Talk:Fertility rite

Religion Start‑class

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Arabia

I have added some referenced material on Arabia.Cpsoper (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC) Some pertinent material from Edward Lane's writing on Egypt is added as illustrative of this, under a juxtaposed section on Egypt.Cpsoper (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISIL

I have added references from the NYT article on the sacralising of rape within the so-called Islamic State, with testimonial evidence, praying before and after rape, and repeated claims that the assault pleases the Deity.Cpsoper (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous editor from Huddersfield claims the material is not relevant to fertility rites and is poorly sourced. Both assertions are fallacious. What could be more relevant to a fertility rite, namely 'religious rituals that reenact, either actually or symbolically, sexual acts and/or reproductive processes', as defined in the lede, than sacralised rape? The source is an NYT journalist, with direct experience of interviews with victims of IS, what better source is sought? Cpsoper (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence that this act is relevant to fertility. It's just an act of domination, and an attempt to humiliate victims. I suppose this ISIS section should be removed as irrelevant. Yuri ar (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just an act of domination? Impregnating women is an act of fertilisation - do any other editors have difficulty perceiving this? Cpsoper (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem a fertility rite at all, it is not for calling fertility of agriculture nor cattle not even a desire for a couple to have childs.

It is just a reward to stimulate and morally justify warrior acts against what they call infidels. It is a way to develop an efficient army of blind canyon meat fanatics which believe that they are going to heaven if they die, for the meanwhile they rape teens and women and do not respect any infidel i.e. not a Muslim. Their goal is to conquer territories making war. That is not mystic at all.

There are many real examples of fertility rites in the world, for example in the ancient Mayan culture where wall paints show their priests dropping some blood from their pennis to have a more fertile ground. There are many phallic or female objects with real ritual sense in other cultures.

This article is very poor. And that justification for rape is intolerable. We can not be tolerant with intolerants. Can anybody rape a girl and pray before penetrating her and tell that is a fertility rite, so it is OK? Please we are not stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.233.106.133 (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try to address the issue from well sourced references WP:RS rather than give a personal opinion. The New York Times is a reasonably reliable source and gives direct quotes attributed to IS fighters and its apologists, even if you disagree with them. If the definition of fertility rite in the lede is disputed, please provide an authoritative source.Cpsoper (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

kid? is this correct for the baby of a cow? It seem a wrong translation

The article mention:

'cooking a kid in the milk of its mother, a Canaanite custom which Mosaic law condemned and formally forbade'

This Mosaic law is the reason that dairy products are not mixed with meat in kosher meals. Here kid seems a wrong translation of the Torah, which refers to a cow and her son. I am not a native speaker to understand if kid here has that meaning. Anyway, it is not clear what this has to do with fertility rites — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.233.106.133 (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The passage alluded to, Deut.14.21 refers to a young goat, a kid.Cpsoper (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT Fertility Rites not sexuality in religions

There is no description of any fertility rite. It is confusing sexuality in religion with fertility rites. Many references but no solid text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.233.106.133 (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The editor needs to remember the definition in the lede, the page concerns itself with rites that 'reenact, either actually or symbolically, sexual acts and/or reproductive processes'.Cpsoper (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

THIS ARTICLE IS A MESS

This article is a MESS Armin1718 (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to make some specific and constructive suggestions for improving it? Cpsoper (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic?

The lede indicates the definition of a fertility rite as 'religious rituals that reenact, either actually or symbolically, sexual acts and/or reproductive processes'. This is an exact description of what the ISIS fighters are claiming, that rape is "'Ibadah", according to NYT. This is not an isolated anecdote but the repeated observation from eye witness accounts of numerous victims [1]. The information is documented too from primary ISIS sources, with commentary from NYT. The label is not pertinent here and should be removed. Cpsoper (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that definition isn't sourced. It dates back to the earliest revision of the article, in 2002. That revision didn't exactly cite sources, as articles that far back generally didn't, and all it contained by way of support for the text was a now-dead link to some online copy of the Columbia Encyclopedia. But if you look at the copy of the Columbia Encyclopedia article found here, it says fertility rites are "magico-religious ceremonies to insure an abundance of food and the birth of children." The Max Weber quote that now appears after the definition is seriously misleading. Weber's full text, seen here, says "sexual intoxication is a typical component of the orgy (emphasis mine), which is the communal religious behavior of the laity at a primitive level," and the reference to "rites of the various functional gods who control reproduction, whether of man, beast, cattle, or grains of seed" appears a couple of sentences later. Weber is discussing the general relationship between religion and sexuality, not defining fertility rites. As far as I can tell, no definition of the term appears in his book.

I've had difficulty tracking down a scholarly, comparative-religion definition of the term, but the most extensive discussion I could find was in a study of the Vestal Virgins published by Routledge, here, that discusses the term to examine how applicable it is to the Vestals.

The term "fertility" is a relatively vague one that, particularly to a layman, has many different connotations. Is a scholar using this term in its broadest sense, as defined by Mircea Eliade, a sense which covers rites of invigoration (that is rites "aimed at stimulating the growth of crops, the fecundity of men and beasts, and the supply of needed sunshine and rainfall throughout the year"), harvest rites (that is rites which celebrate the successful completion of the agricultural year) and many things in between? Alternatively, does the author mean more precisely those rites connected specifically with ensuring the reproduction of human or animal offspring and/or the growth of new crops?"

I haven't been able to trace the Eliade quote to its origins, but it seems clear that the defining trait of fertility rites is not the acts they involve but what they represent or aim to achieve. They're meant to ensure the reproduction of living things, or at least to refer to natural abundance in some way. Fertility rites often do include real or symbolic sex acts, because humans and other animals reproduce that way, but fertility rites don't necessarily involve sexual rituals, and sexual rituals are not necessarily fertility rites.

Thus, the sources that Cpsoper has added support the idea that the Islamic State sacralizes rape, but they don't indicate that such rapes are fertility rites. Similarly, the section on modern Egyptian marriage customs shows that these customs incorporate Islamic rituals, but not that they are fertility rites. The second paragraph of the section on Arabia doesn't even manage that much. All Burckhardt said was that Muslims in Mecca behaved licentiously (and in contravention of Islamic law), not that licentious behavior was ritualized there. The definition in the lead needs to be changed and the off-topic passages removed. A. Parrot (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After a couple of days of no response, I've decided to be bold and change the definition, based on what the source on the Vestal Virgins, by Robin Lorsch Wildfang, says about the meanings that the term can have. Ideally our definition would be based on a broader comparative-religion source, but the Wildfang book does talk about the ways the term is used by comparative-religion scholars. And I've excised the sections on the Islamic world that I criticized above. They don't fit the scholarly definition of the term, and most of the discussion on this talk page has been about this very problem.

I'm actually not entirely sure the first paragraph of the section on Arabia should be kept. Not all the sources are very scholarly, and being unable to consult most of them, I don't know if they explicitly say the circumambulation of the Kaaba was or may have originally been a fertility rite. But I've left it in place for now. A. Parrot (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhat peculiar to use a definition of fertility rite from a work dedicated to a group, whom the author argues 'the rituals the Vestals performed on behalf of the Roman state were neither fertility rites nor reflections of traditional female activities.' How can it serve as an authoritative source, when the subject considered is excluded from consideration? Your intention to remove the Arabian and Islamic State rites, for so they are, is now plain. This comports with the newly narrowed definition, derived from this single source. Other broader sources clearly support a broader definition like the Weber source you have removed, in which sexual acts or acts of impregnation are reenacted in religious rituals, either actually or symbolically.[2],[3],[4],[5] I have restored the components of definition you have removed, the Weber source, whilst I agree it does not add a specific definition provides detailed description of 'phallic cults', orgiastic rituals and the divine control of reproduction. I have also restored the rites which are consistent with the broader definition. The activities in Mecca are not indications of immorality, but according to the source, of cultic behaviour in the forbidden religious areas and at the area which forms the very focus of the religion, justified by its 'sanctity'. Cpsoper (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I used the Wildfang book, even though it doesn't treat fertility rites as particularly relevant to the book's topic, because it's the only one I could find that discusses how scholars of comparative religion—the best sources to consult on a topic like this—have defined fertility rites. It was far from perfect, but at least it discussed the meaning of the term. As it stands, this article lacks a sourced definition of the term, and unless I'm missing something, none of the sources you've just brought up define the term either. Nor do any of the sources supporting the text I removed call those practices fertility rites. What you're doing looks like blatant original research to me. A. Parrot (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree definition is a problem, the other sources use the term frequently, even if they do not define it. A source that doesn't even treat the subject is hardly authoritative. Is it OR to simply reinstate a lede definition? Is it OR to reference sources that provide defining descriptions, though they themselves do not provide definition? If activity meets the lede's definition, is it OR to cite that activity, even if it lacks the specific sanction of the term in the source? If it does not meet the lede's current definition, please clarify your concerns. Cpsoper (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The definition in the lead has been there for years but has never been sourced. And it's false to say that the Wildfang source "doesn't even treat the subject". It spends two paragraphs discussing it and quotes Eliade, a scholar of comparative religion. Obviously it would be better to find what Eliade says—I wish I could—but an imperfectly sourced definition is better than no source at all. A. Parrot (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is reference to conference from Malta University in 1985, it reflects the problems of definition. Emmanuel Ananti whilst expressing disquiet about misuse of the term writes "The term 'Fertility Cult' implies a ritualistic performance meant to promote fertility of nature or human procreation", this lends support a broader definition. Eliade seems to have been controverted strongly. Encyclopedia Britannica's contributors also use the term broadly [6][7]. There are a slew of academic references which also use the term in a broader sense, as a ritual emulation or encouragement of a sexual act, as well as a rite to celebrate or invoke aid for agricultural fertility, some of these I've already added, and will seek to add others, as I have time, here.[8][9][10][11][12] Other clear sources for a definition welcome. Cpsoper (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in those sources that contradicts what I'm saying. Ananti actually criticizes scholars who jump to the conclusion that sexual symbolism indicates the presence of a fertility cult: "It is worth stressing that erotic concerns do not necessarily concern fertility and procreation" (p. 4). My position remains unchanged. A. Parrot (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My main point it that the definition he offers 'a ritualistic performance meant to promote fertility of nature or human procreation', which comports with established sense and usage in many other authors and reference works, is consistent with the existing lede. It is broader than the Wildfang source, being incidental to that author's focus. Several sources explicitly identify fertility cults and their rituals in hieros gamos, which ceremonially reenacts union, symbolically or actually, which is why I've linked the pages. Cpsoper (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't comport with the existing lead. You keep reading into the sources what you want to read. The defining characteristic of a fertility rite, based on Ananti and all the other sourced definitions I've found, is not the activity it involves but the goal it aims to achieve. The existing lead still says that a fertility rite is a ritual sex act or a reenactment of one, but it's entirely possible to have a ritual that aims to promote fertility but contains no sexual acts. The Mesopotamian hieros gamos is no counterexample. The Jacobsen book that you linked to says that in the hieros gamos "the king took on the identity of the god Dumu-zid, the 'quickener of the little ones (in mother's womb)', and through a ritual act of coitus ensured magically that the power of fertility, which was the god, became present to pervade all nature and ensure plenty in the new year". It's a fertility rite because of the goal it aims to achieve.

Now, to support the text you want to include, you seem to believe that any juxtaposition of sex with ritual constitutes a fertility rite. To square that notion with the definitions provided by Ananti and others, you seem to be implicitly arguing that because sex is procreative, any ritualized sex is a fertility rite. As you said two years ago on this page: "Impregnating women is an act of fertilisation – do any other editors have difficulty perceiving this?" I can't find sources that explicitly reject your interpretation of the definition, but Ananti comes close to doing so, if you look past the first page of his study:

"It is worth stressing that erotic concerns do not necessarily concern fertility and procreation." (p. 4)

"…[In central Tanzania] preparing for a full adult life included, among other things, the teaching of sexual behavior and the interaction and cooperation required for a couple to live in harmony. Some teachings concerned procreation and how to avoid it, but there is no evidence of fertility 'cults' despite numerous erotic paintings and figurines." (p. 5)

"Figurines from the Natufian culture of Palestine include a copulating couple and a few objects of stone which are certainly an expression of their interest for sex, but provide no explicit evidence for fertility cults." (p. 7)

The material I removed has been criticized by at least two editors besides me (Yuri ar and 189.233.106.133). The reasoning for including it is very shaky—the sources that it is based on say nothing about fertility rites and do not say the behavior they describe is meant to promote the fertility of nature or human procreation. The grounds for including it are an unsourced definition of the term that was in this article when it was created 16 years ago, and the fact that sex is (or can be) procreative. Even on those grounds, the text based on Lane and Burckhardt should be removed. Lane does not describe a sex act per se, and Burckhardt is deliberately vague about what type of licentious behavior he's describing. Moreover, excluding accurate information (which you claim the disputed text is) is better than including misinformation (which I claim the disputed text is). Until you can find sources that directly support the definition of a fertility rite that you're arguing for, this text should be removed. A. Parrot (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The central question of definition is whether 'religious rituals that reenact, either actually or symbolically, sexual acts and/or reproductive processes' are fertility rites or not. It was not my own definition, it was unsourced, however widespread consistency with its use is well attested in the numerous references I have given. Ananti's definition is a considerable improvement on Wildfang, and his own reaction against other scholars who 'overuse' the term is witness to his own desire to redraw the definition of fertility cults and rituals, and has its defects. I will not reintroduce the sourced text without more explicit sourcing for the original definition [13], but I oppose its removal on these grounds. The text you have removed is about religious rituals that indeed reenact and sacralise sexual acts or the preparation for them. Lane's description of marriage is highly sexual and is preparatory to the act. I am surprised you contest that Burckhardt's description is focused primarily on sexual activity, activity that would have been extremely scandalous outside of Mecca, but which he records was cloaked with justification because of its proximity to the 'holy' sites, as he quotes 'the cities forbidden to infidels abound with forbidden things'. Whilst characteristic of a fertility cult in the old sense, I accept this in and of itself falls short of ritualistic behaviour. Islamic State's actions plainly fall within the old definition. Cpsoper (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Circumambulation

Hill's 'Eastern definitions: A Short Encyclopedia of Religions of the Orient', p 207: 'hanifs...circumambulated nude, going around the structure seven times counterclockwise, a practice (except for the nudity) still observed.' I have removed the lack of validation label. Cpsoper (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see two Hadith sources bear this out. [14], it may be worth adding reference to these. Cpsoper (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merely saying one is going around nude doesn't make it a fertility rite, related to sexual reproduction. It should be other authors claiming how it is and whether it is actually a fertility rite, Hill's 'Eastern definitions: A Short Encyclopedia of Religions of the Orient' doesn't claim it is so. The hadiths you cite have nothing to do with it, but I don't get it whether you are citing the modern Islamic ritual (which is not about any fertility rites) or pre-Islamic one. Your edits don't seem to be good, you are making assertions by yourself. Ajaraman (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice you made claims about Kaaba as a supposed goddess in pre-Islamic times and Black Stone as a vulva. While they are notable, there is no connection with fertility rites asides from your own claims. Ajaraman (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion the Kaaba bears resemblance to the vulva is noted in several citations. The observation that a female deity was worshipped in Mohamed's time is made by Ibn Ishaq, as translated by Guillaume. That nude circumambulation around a vulva-like structure has no sexual content is a subject for discussion perhaps, but given it is asserted by two authors as a reenactment of or imitation a sexual act, this certainly meets the definition given here previously for a fertility rite. The definition has recently been pruned, in a way that has been disputed, see above. You have removed well sourced and encyclopaedic material. We've only documented the roots of current observance, though it is noteworthy, than even today circumabulation is obligatorily performed by men without their underwear, so some resemblance to the tradition persists [15]. Cpsoper (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Kaaba is not a vulva-like structure, it is a cube-like structure which we all know about and others accept. The Black Stone might be, but the gilded frames used to claim it have been added to it in The Islamic period for its protection. Whether Kaaba was worshipped as a female deity is a claim by Guillaume. You claim here that two authors note about being a reenactment of a sexual rite, actually no one did that. Whether underwear can be worn or not is disputed though many think it is not [16]. The objective however is not preserving a pre-Islamic ritual, but not wearing anything with seams. It is abundantly clear that you have been making claims out of any source. Ajaraman (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume only translates Ibn Ishaq's account, noting Ishaq's use of the feminine to describe the Kaaba in a footnote ('O God do not be afraid', fn 'The feminine form indicates the Kaaba itself is addressed', p.85). The term Kaaba is used as metonymy. These two sources you removed indicate the highly sexualised nature of the worship involved, which defined a fertility rite at this page at the time of the edits.^[1]^[2] There are plenty of kinds of seamless underwear, can you give sources indicating why would any worshipper put these aside for a 'sacred' act? Cpsoper (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read that well. "The feminine form indicates the Kaaba itself is addressed". Can you please tell me where at all they said it was regarding sex or it was a fertility rite? Earlier you said the authors asserted, now it is indicated. You know that well and for long you have been inserting your claims. This is clear your motivations aren't okay here. Ajaraman (talk) 09:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ishaq cites al-Mughira invoking the Kaaba as Deity, 'O God', a feminine deity. The two cited sources you removed address your question about sexuality. Cpsoper (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a comment of Alfred Guillaume that Kaaba itself may be a deity, but regardless merely saying it is a goddess doesn't make it valid to insert in an article about fertility rite. You need others for that. Do you see the faulty methodology you have been applying for so long? At best you are making a connection on your own. Ajaraman (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for why Muslims must not wear anything except the ihram clothing, is seen as to refer to requiring one to be in a state of ritual purity (miqaat), to destroy the ego and be like one who is raised naked but then clothed during resurrection. [17], [18]. Ajaraman (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added interpretations of two authors, Barnaby Rogerson and Benjamin Walker, about pre-Islamic Arabia. It is my hope that there will be no conundrum now. Also there's a paragraph about connection of growth of trees and Islamic traditions. Ajaraman (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

refs

^ Tate, Karen (2006). Sacred Places of Goddess: 108 Destinations. San Francisco: Consortium of Collective Consciousness Publishing. p. 165. ISBN 978-1-888729-11-5.
^ Camphausen, Rufus (1996). The Yoni, Sacred Symbol of Female Creative Power. Vermont: Inner Traditions Bear and Company. p. 134. ISBN 978-0-89281-562-3.

I suggest removal of the 'Contemporary analogues' section

The three examples mentioned in the section seem to be rather far-fetched, especially the Kreuzinger one. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC) Since no-one seemed to have any objections, I went ahead and deleted the section in question. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 12:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section on "Christian"

Hello fellow Wikipedians! User 46.97.176.155 had added a paragraph titled "Christian" about Jesus' parable of the sower and comparisons between agricultural themes and the belief in the resurrection of the dead. Interesting though these comparisons may be, I don't see what they have to do with fertility rites, as they do not describe actual rites or rituals and are only indirectly related to fertility. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[tate-1] Tate, Karen (2006). Sacred Places of Goddess: 108 Destinations. San Francisco: Consortium of Collective Consciousness Publishing. p. 165. ISBN 978-1-888729-11-5.

[camphausen-2] Camphausen, Rufus (1996). The Yoni, Sacred Symbol of Female Creative Power. Vermont: Inner Traditions Bear and Company. p. 134. ISBN 978-0-89281-562-3.

[1]

[2]