Quora.)

Admiration by little league baseball players of the big guys in baseball often leads them to mimic certain behaviors. The rough-hewn image of the slugger-with-chaw has been persistent, and almost as celebrated. Major League outfielder Tony Colabello said much of the spitting has to do with imitation. He says …

“You saw guys on TV spit, you want to spit like the big league ballplayers. When you’re 5 running around, you go out and spit.”

Baseball players' supply of saliva must be inexhaustible. They spit and spit and spit ... and then spit some more. The result has to be unhealthy, and it is disgusting at all times. The British Health Protection agency (2009) said as much when complaining about soccer players letting go on the pitch … 

"Spitting is disgusting at all times. It's unhygienic and unhealthy, particularly if you spit close to other people. Footballers, like the rest of us, wouldn't spit indoors so they shouldn't do it on the football pitch. If they are spitting near other people it could certainly increase the risk of passing on infections. Certainly, spitting is a nasty habit that should be discouraged — and it should be discouraged by the clubs.”

But, then again, baseball is steeped in tradition. People seem to accept all the blowing, seeding, and spitting as part of the game. I guess they have grown accustomed to the chucked-out humongous modules of saliva during the game. I'm not saying a spit here and there may be beneficial, yet I fail to see the need to water the fields and dugouts with spittle. Could it even distract from performance? Or, is all of this protest from me amounting to just a spit in the ocean.

“'They chew tobacco?' the confused child asks.
'That’s disgusting! Why do they chew tobacco, dad?'
And so, revealed to the youngster at this moment:
Baseball players chew tobacco,
The players’ cheeks and lips bulge with the bitter stuff,
They spit brown spit;

“How can you, the parent, respond?
'It’s just what they do,
They’ve always done it.'
That’s Exhibit A of the charge Extremely Lame Parenting

Excerpt from “Why Do They Chew Tobacco, Dad?” By Steve Hermanos

Teen Dating -- Yesterday and Today

I recently asked a group of high school students what they did for fun … you know, spontaneous activity like cruising, socializing, and dating. As a group, they stared at me with blank looks as if I had challenged them with a mighty perplexing question. They finally came up with a few answers, but I could tell things have changed.

The teenagers didn't answer that they enjoyed hanging in local places, swimming at community pools, driving for mere pleasure, or socializing at musical events. It seemed as if the word “dating” was foreign to them. I was pretty taken aback because I still hold fondly to my memories of friends, going out together, and having fun. In my day, a date was a very important event.

Now I admit I don't know much about the state of dating these days. I remember washing and cleaning my car before a date – getting the inside and outside so clean that my date could see it sparkle. When picking her up, you worked extra hard to make a good impression. That detail, to my generation, was normal. No matter how stylish your car or how large your bankbook, you made sure if looked and smelled great.

With the price of gas and entertainment, I can't even fathom a guess about the cost of a nice date these days. I am sure it is astronomical in relation to going out in my day. With that in mind, I decided to do a little research, and I found over the past 40 years, the share of students in twelfth grade who report dating frequently (more than once a week) has declined, from 33 in 1976, to 14 percent in 2017; the proportion of twelfth graders who report not dating at all increased substantially over this period, from 15 to 49 percent.

(Child Trends – a continuing study of American youth)

Barbara Greenberg, Ph.D., a noted clinical psychologist known as the “Teen Doctor,” explains that “hook-ups" seem to be replacing dating. It seems that males and females are equally aggressive these days and have embraced a culture of "friends with benefits"

According to Greenberg ...

“The current generation of teens has, as you are aware, moved away from dating and is often referred to as the "hook-up" generation. Hook-ups, I am told by the teens, refer to no-strings attached physical meetings of the body ranging from kissing to intercourse. They tend to be most likely to occur when teens are at parties and under the influence of alcohol.”

This view certainly leads to concerns that there has been a move away from relationship-based sex to recreational sex. It appears teens have moved away from mate selection and, instead, have embraced an introduction to the world of intimacy. Of course, allowing teens to date and explore romantic relationships (in moderation) is a good thing. But, it seems the rules of the dating game have changed. Does it have anything to do with shorter attention spans?

An article from Psychology Today reports only half of “hook-ups” involved any genital play, and only one-third included intercourse. A study of Northeastern University students found similar results: 78% of students reported hook-ups, but only about a third of encounters included intercourse. These figures remind me of what l recall of casual relationships five decades ago.

So, there is plenty of room for optimism. Althought the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that approximately 45 percent of teens have sex in high school, but there is good news for parents. Teens nowadays actually wait longer to become sexually active. In 1994, 30 percent of 15-year-olds were sexually active. Now, only about 16 percent of kids have had sex by their 15th birthday.

(Lawrence B. Finer and Jesse M. Philbin. “Sexual Initiation, Contraceptive Use, and Pregnancy Among Young Adolescents.” Pediatrics, Volume 131, May 2013.)

Pew Research reports the one in four teens have dated or “hooked up” with somebody they initially encountered online. Half of all teens have let someone know they're interested in them romantically by friending them on Facebook or on another social media site. Breaking up? 27 percent of teen daters have broken up with someone via text message, and 31 percent have been broken up in this way.

Dating has greatly changed thanks to Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. Pew (2018) found at least 94 percent of teenagers 12 to 17 are online using a mobile device do so daily. A growing share of teens (50%) describe their internet use “almost constantly” or “hourly. Common Sense reported 70 percent of teenagers check social media several times a day, up from just 34 percent in 2012.

This certainly changes social communication. Snapchat ID is a go-to forum for instant photo chatting. And for other “sexier” things? In a study completed by Drexel University that measured teen sexting rates, researchers found that more than half of respondents admitted to participating in sexting. About 54 percent admitted that they had sexted, and 28 percent send actual photos.

Do teens engage in parking and in driving to other private venues for intimate relationships? After all, the law has cracked down, and drive-in movie theaters are going the way of the dinosaur. Some believe "Come over, maybe say 'hi' to my parents, and we're going to hang out in my room" is the latest call to hormonal action. This has led to a debate among parents who consider the reality the situation (In 2015, 41.2 percent of high school students reported having had sexual intercourse.) and who entertain thoughts of allowing their teens to have sexual experiences at home instead of at a party or in the backseat of a car.

By the way, we all know the only safe and effective way to prevent unintended pregnancy and STIs is abstinence. However, experts, including the Guttmacher Institute researcher Laura Lindberg, have reviewed the scientific evidence accumulated over several decades about U.S. sexual abstinence-only programs and once again concluded that AOUM (abstinence-only-until-marriage) programs are ineffective, stigmatizing and unethical.

(Laura D. Lindberg et al. “Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage: An Updated Review

of U.S. Policies and Programs and Their Impact.” Journal of Adolescent Health,

Volume 61. 2017.)

Now, group outings are increasingly popular as “dating” opportunities. According to High School Hallways, group dates have replaced traditional dates, especially early into the relationship. Driving to your boyfriend's or girlfriend's house, ringing the doorbell, and waiting to speak to parents is firmly no longer the thing to do. Now, group hangs dominate. So when you hear your teen is going on a big group outing, ask to get to know everyone who's attending.

The percentage of teens who have ever had a paid job has fallen from 76 to 55 percent over the last four decades. This is true across demographic and geographic lines. Psychologist Jean Twenge says …

"The developmental trajectory of adolescence has slowed, with teens growing up more slowly than they used to. In terms of adult activities, 18-year-olds now look like 15-year-olds once did."

To many teens, dating is frustrating and complicated. Combined with the casual culture of hooking up, one night stands, and friends with benefits, actually finding someone to seriously date can be difficult. Teenagers have so many options that "going steady" can be a hard pitch to sell. Besides, nowadays, they have more freedom to choose how they live their lives.

I still think simple dating – not hooking up or feeling obliged to share body parts or risky relationships – is something missing today. Sharing a drive, a simple meal, a walk, or a movie can build healthy relationships in adolescents and can help shape their identity.

Dating can prepare teens for more positive relationships during adulthood while providing them with tools to start and maintain healthy relationships (with romantic partners as well as with peers, employers, teachers, and parents). The social skills they develop while dating can be used to learn about other people and to grow emotionally. And, very simply, a date is a face-to-face meeting, something rare in today's computerized society.

Click it: https://www.cdc.gov/features/teen-dating-violence/index.html

Afterthoughts

I considered the difference in dating today and dating in the 1960s. Gone are the drive-in movie theaters, gone are the awkward first-date phone calls, gone are front-door goodbye kisses … but, maybe most importantly, gone are the spacious and inviting front bench seats. I say this in jest but also in fond remembrance.

After World War II when affordable European sports cars arrived in the U.S., they brought with them the appeal for sporty bucket seats. Now, full-size American sedans are an endangered species and as well as their roomy bench seats. After a few popular U.S. models, including the Chevrolet Corvette, started featuring bucket seats, Americans began to view them as more roomy and practical than the classic bench. Then, you also have the change with the whole safety thing including airbags and optimal seating configurations. The bench bit the dust.

Every red-blooded American male in my day knew that if your date slid close to you on the bench front seat, you were well on your way to First Base. The bench also made it easy to snuggle up with your date wherever you were. Wink, wink.

Bring back the bench. I think it would encourage dating. In fact, one could argue that the decline of the bench seat is directly tied to the decline of drive-in movie theaters and to the frustration of lonely drivers. And, I know … I know the necessity of seat belts. But, they have also contributed to lack of snuggle time and who knows what else. Oh the impediments to cruising and looking at the moonlight. Just ask Chuck Berry.

No Particular Place to Go

By Chuck Berry

Ridin' along in my automobile
My baby beside me at the wheel
I stole a kiss at the turn of a mile
My curiosity runnin' wild
Cruisin' and playin' the radio
With no particular place to go

Ridin' along in my automobile
I's anxious to tell her the way I feel
So I told her softly and sincere
And she leaned and whispered in my ear
Cuddlin' more and drivin' slow
With no particular place to go

No particular place to go
So we parked way out on the kokomo
The night was young and the moon was bold
So we both decided to take a stroll
Can you imagine the way I felt?
I couldn't unfasten her safety belt

Ridin' along in my calaboose
Still tryin' to get her belt aloose
All the way home I held a grudge
But the safety belt it wouldn't budge
Cruisin' and playin' the radio
With no particular place to go

Women -- More Spiritual Than Men, Yet Too Morally Weak to Preach

“Jesus Christ was a feminist.”

After all, Jesus challenged the conventional patriarchy of his culture. He depended upon the ministry of women and he wasn’t ashamed of receiving their ministry in public. In a culture where women were often scorned, Jesus consistently redefined the ways humans relate to one another by receiving cultural outcasts into his own community.

I do not understand how a church – a religion in the 21st century – would deny posts of highest leadership to women. Many churches, including some of the largest denominations in the United States – the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) and the Southern Baptist Convention – do not allow women to be ordained or hold top church leadership positions. The snail's pace of needed change for women is evident in religious organizations, institutions that cling to illogical orthodox beliefs that promote misogyny.

These Christian denominations believe that, though men and women are equal, they are not identical and, since scripture outlays a division between roles of men and women in the church, it would be inappropriate to assign women the role or responsibilities of a pastor.

What scriptures support this claim? One such biblical reference occurs in the first book of the Old Testament. In Genesis 3:16, God says, “Unto the woman I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” Eve is represented as framed from a rib taken out of Adam’s body to be his “helpmate,” not his equal.

That belief is further bolstered by those who cite the original sin to blame Eve for being tricked by the serpent into eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of life and death. Because Eve was deceived, it was understood that women are gullible. Ergo, the Fall resulted in human depravity and serves to prove the moral weakness of women … evidently to this day. (But, how about Adam and his bite of the apple?)

The Old Testament abounds with stories of women sold and traded like cattle, of marriageable girls held hostage in return for years of hard labor by their suitors. The subservient role of helper seems to be extended to mean women are men's property.

How about the New Testament? 1 Corinthians 11:8-10 further relegates women to be made subject to men – mates serving to help and comfort their male counterparts. Their leadership role in the church is forbidden, as the belief contends women should do nothing in Christian assemblies. Paul, himself, contends the head of every man is Christ, the head of every woman is man, and the head of Christ is God:

8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

Paul wrote to Timothy: "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent" (1 Timothy 2:11-12). While the apostle was encouraging the teaching of women (even though traditionally they weren't given that opportunity), he restricted them from authoritatively sharing their learning with men. Some people say this prohibition means women must never, ever teach men in the church.

Because women in Ephesus at this time were uneducated and secluded, Paul was warning that they could be misled by the false teachers trying to lure new Christians away from the church Paul wanted to establish. This attitude echoes the belief of feminine moral weakness established in the Fall.

As may be seen throughout the Old Testament and in the Greco-Roman culture of New Testament times, patriarchal societies placed men in positions of authority in marriage, society and government. The New Testament only records males being named among the 12 original apostles of Jesus Christ. Yet, women were the first to discover the Resurrection.

With solid biblical reference, groups like the Southern Baptists have claimed that their doctrinal positions were either taught in the Bible or were, at the least, not contrary to the explicit teachings of Scripture.

“We have seen that the explicit texts of Scripture forbid women to serve as pastors. The biblical model for family roles supports that stance as well. It is not a matter of inferiority or worth, for all persons are of equal worth in their persons, reflecting the essential equality of the Godhead. It is a matter of function. There is no compelling reason to encourage women as pastors, and there are many reasons not to do so.”

(Journal of the Southern Baptist Convention)

On all the standard measures of religious commitment examined, Christian women are more religious than Christian men The Pew Research Center reported these statistics about religion in the U.S. in 2014 …

* American women are more likely than men to say religion is “very important” in their lives (60% vs. 47%)

* American women also are more likely than American men to say they pray daily (64% vs. 47%) and attend religious services at least once a week (40% vs. 32%).

* According to media accounts, women so outnumber men in the pews of many U.S. churches that some clergy have changed decor, music and worship styles to try to bring more men into their congregations.

While many major religious denominations in the United States now allow women to pastor churches and synagogues, only 11% of American congregations were led by women in 2012, according to press reports of an upcoming National Congregations Study survey. And, in 2018, only 1 of the 100 largest churches in the United States was led by a woman, due in large part to institutionalized patriarchal models of leadership.

Some women’s groups seek a female priesthood. The Church has ruled this out, arguing Jesus chose only men as his apostles. Pope Francis admitted significant failings by clergy, he also said the Church “could not agree with everything some feminist groups propose,” a clear reference to the Church’s ban on a female priesthood. Still, the church head did not acknowledge change allowing women leaders.

Francis said (2019) …

“A living Church can look back on history and acknowledge a fair share of male authoritarianism, domination, various forms of enslavement, abuse and sexist violence. With this outlook, she (church) can support the call to respect women’s rights, and offer convinced support for greater reciprocity between males and females, while not agreeing with everything some feminist groups propose.”

Linda Woodhead, Professor of the Sociology of Religion at Lancaster University in England, takes a different stand. She says, "Of the many threats that Christianity has to face in modern times, gender equality is one of the most serious.”

Woodhead finds what she calls “a great paradox”:

“Women are the main workforce and army that keeps all religions going. They are the ones that put in the energy, transmit the faith, and are considered to be more deeply committed, but the main dissatisfaction women have with the church is with the leadership not taking them seriously and not treating them as equal.”

(Linda Woodhead, Harvard Political Review)

Woodhead believes that traditional forms of religion are more likely to prove a hindrance to women than a help. Woodhead states …

"Egalitarian emphasis (equality in authority and responsibilities between genders) is contradicted by a symbolic framework that elevates the male over the female, and by organizational arrangements that make masculine domination a reality in church life. Theological statements on the position of women from down the centuries testify not only to the assumption that it is men who have the authority to define women, but to the precautions that have been taken to ensure that women do not claim too much real equality with men – in this life at least.”

Jesus – A Feminist?

Was Jesus Christ, the son of God, a feminist? I agree with Christian feminists that women are not a sub-class in society. That is the goodness of God’s design – both men and women have value, purpose, and dignity. From biblical evidence it should be clear that Jesus vigorously promoted the dignity and equality of women in the midst of a very male-dominated society: Yes, I believe Jesus was a feminist – a very radical one. And God with every fiber of Her being approved of his son's loving promotion of females.

After all, Exodus 34: 6-7a says:

“And The Lord passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, ‘The Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin.'”

To me, that description fits a feminine Spirit perfectly. Besides, in Genesis, women and men are created in the “Imago Dei,” the image of God, which suggests that God transcends socially constructed notions of gender. Even a name often used for God is suspect in absolute, masculine terms – the first part of God’s name in Hebrew, “Yah,” is feminine, and the last part, “weh,” is masculine.

“And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.” Exodus 3:14

In light of Exodus 3, the feminist theologian Mary Daly asks, “Why must ‘God’ be a noun? Why not a verb – the most active and dynamic of all.” And, surely such an influential, loving and gracious creator could be more female than male. I believe every truthful man can attest to this likelihood.

Some things are certain about God and his spiritual gender: (1) God is not bound by the confines of human language such as gender pronouns (“he” or “she”); (2) God is infinite, transcendent, and not human; and (3) God, himself, created gender. The theological imbalances created by man distort the view of women in the church and can cause them to be treated as spiritual inferiors, rather than as equal image-bearers of God. That seems like a very un-Christian thing to do. Yep, to me, Jesus was, and still is, a feminist. I know He would speak out against voices like this:

“For a woman to teach and preach to adult men is to defy

God’s Word and God’s design.”

– Owen Strachan, professor of Christian theology at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, Mo., 2019

“There’s just something about the order of creation that means that God

intends for the preaching voice to be a male voice.”

– R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., in a podcast, 2019

Sex in Ancient Egypt -- Nking On the Nile

“So seize the day! hold holiday!
Be unwearied, unceasing, alive
you and your own true love;
Let not the heart be troubled during your
sojourn on Earth,
but seize the day as it passes!”

– The Harper's Song for Inherkhawy (Excerpt)

Those ever-loving ancient Egyptians are well-known for their active sex lives. Archeologists have uncovered much evidence of their relaxed attitudes about sex between single, consenting adults. Sexuality in ancient Egypt was considered just another aspect of life on earth – a staple on a par with eating and sleeping. Reading about the lusty exploits of these inhabitants of the lower Nile Valley reminds one of the Tina Turner lyric “What's love got to do with it?” Just how free and sensually insatiable were these ancient people?

Let's begin at the beginning. In fact, the oldest depiction of sex on record, painted sometime in the Ramesside Period (1292-1075 B.C.E.), is known as the “Turin Erotic Papyrus.” It is so named because of its “discovery” in the Egyptian Museum of Turin, Italy. The papyrus portrays frank versions of ancient sex in a number of sexual positions – twelve in all.

The illustrative depictions on the papyrus “fall somewhere between impressively acrobatic and unnervingly ambitious,” one even involving a chariot. Maybe those sexual gymnastics can be partly attributed to popular aphrodisiacs of the time – mandrake and pomegranate juice mixed with wine. Or perhaps those ancient Egyptians in their linen garments, which clung to their skin and were usually translucent, faced ever-present desires.

Talk about sex? The Egyptian language had many words for sexual intercourse, with the most common being “nk” used to describe the male agent of the sexual act. The term was perfectly acceptable in daily parlance. Other sexual euphemisms include “to unite oneself with” and “entering a house.” Poetry is a readily available source for learning about the way sexual intercourse was discussed in ancient Egypt.

“My sister (commonly a word for 'lover') is unique – no one can rival her,

for she is the most beautiful woman alive.

Look, she is like Sirius,

which marks the beginning of a good year.

She radiates perfection and glows with health.

The glance of her eye is gorgeous.

Her lips speak sweetly, and not one word too many.

Long-necked and milky breasted she is,

her hair the colour of pure lapis.

Gold is nothing compared to her arms

and her fingers are like lotus flowers.

Her buttocks are full but her waist is narrow.

As for her thighs – they only add to her beauty.”

(From the Chester Beatty Papyrus)

Or how about this deletable, and admittedly extended slice of poetic erotica?

“My beloved met me,

Took his pleasure of me, rejoiced as one with me.

The brother brought me into his house,

Laid me down on a fragrant honey-bed.

My precious sweet, lying by my heart,

One by one "tongue making,” one by one,

My brother of fairest face did so fifty times …”

There were no taboos concerning sex and no stigma attached to any aspect of it except for infidelity, and, among the lower classes, incest. In both of these cases, the stigma was far more serious for a woman than for a man because the bloodline was passed through the woman. However, men were not granted a free pass: it has been recorded that in some communities cheating husbands would experience social stigma for such actions.

Why would the royalty of such an advanced ancient civilization engage in incest? Evidence supports that the rulers of ancient Egypt believed they descended from the gods; therefore, they were very interested in keeping their bloodlines "pure.” One of the most famous names of ancient Egypt, King Tut, was believed to be a product of incest. His parents were brother and sister and it's thought that Tut also married his sister Ankhesenamun.

Temporary marriage was known as a “year of eating” and enabled the couple to try out the marriage and providing a quick exit should there be no children during this time or if they decided it was not working. For the majority of the population, actual marriage was undocumented. The couple simply started cohabiting. However, wealthy couples would often draw up contracts outlining the financial consequences of a divorce.

The sex itself? Ancient Egyptians apparently had no concept of virginity or any sort of expectation for it. They possessed no particular stigma against illegitimate children. And, they frequently used contraception such as acacia gum, which when compounded essentially became a spermicide. A nasty reference is even made about using other substances inside of the vagina, including pessary (small soluble block) made of crocodile dung.

It is written that the ancients even employed primitive sex toys. On the Turin Erotic Papyrus one can see a woman seated on a vase to pleasure herself while it is believed that Cleopatra, with her excessive sexual appetites, may have created a vibrator for herself employing a hollow gourd full of angry bees.

After all, Cleo was known as "Meriochane" by the Greeks – a term that literally translates to "she who gapes wide for 10,000 men." According to legend, she "fellated 100 men" in a single night. She supposedly used her affinity for this act to seduce Julius Caesar. But, late research throws great doubt on Cleo's “whorelike” qualities and posits claims exalting Cleopatra's sexual prowess are less true to her nature than those acknowledging her intellectual gifts. Was she even the beautiful object of desire depicted in Hollywood films?

Sally Ashton, a Cambridge Egyptologist, painstakingly researched ancient artifacts and records in order to reconstruct Cleopatra's facial features. And after a year of research, the following is the culmination. You decide for yourself.

Prostitution was common. As in ancient Babylon, prostitution was seen as a divine and respectable act done for the gods. Prostitutes were afforded a relatively high social status in ancient Egypt. Ancient Egyptian prostitutes, however, were able to work openly and freely and would tattoo themselves and wear red lipstick and other makeup to signify and differentiate themselves from non-prostitutes. Pimping ancient Egyptian-style certainly has modern fashion parallels.

The important role of sex in Egyptian life didn't stop with death. Archeologists have found prosthetic genitals attached to mummies (false penises to male mummies and false nipples to female ones), as they believed that in the afterlife these could be re-animated.

And, there are reports of necrophilia. The Greek writer Herodotus (Who also famously alluded to suggestions that Greek tyrant Periander had defiled the corpse of his wife, employing a metaphor: "Periander baked his bread in a cold oven.") said that in ancient Egypt, one would want to let the bodies of their loved ones sit out for three or four days in order to dissuade the embalmers from having sex with the corpses, as embalmers wouldn’t want to have sex with a body that was already beginning to rot. So, apparently, it happened at least frequently enough for Herodotus to mention it.

Interesting Note – In 2012, Egypt's parliament denied reports that husbands would soon be legally allowed to have sex with their dead wives. The subject grabbed headlines across the world after Egypt's state-owned newspaper Al Ahram ran an article stating that Mervat el-Tallawy, the head of Egypt's National Council for Women, had complained the country's parliament was considering a piece of legislation sponsored by Islamists to allow men to have sex with their wives after their death.

Admission of Guilt

First of all, allow me to admit this is a shameful post to attract readers in the name of padding my blog page views. On September 29, 2010, I posted an entry titled “Ancient Egyptians and Erotic Poetry.” That writing is most most popular blog entry by far with 55,763 page views to date.

Writing an editorial blog is a not lucrative hobby. For example, this month I have earned a whopping $1.13 and this is the 25^th day of August. By the way, my other two biggest entries are “How Women Flirt: A Non-Verbal Guide For Men (32,817 page views) and “Five Suicides in One Year at SOCF Corrections (30,238 page views).

Sex sells. Who can deny that obvious truth? We continue to have a fascination with the mysterious, alluring, ancient Egyptian culture. Perhaps we envision ourselves alive in those times as part of a culture with openly relaxed sexual norms. For whatever reason, of all the topics I have discussed on the blog, erotic ancient Egypt continues to top the the list of 21^st century readership. I wonder who will read this latest adventure.

Are You a Christian "Hater"?

“Western civilization is in a war. We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported. Sharia is incompatible with Western civilization.”

– Newt Gingrich, Southern Baptist converted to Catholicism

Are you a Christian? And, if you are, are you a Christian who, in the name of your beliefs, justifies hatred? For example, I have read so many religious views that condemn Sharia, or Islamic religious law, as a growing threat to the United States. Those who adopt this view think this is a strategy Muslims now use to transform the United States into an Islamic state. Even though most know this stand is a most extreme interpretation of Sharia, these same people argue all Muslims are enemies to Christianity.

Contrary to the right-wing portrayal, sharia does not presume to replace American law. It agrees with its underlying values and promotes them. The commonly held stereotypes about Sharia are illusions of misunderstandings and half-truths. These illusions lead to hatred.

Christians are explicitly called to love their neighbors – people like themselves and people who are not. Jesus’ example prioritizes the margins of society and reaches out to those who are deeply hurting. Christians are not to bear false witness against others, a tenet that should prompt believers to stand against falsehoods being spread about a different group of people.

One of the most famous verses in the Bible is Galatians 3:28, which highlights how Christianity is supposed to transcend barriers of race, class, wealth, and nationality:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

To honor their beliefs, Christians should acknowledge how they have contributed to Islamophobia and work to transform their repentance into collective action.

According to recent Pew survey data (2017), Republicans, white evangelicals, and those with less education express most reservations about Muslims. In January 2018, a Washington Post/ABC poll found that a staggering 75 percent of white evangelicals in the US described “the federal crackdown on undocumented immigrants” as a positive thing, compared to just 46 percent of Americans overall. And according to a Pew Research Center poll in May 2018, 68 percent of white evangelicals say that America has no responsibility to house refugees, a full 25 points over the national average.  

White evangelicals are the only Christian group to express this level of hostility toward refugees. Meanwhile, according to another July 2018 poll by the Public Religion Research Initiative (PRRI), more than half of white evangelicals report feeling concerned about America’s declining white population.

So, what accounts for this seeming discrepancy between biblical theology and its frequent exhortations to care for the poor and marginalized? Diana Butler Bass, an American church historian and scholar who focuses on the history of the American church, says …

“The easy answer would be that it really shows how secularized the [white evangelical] community has become, and how it functions as an arm of the Republican Party ... taking talking points and marching orders from the people who have the loudest voices in the Republican Party.”

The God's Truth

Sharia does not presume to replace American law. It agrees with its underlying values and promotes them. America has understood this since its inception. No less than the U.S Supreme Court affirms this. A frieze that decorates one of the interior halls celebrates the great lawgivers of the world. These include Moses, the Christian Emperor Justinian (483-565), John Marshall (1755-1835, fourth chief justice of the Supreme Court) and, yes, Muhammad the Prophet. All their teachings inform the founding documents of the American Republic.

Hate crimes are increasing in America at an alarming rate, and this rise corresponds with the burgeoning white Christian nationalist movement in America – a movement that has been emboldened by the anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, xenophobic rhetoric coming from President Donald Trump and some of his advisers.

According to the FBI, hate crimes overall were up 17 percent in 2017, rising for the third consecutive year, and religion-based hate crimes increased 23 percent. The 1,564 crimes reported in 2017 was the second highest number of religion-based crimes ever, surpassed only by the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. One out of every five hate crimes in 2017 targeted someone because of their religion, and three out of five targets were due to race or ethnicity.

The Southern Poverty Law Center helps explain the current rise in religious resentment against diversity…

“During the 1980s and 1990s, right-wing extremists were galvanized by several national issues such as the perceived erosion of parental rights and authority through court rulings, expanding multiculturalism, abortion rights and the decline of the American family farm – all perceived as an attack on their Judeo-Christian beliefs which right-wing extremists view as a key component to America’s founding).

“These issues were magnified because of the far-right’s perception of a changing political climate which favored expanding benefits and equal opportunities to ethnic minorities, immigrants and other diversity groups. So it was no surprise that religious concepts and scriptural interpretation played a role in the armed confrontations between right-wing extremists and the U.S. government during this time period — specifically, at the Covenant, Sword, Arm of the Lord (CSA) compound in 1985, Ruby Ridge in 1992, and Waco in 1993.

“These standoffs not only showed extremists rebelling against the U.S. government and its laws, but also asserted what they believed were their divine religious and Constitutional rights. These events served as radicalization and recruitment nodes to boost the ranks of white supremacists, militia extremists sovereign citizens, and other radical anti-government adherents who viewed the government’s response to these standoffs as tyrannical and overreaching”

(Daryl Johnson. “Hate in God's Name.” Southern Poverty Law Center.

September 25, 2017.)

Conclusions

Perverted religion – beliefs against core teachings – can be used to justify hatred and violence. To be fair, it is not just one religion that justifies ill will. Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and others have long invoked violence in the name of religion. It usually arises when the core beliefs that define a group’s identity are fundamentally challenged.

Anti-Muslim hate is deeply intertwined with white supremacy and racial bias. Persistent calls for patience, tolerance, understanding, face-to-face dialogue and reconciliation are more important than ever given today’s spiraling polarization and the dangerous anonymity provided by social media. The Institute for Social Policy and Understanding's research reveals perceived Muslim perpetrators of violence are subject to more severe legal charges, up to three times the prison sentence, and more than seven times the media coverage compared to non-Muslim perpetrators.

Consider popular religious leaders who hate. In 2002, the Reverend Jerry Falwell declared the prophet Mohammad a “demon-possessed pedophile.” In 2007, Christian Broadcasting Network founder Pat Robertson said, “Ladies and gentlemen, we have to recognize that Islam is not a religion. It is a worldwide political movement meant on domination of the world. And it is meant to subjugate all people under Islamic law.” In 2010, former Lt. General Jerry Boykin, then the executive vice president of the Family Research Council, stated that Islam “should not be protected under the First Amendment, particularly given that those following the dictates of the Quran are under an obligation to destroy our Constitution and replace it with Sharia law.”

“Yes, I hate Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood and all terrorist organizations. I will fight for your freedom to be ignorant and hateful to your fellow Americans because I love America and everything she stands for even when her own turn against her.”

– Ted Cruz, Texas senator

I believe my initial question is valid. “Are you a Christian who, in the name of your beliefs, justifies hatred?”

If you answer “no,” but still cling to Islamophobia in the light of highly suspect Judeo-Christian understandings, to me, you deny that acknowledging the very existence of different religions is the spiritual human realm.

Mr. and Ms. American, you don't do that, do you? Are you also Buddhism-phobia and/or Hinduism-phobia? I doubt that. Instead, I believe you fear that one religion – Islam – will seize control of “your” nation. You likely base that fear on terrorists who committed unspeakable violence on 9/11 and on the religious idea that Muhammad is a false prophet. And, I believe those tenets are highly, highly suspect when employed to foster hate for Muslims, about 1.8 billion people in the world – the world's second largest religion after Christianity – together, making up nearly one-fourth of the world's population.

A Winning Democratic Presidential Candidate

Democrats must take a strategic approach to the nomination of a successful presidential candidate. Even though they feel people should be outraged by Trump and his narcissistic behavior, they must remember how they doubted people would take him seriously in 2016. No amount of belief will suffice for action. Not one vote should be taken for granted.

To oust Trump from office, Democrats must not broadly and mistakenly paint his supporters as “deplorable” again – doing so only serves to create deep division and alienates those who cast their votes for “the lesser of two evils.” To win, Democrats must increase turnout among their base – including minorities, women, and the young – while gaining among white, non-college-educated voters.

In November 2018 midterms, they did just that. Democrats further broadened their appeal by running better and more diverse candidates who symbolized a more inclusive America. And, they elected a record number of women while activating many more women as volunteers and donors. They ran strong nonwhite candidates and drew more minority voters. They supported younger candidates and attracted a greater percentage of millennials. LGBTQ Democrats won some tough races.

Respecting diversity is an important key to victory, but not the only needful strategy. Democrats must not write off blue collar whites, a group that still comprises 44 percent of the electorate; 50 percent in every Midwestern state; over 60 percent in Indiana, Iowa, Ohio and Wisconsin; and 80 percent in key Pennsylvania counties – the places that made Trump president.

Choose the Right Candidate

After one term of Trump, does the country yearn for a return to normalcy? Credibility would seem to be a most needed quality for a successful Democratic candidate. Considering Trump's propensity to lie and to incite fear and hatred with nationalistic and often bigoted rhetoric, it would seem a more dignified candidate would appeal.

One group of candidates is stressing the importance of controlling the center of the electorate and winning center-right independents and soft Trump supporters who may have grown disillusioned more with the turmoil than the policy choices of his presidency.

But, according to James Carville, the renowned campaign manager for Bill Clinton in 1992, the party's liberal vanguard may be focusing too narrowly to reach the broad audience that may be available against Trump. He says …

"I think that the country does not want to reelect Trump, and my great worry is Democrats can talk them out of that. We are pushing ourselves to a place that's dangerous when we get to the general election."

Perhaps a dose of reality – no matter how painful the sting to women and minority candidates – is apropos in 2020. A survey found that 82 percent of Democrats and independents say it's important to nominate "someone who can beat Trump." A large majority (74 percent) of Democratic and independent respondents said they were "personally comfortable with a female president," but only 33 percent believed their neighbors would be. Sad, but true?

More than half of Democratic voters overall (56%) believe a white male candidate is the most likely to beat President Donald Trump. Voters chose a white male more often than other generic categories regardless of whom they support—and in most cases regardless of their own ethnicity and gender – (June 2019) USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times national tracking poll shows. Is it a time to favor electability over equitable advancement?

However, Don't Abandon Priorities

The Democratic Party must work hard and stick to their priorities. It is tempting to run on the “just defeat Trump” ticket, but the party must clearly support a platform for a better America. Voters need to understand the value of making a needed change. Democrats must make it clear they will …

Combat climate change and protect the environment.

Fight to expand health-care coverage and reduce costs.

Find ways to make the tax code more progressive.

Support raising the minimum wage.

Work to raise public school standards and reform the head start program.

Support the long-term aim of having low-cost, publicly funded college education with low tuition fees.

Fight for equal opportunity for all Americans regardless of sex, age, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, creed, or national origin.

Endorse the principle that no one should face discrimination based on their gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

Grassroots To Victory

People are envisioning, electing, and beginning to enact a truly progressive agenda to advance the nation’s democratic ideals of economic fairness, social justice, and equal opportunity for all. These people are mainly Democrats, not Conservative Republicans, and certainly not dyed-in-the-MAGA Trump supporters. One can expect Trumpers to stay with their candidate no matter the logic of the opposition.

Democrats must understand the need for exciting their base. They must now move out to the grassroots reality of ordinary Americans. The future of the party doesn’t require moving left, center, or right. Those are ideological positions. First, Democrats need to organize voters year-round. And second, they must recruit the same type of coalition of people of color, women, Millennials, and progressive whites that elected Barack Obama twice.

Jenifer Fernandez Ancona, a co-founder of Way to Win, says …

“Our swing voter is not someone we’re trying to move from red to blue. It’s nonvoter to voter.”

Hastings College of the Law Professor Joan Williams, author of White Working Class:Overcoming Class Cluelessness in America, believes Democrats don’t need to choose between working-class white voters and the old Obama coalition. They have the money and grassroots energy to reach out to both in all parts of the country.

Williams says …

“It’s a false choice. These races are so close that Democrats need everybody.”

Of course, Democrats need to instill a vision that goes beyond a Trumpless White House. They must offer a positive agenda and not succumb to the temptation to simply attack the policies and character of Trump, as valid as such criticisms are. The large panel of presidential candidates should find a unifying platform that will unite all the party's supporters, not push ideas that differentiate them from one another. In short, they need more than well-argued politics to appeal to the masses of potential Democratic supporters.

The Democratic Party must motivate the electorate. Don Baer, White House Communications Director for President Bill Clinton, says elections are not won, for better or for worse, in rational detailed debates about the fine points of policy; however, they largely turn on visceral issues and are decided in the guts of voters rather than in their minds.

And last, the party must be honest with itself – it must acknowledge the failures of the recent past. Political success depends less on communicating the specifics of a policy and more on demonstrating that the successful candidate understands the needs and feelings of voters.

So, will Democratic primary voters prefer a nonwhite, nonmale candidate or stick to the the common belief that it’s safer to choose a white man for the general election? (Though a new study suggests that strategy could backfire, because a white male nominee could lower Democratic enthusiasm in the general election.)

A Politico survey found, “at least in the 2020 Democratic presidential campaign, candidates are likely to be viewed more favorably for being nonwhite and nonmale – but not for being nonstraight.” The survey suggests that a nonwhite or nonmale candidate is likely to emerge as a real contender – and when that happens, their identity will be a selling point rather than a hindrance.

Back to Square One for the best Democratic candidate to defeat Trump? Perhaps. In fact, many of us feel we are merely holding on in a topsy-turvy environment that more closely resembles a white nationalist past than a progressive present. Short of abandoning important beliefs on gun control and abortion, we Democrats find ourselves open to new strategies to appeal to hardcore centrists. Challenge accepted. New vision with purpose in progress.