Here’s my opinion on godspousing.
It will definitely surprise you. All of you.
This is a 18-plus article. No adult images, but there’s definitely adult text in it. Be warned.
Before we begin, take your time to read the title once again. Read it word by word. “Here is my opinion on godspousing”. That’s what it says.
Am I saying this is the absolute truth about godspousing? No. It says “opinion”, not “fact”. Read it again.
Am I saying differing opinions are dumb [or insert negative qualifier here]? Also no. It says “my opinion”, not “the opinion everyone should have”. Read it again.
Do I have a right to my own opinion, regardless of how it may or may not make you feel? Oh yes. Yes I do.
My opinion was recently formed and evolved quite radically from what it used to be, although I’ve been familiar with the concept of “godspousing” according to other people’s definitions for quite a while now. I don’t “work” off of assumptions and first impressions. I take my sweet time making up my mind about things. That’s how I roll and I don’t feel like becoming somebody else anytime soon. This opinion of mine could mature further, and if it does, I’ll make another article in the future. It is what it is for now, though.
Is it realistic to marry a god? I mean, morals aside. Is there logic to it? Does it make sense?
Perhaps the overly sensitive feelers will take this personally and think I’m “against” godspousing right off the bat. Just because I’m questioning it. This is to be expected, and no, I don’t need an oracle to predict that one. Most people in spiritual circles have a way, way WAY more intuitive personality than I (by which I mean: prone to assumptions, with a weird aversion to actual logic and fact-checking) which is why I don’t get on with the overwhelming majority of them. (This overwhelming majority being INFP and ISFJ people, especially online — if you follow Jungian psychology you know what I mean). And do I care? Honestly, I used to. I no longer care though. I’ve lost all hope in trying to make myself understood in these communities. Luckily, this is Medium, not tumblr or Patheos Pagan, so there are atheists and people of all faiths following and talking to me. I suppose at least these outsiders who lurk here might be interested in what I have to say — or less resistant to the message, which is why I’m bothering to write it at all.
Now, for the godspouses who might happen upon this article:
If you’re one of those people who want every message delivered with a generous coat of sugar and perhaps a few manipulative tricks here and there “to help the medicine go down”… There’s no need to keep reading. I am no Mary Poppins. You’re on the wrong blog.
If on the other hand, you’re capable of caring more about IMPERSONAL logic than you care about your PERSONAL emotions around a topic — at least for the duration of this article (which is what? 10 minutes or so?), welcome here.
I will not explain the above over and over. I’ll just redirect you to it if you happen to overlook it. I’m not here to be pleasant or “a lady” to you. I can go as far as ACKNOWLEDGING AND VALIDATING your feelings that could arise from your wishful thinking, but I will not CODDLE you for that. I hope I made myself clear. So if you keep reading from here, that’s on you. Nobody is forcing you.
(Sorry, I know, not all marriages — including the ones with gods — are heteronormative. I’m limited to the photos Unsplash has to offer though)
What’s the meaning of “spouse”? — Married person. That’s what it means. So… What IS marriage? What can be considered a marriage, and what can’t?
Well, the way I see it, a marriage is a social contract you get into in order to formalise your commitment to start a family with someone. In fact, this is the definition we have in the law here in Ireland and in a lot of other countries.
Back in 2015 when I helped the local community here in a campaign in favour of marriage equality, one of the main tenets of the new bill (which happily was approved via a referendum) to include same sex marriage in the definition of “marriage” was the idea that we should also update the definition of “family”. This was about the right to marry, it had NOTHING to do with adoption laws and whatnot; And yet, it was important to also amend the definition of “family” (formerly, “the union of a man and a woman, and any offspring arising from that union”, and now, “the union of two people regardless of gender, and any offspring”). Hence, we conclude (from this context, anyway) that marriages have the intent of starting families. And the bare minimum requirement for there to be a family (for legal and tax purposes), in a lot of places, is the existence of a married couple.
“But Lucy, why are you being such a killjoy and only trusting a legal definition of family? Have you no heart”, I predict some people wanting to ask. My answer is “no, I have no heart. Didn’t you know I’m a cranky Capricorn?” — Kidding (just sometimes).
Jokes aside, I don’t care THAT much about defining things with basis on what’s legal only. The thing is, I care about practicality. Give me a definition that means SOMETHING in practice — i.e. that will have any kind of meaningful effect in the grand scheme of things — and I’ll get behind it. Law is one of these things; Religious tradition is another, both valid. Personal “feelings”, however, are not in the same category. They only affect one person, and nobody else needs to care or even know about it, because whether or not they do, it changes nothing in the wider context. It accomplished nothing. It could as well just exist in somebody’s head (and heart) and be no-one else’s business.
So you can rant and rave all you want about how you and your pet are “a family” (some people even marry their pets…), or how you and other kind of non-human being are a family; I’m not listening. I don’t mean to say “treat them bad”, no, by all means spoil them. They deserve your love. They deserve your care. But no, you can’t be family members in equal standing because plain and simple you’re different species. You’re mutual friends AT BEST. Your communication only goes as far as the more obvious signs. You can’t connect on the same level you do with a fellow human. And you can’t have offspring together, not even adopted, because that’ll be one-sided. Either the animal will mate with someone else’s pet and have pups, or take on adopted pups and you’ll be watching that; OR you will have kids with some other human, or adopt human kids, and your companion of other species will be watching. It’s never mutual though. (I made a comparison with animals here, but you can use your imagination with deities too).
And no, before you ask, I don’t believe in demigods either.
Some people love indulging in theoretical idealism and abstractions just for the beauty of the thought process, without any practical outcome (the ISFJs and INFPs I mentioned, for example). I don’t, though. And let me remind you: this article is written from my perspective and viewpoint. I’m not invalidating the existence of other viewpoints, for the zillionth time don’t come attacking me for expressing mine — I’m simply saying I’m one person. Be realistic in what you expect of me.
“But what about the nuns”
Aren’t they “married to [the Christian] god” or something?
Yes, according to tradition, they are. Not all churches adopt this tradition, and I’ve heard it’s dying out even in Catholicism (which probably started it), but it IS a thing. This is the main argument Neopagan godspouses use in favor of, well, marrying a god. It’s also a handy comparison when explaining to newbies and outsiders alike that not all godspouses have sexual relations with their god partner — because that’s also true. It’s a union, not necessarily of a sexual nature. The Christian one is most definitely NOT sexual. EVER. And that’s perfectly valid.
That said… Let’s get into morals for a sec.
Don’t you find it weird how nuns are “married to god”, but male priests aren’t? Because, last time I checked, both are celibate. So if a thing is valid for one gender, it should also be valid for the other. Isn’t the Christian god “all present”? Well, that’s a strong argument in favour of the hypothesis he could be present in both genders. As in, he’s not just “a man” or “a woman”; he is everything (in the Christian belief and according to Christian logic). Isn’t he? Perhaps we use “he” for ease of reference, because too much pedantism with all the pronouns he deserves would render the Bible 10 times bigger.
…OR maybe that’s just sexism. I don’t know for sure. I’m not even Christian so I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m just showing you the muddy waters you’re in if you’re still holding on to that nun metaphor. Either way, there’s an interesting trend gender-wise in the godspousing community: it’s overwhelmingly made up of women. Not a man to be seen, at times. All just women (or very, very, VERY female-leaning non-binaries) marrying gods and goddesses and everything in between, as far as the horizon lets you see. What does that mean, socially? Ah, that’s a topic for another article! But you’re free to speculate in the comments.
That’s not to say men don’t “spouse” gods and goddesses. It happened in myth (well………… Not really. We’ll get to that), so in theory it could also happen in real life. Thing is: will it, though? In practice? Are you sure? I’m not as sure.
I don’t know, but something tells me that Historically and socially, the pressure to marry has always been stronger on women. Especially so in western society. This begs the question, did the nuns of the past simply need to justify their “freedom” from marriage to human men by saying “well actually, I was claimed by God instead. Sorry to disappoint you”? Doesn’t that speak VOLUMES in terms of how women never had a chance (up until very recently) to simply live their lives without worrying about match-making? Food for thought, my friend.
I’m not just saying this to be “woke”. I’m saying this to drive a point home: maybe, just maaaaaaybe, if sexism wasn’t a thing, you wouldn’t see as many nuns saying they’re “married to God”. Maybe they’d just go about their religious duties and think nothing of the lack of men (or reproduction in a more general sense) in their lives.
So… “it happened in myth”. Let’s get into that.
“Hermes had relations with Crocus”, “Apollon with Hyakinthos”.
Aye, absolutely, sex happened. Gay sex, to be more precise. If you’re not a literalist (neither am I. High five!), maybe you interpret these myths as “a god transformed a human (or, eh, a non-god) through ecstasy”. There’s still an undertone of letting go and letting in, come on; Even in the metaphorical readings, I’d rate them 18+.
Same for the heteronormative: Zeus with all these women, Hermes with many other women, Apollon with a lot of women, Venus with this or that man; Morrigan with several men; Sgàthach with Cú Chulainn (a mortal), etc.
But can you consider yourself “married” to a god just based on your level of, uh, intimate proximity to them? Is that allowed?
This will depend on religion (yes, even within polytheism). There are traditions where you cannot, ever, under any circumstance go as far as implying you’re partners with a god REGARDLESS of how sexual you get (notoriously, Tibetan polytheism/shamanism, and the Orisa cultus within Ifá tradition in Nigeria). There are other traditions (or, okay, let me reword it: there WERE other traditions, in a distant past) where it was perfectly ok to include your name in the list of “consorts” with a god (notoriously: Greek, Norse, and Celtic polytheism). Other traditions, even, are open to the idea but will not make it too mainstream (notoriously: Santería, Hinduism and Shintoism). And finally, if you exclude “sexual proximity” from the umbrella of “intimate proximity”, as we already saw, there are traditions where you can technically marry a god (“the only” god) as long as you join a convent and abstain from all kinds of sexual relations in every context. Very good, very well, thanks for coming to my amateur Anthropology TED talk on (Historically-backed) Godspousing.
So, now that we went through (and hopefully learned) the lesson on “not all religious/spiritual traditions allow intimate partnership with a god”, let’s go back to the ones that do, in order to find out if any (existing and reconstructed alike) have any precedent for actually MARRYING a god. Let’s take the Greek example, in mythology only: who did Zeus have sex with?
There’s a long list of goddesses, other spirits, women, men, other people, and even animals, I’m sure.
Now… Who did Zeus marry? There’s only one goddess in that list. And that goddess is Hera.
The list of “individuals Zeus married” never changed. I don’t think it will change anytime soon. The same is to be said about gods who never married and probably never will.
“Oh but the Chinese marry spirits” — aye, there is a tradition of spirit marriage in China. But tell me now: who are these spirits? Gods? No. Lesser beings but still superhuman? Also no. They’re human beings. Deceased human beings. That’s WHY these marriages are a thing. They’re between parties of the same exact species; thing is, one is present in spirit only. But that does not imply that this example legitimises a marriage to a deity.
Now, back to you, dear reader: do I care whether or not you’re “riding” a god “to the mountains and back” like we say here in the Gaeltacht (but translated to English, for the sake of this blog)? No. I don’t. In fact, in the rare instance where I do care, it’s with a positive connotation (unless it’s a human, aka cult leader, pretending to be divine. In that case, RUN. RUN TO THE HILLS. Only engage in god sex with actual gods, for feck sake. They’re ethereal. They’re spirits. They’re NEVER bone-and-flesh).
Anyway. Back to what I think of god sex: I’ll probably congratulate you, because as far as my beliefs are concerned, it’s ok when you “get going” with a deity. It’s usually a thing that happens and we (humans) enjoy, but gods have a very constructive ulterior motive with it: teach us helpful lessons; sometimes transform us in other ways, but generally speaking, for the better. Human perception describes it as sex in a lot of cases. Is it? We’ll never know. But I won’t be against it.
Really, I’m happy for you for “godspousing”. I’m just not sure about the terminology you chose. But yes, I agree it’s a rocky road you have there. That’s because:
There is a slippery slope towards cultural appropriation if you use a term from a pre-existing tradition for your “god sex”.
Cultural appropriation is when you take something sacred and/or meaningful from a culture without actually participating in it. No, contrary to popular opinion, it has nothing to do with race. You can be white and practise tantra for example — but do it properly, learn from the real masters, give VISIBILITY and PROTAGONISM to these real masters. Travel if you must. And then, preferrably, only use the term WITHIN the tradition. — Or that’s the common definition, and remedy, for cultural appropriation according to the consensus I’ve observed. I’ve said it and will say it again: I’m not here to dwell on abstractions fuelled by personal feelings. I work with a more impersonal kind of logic. I’m a messenger you can’t shoot.
This is the main reason why I am not dead-set on avoiding the term “godspousing”. Do I dislike the “spousing” part of it? Absolutely. But it is what we have. I mean… I won’t be telling you what people refer by “godspousing” is “tantric” anytime soon. Unless I’m talking about the actually tantric practice that can lead to… Similar things; But it’s within a tradition, and that tradition is NOT European. I don’t want this to become the new “karma” — a term appropriated beyond reparation now, and from the same source.
Sure, there are commonalities across religions, and it’s a valid point to make — behind closed doors in Academia. Sorry, not sorry. What gets spread too quickly, often becomes diluted and loses its meaning. Next thing you see, extremist groups are misunderstanding and misusing those terms, and so are sellers of cheap snake oil.
In the end of the day, the problem with “godspousing” is some people actually mean “mysticism with rituals in tandem with a god, which include sensations akin to sexual arousal, but with a constructive and not just ‘fun’ purpose” (what I think it SHOULD mean), whereas others are like “oh, I guess I fell in love with this god and we just sort of live together now. Unless he/she has to leave for a while” (ehhh… not my cup of tea, but sure. If you want a god to replace a human, instead of providing you with something only a god can offer, and this god actually agrees… More power to you I guess); And finally, others — the infamous teens on certain social media apps — misinterpret it as “wow, I can pursue a relationship with a god and not care at all about finding fellow humans” (the most harmful one in my view).
You can’t separate yourself from the other two categories even if you only fit into the one I said is best (in case you happen to agree with me, that is). By using the exact same term some people are misusing, you’re willfully putting yourself in the same category as them. There’s no invalidating them to feel superior; there’s no amount of internet activism you can engage in for the damage to be undone.
That’s because — and I’m saying this as a linguist, this is my lane:
It is the use, not the prescriptivism, that defines a language.
If people are misusing a word en masse, it’s not effective to try and stop them from doing that. There’s no CONTROLLING the meaning organically ascribed to a word, even if you liked that word so-very-much. There’s no preventing it from getting slowly “corrupted” by people whose points of view you disagree with. Not even dictators were ever able to achieve such a feat. That’s saying something!
The misuse comes from a misunderstanding. So don’t ask yourself “how to stop them”; Ask yourself “why did they start”. The thing is… Denial gets in the way of that effort, doesn’t it? We never want to admit that our choice in vocabulary is somehow not good enough to stand the test of time. We’d rather just pretend people are dumb. That transfers the blame, allright.
But love it or hate it, when you stubbornly insist in a term you can see is being misunderstood and misused (probably because it’s too generic, or alludes to something that’s not REALLY going on in the actual practice it describes, or it’s based on outdated ideals about “when can or can’t people get intimate — god forbid it’s outside marriage, am I right”… or Idk, maybe there’s also wishful thinking creeping in), you’re actually encouraging and feeding the problem.
Essentially, my point is: perhaps we should coin a new term, in want of an older one which is lost to History (nope, don’t even think of appropriating terms from unbroken traditions. Lazy at best and entitled at worst). Sadly, I don’t have ideas as of yet. I’ll let you know if I get inspired; But I’d like to hear your suggestions.
To summarise (now that we’ve hopefully gone through the “prickly” bits and pieces now), I’m of the opinion we don’t even need to compare this path (of getting intimate with a god in order to achieve spiritual development) with the institution of marriage at all. If anything, the “marriage” part of it (when present, and when relevant) is just an aside. As I said earlier (and I’m here putting on my “political canvassing” hat to remind you of it), why care about defining a new form of marriage unless you’re also considering a new way of having a family?
Don’t we all agree we could reword it as, Idk, something like “pact” or “contract” and that would make no meaningful difference in practice? (Rhetorical question. I don’t think pact or contract do the trick all by themselves. I reiterate I’m in want of ideas). Why insist on marriage? Is it because of a romanticised idea of happy family with someone perfect (or more perfect than you; I mean, that’s what a god is to a lot of people) to give you the peace of mind you crave… or a wishful fantasy of a wedding in a princessy white dress perhaps? — But let’s not shame that, either. If it IS, then more power to you. Zero sarcasm.
In that case, though, it doesn’t make as much sense to judge “the teens” out there. Just saying.
