Introduction

Song of Songs – or the Sexy Sexy Book as I like to call it – is widely untouched in today’s Christian churches. When referenced it is the example of what sex after marriage will be or is interpreted allegorically. The purpose of this essay is to address Song of Songs 5:2-8 with regards to sexual violence and gender oppression. As a former evangelical, turned liberal Protestant, sexual ethics and gender identity have been main themes in my own Biblical approach. The perspective that follows is of a not-quite-straight female who was raised in purity culture. Feminist and queer scholars alike have interpreted this text while still favoring traditional binaries. Even queer theorists tend to focus more on the pornographic elements of the text that fall under the “male gaze” of heterosexual norms. As someone who doesn’t quite fit in any queer category, besides queer as an umbrella term, this text is read from both the perspective of the man and the woman traditionally portrayed in interpretation. For the sake of discussion this will be referred to as a pansexual perspective, which brings influences of feminist theory, queer theory, and transgender studies.

The strategies used here are completely removed from their historical context, but draw on the social implications the text itself invites the reader to look at. It questions provocative and traditional interpretations in order to push past the pornographic stigma of the text and look plainly at the narrative presented. It will specifically focus on sexual violence in connection with social judgement based on sexual orientation. The aim is to bring members of the LGBTQIA+ community into the conversation of sexual violence, as those who have been publicly and privately judged for their own sexual/gender preferences. The hope, as Ellen T. Armour puts it, for the essay itself to reside at the nexus of past and present and render visible traces of ancient origins, track biblical and postbiblical history of interpretation, and bring to bear contemporary issues and approaches”.[i]

For the sake of discussion, the terms of male/female and he/she will be used to refer to the lovers to explore the limitations of a statically gendered reading. This binary will be used to shed light on the social implications of a traditional reading within society, and how a non-gendered reading gives all victims of sexual violence a place in the narrative. It will push back against the arguments for a S&M reading of the Song while deliberating arguing for a more inclusive and imaginative reading of the text.

Exegetical Analysis

Chapter 5:2-8 is mostly ignored in feminist theory and at large. It is understandable that people want to avoid the one verse of the book that mentions violence. Without it the Song is a love poem that focuses on desire and the erotic nature of humankind. Even with a divine, God-given view of human sexuality and eroticism there is a dark side. Karl Möller writes the following on this shadow side: “There are dark and deeply destructive sides to desire, too, such as when the other is seen, used and abused as an object rather than honoured as a subject that meets us on their own terms. Here we may speak of self-centred or closing desire, which can lead to a powerful urge to control and dominate others, causing them profound and often lasting physical, emotional and spiritual harm”.[ii] Chapter five of the Song needs to be examined in order to acknowledge that great harm has been done in the name of desire. This passage, although challenging to sit with, is necessary to accurately display human sexuality in all its forms.

We step on the scene in the middle of the drama. Four full chapters have come before and three more will follow. Although, it occupies a small portion of the Song, the passage holds a principal theme within its physically central location. It is easily hidden by the text that surrounds it. Though many would sweep it away with its short length, it is essential that it is addressed. It begins by displaying a flirtatious and highly sensual interaction between the lovers, and ends in violence committed by the hands of the “watchmen”. Before directly interacting with this passage some general themes of the Song need to be covered.

The lovers never possess each other, which makes the Song quite… frustrating. The lovers are left wanting. It is the implicit nature of metaphor that so easily draws the reader’s attention and which puts the Song under much scrutiny from scholars. The most compelling reason that this particular scene in chapter five can and should be taken literally is the Song’s poetic style. Poets and artists as a whole write stories. Even fiction and fantasy follow elements of the real, although embellished. It is the poetry that many scholars have put under the microscope. People have been fascinated with the Song for centuries and it is one of the most written about books of the Bible. It has been referred to as “high-class pornography” by some and artfully erotic by others.[iii] Many have taken on the task of uncovering its poetry to decipher its meaning and re-writing it in their own terms.

Marvin Pope and Roland Boer are two such folks. Pope does a sensual translation of the Song with the purpose of an allegorical reading. Taking liberty to translate breath (7:8) as vulva and implying the use of a thrusting hand (5:4) as “coital intromission” or penetration.[iv] Also in defense of an allegorical reading, Boer takes on the task of literal translation and claims the Song is unmistakably pornographic in nature. If it was pornographic, what would keep the author from using the same explicitly graphic terms Boer uses to “decode” the Song? Boer argues that in pornography there must be concealment in order for viewers to see and believe it is real. He compares this to the metaphor of the Song, suggesting that it is the same type of concealment. “In written pornography the language functions in the same way as the Song, whereas in visual pornography the standard scene of penis/dildo/tongue/hand in some orifice only serves to conceal the penetrating item at the very moment of penetration”.[v] It is a convincing argument, but it is flawed. In written pornography, or erotica, sexual terms are explicitly used. The leap from the metaphor of the Song to written pornography is analogous with biology and physics or PG-13 movies and X-rated films. Although they may fall under the same literary category much is left to the imagination in the Song that is much more explicit in written or visual pornography.

Another big difference here is that pornography favors a male gaze. A dictionary on media and communication defines male gaze as, “A manner of treating women's bodies as objects to be surveyed, which is associated by feminists with hegemonic masculinity, both in everyday social interaction and in relation to their representation in visual media: see also objectification”.[vi] Although the woman’s body is surveyed in the Song it is not a detached survey.

The Song’s carnal gaze is also one of admiration and longing. The male gaze favors the focus of the male and makes the woman the object of the gaze who is shaped by its action. Our lover is not objective in the slightest. On the contrary this particular male is head over heels for his lover. He says she is the lotus blossom, all other women are thorns (2:2). Among sixty queens and eighty concubines, and young women without number (6:8), my dove, my perfect one, is the only one (6:9). These are not the empty words of a womanizer who is surveying a woman with wandering eyes. The woman also has the power to disarm her lover in 6:5, which is evident by his request for her to turn her eyes away from him, for they overwhelm me. Our dominant male is disarmed by his lover. Our traditionally female lover also holds the focus of the Song with almost twice as much dialogue as her lover.

The Song has been read with a male-centered lens that parallels the instruction, Stephen Moore also makes pornographic claims, drawing on Polaski and Clines. “We are dealing with a male text…the woman is everywhere constructed as the object of the male gaze…To her male spectators , the readers of the poem, she cannot say, ‘Do not stare at me’; for she has been brought into existence precisely to be stared at…the poet now invites his readers to share his sight of the woman’s humiliation”.[vii] This is to put the text itself under the male gaze. Is it humiliation the reader is invited to see or is it the timeless search for intimacy? It may be some scholars inclination to read in such a way, but that is also to remove the love and desire between the young couple. The male figure is not the only one who admires his lover’s body. He in turn is put under scrutiny of the female’s gaze. Cheryl Exum writes that the strongest critique of sexual relations in the Song…comes from men”.[viii] This is not surprising because it is their own male gaze the authors are fighting against.

The argument for the masochistic nature of the text is that the lovers frustratingly never consummate their love. Masochism is often fused together with sadism leading to a misinterpretation. A sadist enjoys inflicting pain on an unwilling subject and gets off on the person’s resistance to the pain. In contrast, a masochist receives pleasure from the pain and delay of satisfaction. Hence, the claim for the masochistic nature of the text. Many make the claim that the Song goes nowhere, “except to leave the reader more and more in suspended sexual frustration.[ix] Not only are the lovers left wanting, but the readers as well. The misstep here is the nature of desire itself.

Writing about sex and foreplay could easily be seen as pornographic because of its sensual metaphor that leaves the reader wanting more. The Song, however, also leaves its lovers in suspense and longing. It is not the nature of poetry and art as a whole to express longings? The nature of desire is longing. Möller writes, “The Song brilliantly captures how we move back and forth between delight in our lover’s beauty, desire for intimate union and the joys of intoxicating sexual pleasure and consummation. Not only is desire for the good, but it is for the good that desire cannot be satisfied once and for all, as this makes us able to participate more fully and more continuously in the goodness of the world. It is desire that drives us”.[x] Desire occurs over and over. It is satisfied and then arises again. The Song follows the same pattern. There is no definitive conclusion on how many individual poems are in the Song or if it is one long poem. Is it not plausible then that the sections lend themselves to different moments of desire? Chapter 5 and 3 parallel each other, but the latter ends in a more pleasant way than our battered woman in the former. It is not uncommon for encounters of desire to mimic each other. Lovers have their favorite bars, favorite positions, games, roles, etc…

Thus far the focus has been on traditional interpretations of Song at large. Its pornographic and masochistic nature have been examined and compared to the nature of desire. Chapter five of the Song is often referred to as a dream sequence among scholars. This reading lends itself to an interpretation of a S&M reading. Boer links verse six and seven of chapter 5 as the interpretive key of the Song. A woman is being beaten. Since this is interpreted as a fantasy or dream, the troubling question is if the fantasy is a willed dynamic of power or a literary punishment for the woman’s transgression of gender roles. He says, “The problem with this question lies at the heart of masochism itself: the unresolvable question over willed or forced pain generates the dynamic of masochism, for often the contract (willed) explicitly includes the unexpected use of force.[xi] Boer wants to say that it is in these two verses that the line between willed and unwilled submission of masochism is played on.

The world the Song was written in did not have the terminology of S&M. To read it today as such would do victims of assault a great injustice. It is akin to the story of Romeo and Juliet whose love was forbidden because of their families hatred for one another. The lovers communicate and invite each other into their private gardens. It is serves both as an invitation to intimacy as well as away from the view of the public eye. Could it be that their love is forbidden or judged? The woman tells her friends about her lover right after she is beaten, but even they question her (5:9). Without gendered language this could easily be read as a queer couple who faces scrutiny in the public eye.

It is plausible that these exchanges, if taken literally, did not happen over the course of a few minutes, but were instead planned out ahead of time. If read as a queer couple, maybe they had reason to rendezvous in private. Within its historical context, it could involve a rock thrown to a shutter or a friend used as a messenger. The lovers planned to meet, but she must wait until the rest of the house is asleep. In the meantime, they are both fantasizing about their anticipated encounter.

Many scholars want to make this a heterosexual married couple. There is no evidence that the lovers are married. If read today as a queer couple it does not steer far off from a real story. Not only does a binary reading eliminate the queer community from the conversation, it gives itself over to a misogynistic reading. It is also in the conversation of a S&M fantasy that our female lover becomes the object of humiliation under a male gaze. To say that the lover’s unquenched desire for one another is masochism is to say that desire is masochistic. It is to say poetry about longing for a lover is masochistic. And yet, desire itself is never fully satisfied.

The lover is enticed and invited to open up. After a little banter when the lover arises to open the door, no one is there. When they seek their beloved, there is no answer. Instead, they are found by the watchmen. Originally coming from the verb שָׁמַר, “to keep,” it also takes on the meaning guard, observe, and watch. Guard or watchmen may also imply a position of power, as one who protects or keeps the city. Or the “watchers” are the name of a gang of male gazers. In lieu of a verse by verse dissection of the text I offer a contemporary, non-gendered reading, parallel to its NRSV counterpart.  

   2 I’m in bed dreaming about my lover when I hear a buzz. It’s a text from my lover, “Come over babe, meet me at the bar and then we can go back to my place for some fun ;)”

   3 I played it coy and said I already showered and shaved. I’m squeaky clean, so why would I want to get dirty again? (re: sex can be messy).

   4 My lover goes to the bathroom and sends an enticing pic and my heart is leaping.

  5  I was already turned on so I went to the bar to surprise my lover. I was wet with anticipation as I paused before I opened the door to the bar.

   6 When I opened it, my lover wasn’t there. My heart sunk for an instant. I looked around and searched and asked the bartender and my lover’s friends. I went to the alley where my lover went for air or a smoke break. I heard a noise and called out. I sent a text to my lover, but there was no answer.

   7 These assholes found me as they walked home. They heard me calling and thought they could provide the company I wanted. They surrounded me, held me down, and hit me when I resisted. They raped me, those assholes.

   8 My friends, I plead to you, if you find me lover, say that I am sick with love.

2 I slept, but my heart was awake.
Listen! my beloved is knocking.
“Open to me, my sister, my love,
    my dove, my perfect one;
for my head is wet with dew,
    my locks with the drops of the night.”
3 I had put off my garment;
    how could I put it on again?
I had bathed my feet;
    how could I soil them?
4 My beloved thrust his hand into the opening,
    and my inmost being yearned for him.
5 I arose to open to my beloved,
    and my hands dripped with myrrh,
my fingers with liquid myrrh,
    upon the handles of the bolt.
6 I opened to my beloved,
    but my beloved had turned and was gone.
My soul failed me when he spoke.
I sought him, but did not find him;
    I called him, but he gave no answer.
7 Making their rounds in the city
    the sentinels found me;
they beat me, they wounded me,
    they took away my mantle,
    those sentinels of the walls.
8 I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem,
    if you find my beloved,
tell him this:
    I am faint with love.

Alternatively, our text recipient could be invited directly over and as they arrive our lover has gone out for drinks with friends. Our recipient again wanders home hoping to find them at their favorite bar, but instead encounters the surveying men.

Arguments can be made of a dream sequence, but there is something taken away from an understanding of love by removing it from the real. It lacks the violence that occurs at the hands of those who survey. It is unfortunate that it is a reality, but a reality nonetheless. One that, if covered up, silences countless numbers of voices whose stories deserve to be heard and held.

Conclusion

In this paper I have tried to provide a queer reading of Song 5:2-8 in light of sexual violence. I suggested that this section is largely ignored in traditional commentaries, which is an injustice to the text. I pulled from feminist and queer theorists and found that they have uplifted a pornographic reading of the text in favor of an allegorical reading. I’ve also found feminist scholars who do not touch it because it is the one place in the Song that violence occurs.

It is not S&M that I seek to discredit in this conversation. Rather it is the enforcement of S&M on the Song giving special care to 5:2-8. There are inevitably limitations to the conversation. One such limitation is the lack of psychological study on the nature of S&M itself in accordance with male domination historically. My own reading is done with a personal, ethical responsibility to call attention to abuse and sexual violence. It is the echoes of assault victims who are told, “You asked for it”; “What were you wearing?”; “Why didn’t you stop them?” that ring as I read interpreters arguing for S&M. It also comes as a social critique to wonder about such a reading. Has it been timelessly misread and instead is a commentary on the social, political, and religious judgement of various romantic relationships? This would require a much more in depth conversation could be had about pornography, the art of biblical poetry, Song of Songs, and allegorical interpretation.

This is not the only instance in the biblical canon that a woman has been abused, beaten, or raped, which are often deemed the “the texts of terror”. It is no secret that sexual violence is still very prevalent in today’s society. It is a misuse of power that has been utilized in war, marriage, church, and many others. The #MeToo movement is a powerful one that gives voice to previous silenced victims. This should not be discounted, however it tends to favor the female the voice. It does not address the sexual violence done against trans, non-binary, asexual, bi, and gay persons. Sexual orientation and sexual preference should not matter when it comes to sexual violence, but it does. Stigma surrounds sexual violence, which is why it is not always reported. Historically, queer people have faced scrutiny under the public eye. In a justice system where our forefathers are straight white men there is not only a lack of empathy, but a general lack of concern around sexual violence. It is difficult to write about this topic delicately, with compassion towards all parties involved. There has been a suffocating silence around sexual violence until recent years. Although most college orientation weeks mention that 1 in 3 women will experience sexual violence in their lifetime that number does not take into account sexual orientation. A study done on sexual violence and police reporting by gender identity discovered the following:

“Nearly 3.5% of Americans identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ; Gates, 2011), and prevalence of experiencing sexual assault/rape among these individuals is higher than among their heterosexual peers (e.g., Walters, Chen, & Breiding, 2013). A national estimate suggests rates of sexual assault among cisgender, lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) persons to be as high as 46% for lesbian women, 75% for bisexual women, 40% for gay men, and 47% for bisexual men, compared to 43% for heterosexual women and 21% for heterosexual men (Walters et al., 2013)”.[xii]

The findings of the study indicated, “transgender individuals report having experienced sexual assault/rape more than twice as frequently as cisgender LGBQ individuals”.[xiii] It is these numbers that are left unsaid. “In a study using data from the Virginia Transgender Health Initiative Study (N 5 271), 26.6% of transgender participants reported a history of sexual assault since age 13 years, with 89.2% of those stating their gender identity or expression was the primary motivator for the assault; researchers found no differences in rates of sexual violence between transgender men and transgender women (Testa et al., 2012)”.[xiv] A queer reading of the Song lends itself to special examination of the lovers’ secrecy. They retreat in private to make love, but could it be to avoid the public eye? Chapter 8 makes it clear that there is familial tension because the female lover must be guarded and hidden. In light of a queer reading it would be appropriate to read this in regards to familial tension around sexuality and gender.

There is a responsibility when reading 5:2-8 to step back and recognize that these are not nameless, faceless lovers. As a church this text should be used to talk about consent, abuse, and sexual assault. The conversation matters as much today as it did when the Song was written. It takes conversations and shedding light on abuse of power and the shadow side of desire to change the story.

Bibliography

Boer, Roland. Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door: The Bible and Popular Culture. Biblical Limits. New York: Routledge, 1999.

———. The Earthy Nature of the Bible: Fleshly Readings of Sex, Masculinity, and Carnality. First edition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

Chandler, Daniel, and Rod Munday. “Male Gaze.” In A Dictionary of Media and Communication. Oxford University Press, 2011. https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199568758.001.0001/acref-9780199568758-e-1594.

Hornsby, Teresa J., and Ken Stone. Bible Trouble: Queer Reading at the Boundaries of Biblical Scholarship. Atlanta, UNITED STATES: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ptseminary/detail.action?docID=3118219.

Langenderfer-Magruder, Lisa, N. Eugene Walls, Shanna K. Kattari, Darren L. Whitfield, and Daniel Ramos. “Sexual Victimization and Subsequent Police Reporting by Gender Identity Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Adults.” Violence and Victims; New York 31, no. 2 (2016): 320–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-14-00082.

Möller, Karl. The Song of Songs: Beautiful Bodies, Erotic Desire and Intoxicating Pleasure. Grove Biblical B89. Cambridge: Grove Books Limited, 2018.

Moore, Stephen D. The Bible in Theory: Critical and Postcritical Essays. Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study, no. 57. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010.

[i] Teresa J. Hornsby and Ken Stone, Bible Trouble: Queer Reading at the Boundaries of Biblical Scholarship (Atlanta, UNITED STATES: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 4, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ptseminary/detail.action?docID=3118219.

[ii] Karl Möller, The Song of Songs: Beautiful Bodies, Erotic Desire and Intoxicating Pleasure, Grove Biblical B89 (Cambridge: Grove Books Limited, 2018), 22.

[iii] Stephen D. Moore, The Bible in Theory: Critical and Postcritical Essays, Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study, no. 57 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010), 253. From Michael Goulder’s book, The Song of Fourteen Songs (1986, 79).

[iv] Moore, 241–43.

[v] Roland Boer, Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door: The Bible and Popular Culture, Biblical Limits (New York: Routledge, 1999), 63.

[vi] Daniel Chandler and Rod Munday, “Male Gaze,” in A Dictionary of Media and Communication (Oxford University Press, 2011), https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199568758.001.0001/acref-9780199568758-e-1594.

[vii] Moore, The Bible in Theory, 254.

[viii] Moore, 254. Moore goes on to say, “Exum cannily advises women not only to be willing to join men in the feminist critique of what may after all turn out to be yet another androcentric and misogynistic biblical text but also to continue to insist on their right to appropriate it positively, even through positive misreadings.”

[ix] Roland Boer, The Earthy Nature of the Bible: Fleshly Readings of Sex, Masculinity, and Carnality, First edition (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 29.

[x] Möller, The Song of Songs, 17. Includes excerpt from Jan-Olav Henriksen.

[xi] Boer, The Earthy Nature of the Bible, 32–33.

[xii] Lisa Langenderfer-Magruder et al., “Sexual Victimization and Subsequent Police Reporting by Gender Identity Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Adults,” Violence and Victims; New York 31, no. 2 (2016): 320, http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-14-00082.

[xiii] Langenderfer-Magruder et al., 327.

[xiv] Langenderfer-Magruder et al., 322.