Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Erotic plasticity wikipedia , lookup
Rochdale child sex abuse ring wikipedia , lookup
Age of consent wikipedia , lookup
Sex in advertising wikipedia , lookup
Human female sexuality wikipedia , lookup
Lesbian sexual practices wikipedia , lookup
Sexual attraction wikipedia , lookup
History of human sexuality wikipedia , lookup
Slut-shaming wikipedia , lookup
Sexual ethics wikipedia , lookup
Arch Sex Behav (2008) 37:340–345 DOI 10.1007/s10508-007-9261-5 CLINICAL CASE REPORT SERIES Observance of the Laws of Family Purity in Modern–Orthodox Judaism Mark A. Guterman Received: 1 December 2006 / Revised: 11 April 2007 / Accepted: 25 August 2007 / Published online: 19 October 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007 Abstract This research is a follow-up to a previous study measuring the observance of the ritually unclean period (Niddah) among Modern–Orthodox Jews. A total of 267 participants completed an online questionnaire comprised of a list of 16 ‘‘strict’’ and ‘‘lenient’’ forbidden behaviors. Participants reported whether they had engaged in these behaviors during Week 1 (the actual menstrual period) and during Week 2 (the ‘‘clean days’’ following the cessation of bleeding). Results showed that laws were being violated, with more transgressions during the second week than the first week. Additionally, more ‘‘lenient’’ laws were being broken than ‘‘strict’’ ones. Level of religious observance was significantly negatively correlated to the number of transgressions. However, there was no significant correlation between the number of transgressions and the age at marriage, sex, or how long one had been married. Keywords Sex Judaism Jewish law Orthodox Judaism Orthodox Jews Purity Ritual Introduction Orthodox Judaism holds that the observance of the Jewish code of law, Halakha, goes hand-in-hand with rabbinical interpretation of these laws, teachings, and rules, and that both have been part of Jewish life and tradition since its inception (Keshet-Orr, 2003). However, due to the Enlightenment and the emancipation of Jews, a split divided the M. A. Guterman (&) Department of Psychology, School of Psychology (T-WH1-01), Fairleigh Dickinson University, Metropolitan Campus, 1000 River Road, Teaneck, NJ 07666-1914, USA e-mail: [email protected] 123 Jewish community. On one side, there was a movement towards embracing modernity through religious reformation and assimilation. On the other side (as a reaction to this idea of reformation), Ultra-Orthodoxy materialized, struggling to maintain traditional beliefs and practices by totally rejecting modernity. During the nineteenth century, Modern–Orthodoxy was presented as a solution to this split. It sought to adhere to traditional religious commitments (such as the observance of Halakha) while, at the same time, embracing many aspects of modern culture (Kaplan, 1979; Kurzweil, 1985; Leibman, 1982). This type of dialectical approach seems to offer a harmonistic identity: these Jews are both religious and modern (Schachter, 2002). The Halakha details strict rules governing every aspect of the daily lives of Jews, including the sexual lives of married couples. Jewish law expressly forbids any physical contact between spouses during the days of menstruation and for a week thereafter. In addition, there are Harchakot, which are laws set up by the Rabbis to prevent anyone from getting close to violating Niddah (Eider, 1999; Y. Lehrfield, personal interview, August 22, 2006). These Harchakot, along with all rabbinical interpretation, carry the same weight of transgression as the original laws, and should be viewed as such (Eider, 1999; Keshet-Orr, 2003). According to stipulated ritual, an Orthodox Jewish wife is responsible for ensuring that she is no longer exhibiting vaginal bleeding by swabbing herself carefully with a linen cloth for each of the seven days following the overt cessation of the menstrual flow (Burt & Rudolph, 2000; Eider, 1999). The seven clean days after menstruation culminate with the wife’s obligation to immerse that night in the Mikvah, the ritual bath. This entire period of time, from the beginning of the ‘‘bleeding days,’’ until the end of the seven ‘‘clean days,’’ when the woman immerses herself in the ritual bath, is called the ‘‘Niddah (ritually unclean)’’ period. Arch Sex Behav (2008) 37:340–345 It is only at the end of the Niddah interval, after the ritual bath, that spouses are permitted to physically touch one another. This ‘‘two weeks on/two weeks off’’ pattern of contact characterizes marital life until menopause, with two notable time frame exceptions: pregnancy and nursing (until postpartum menstruation resumes), when uninterrupted contact is permitted (Eider, 1999; Ribner, 2003). These ‘‘Laws of Family Purity’’ represent an integral aspect of identity as an Orthodox Jew (Donin, 1972; Wasserfall, 1992). The Laws of Family Purity provide some potential benefits (e.g., heightened sexual interest following a two-week abstinence) as well as some challenges (e.g., the tension of no physical contact for two weeks) to Jewish couples, and have been the focus of some attention (Burt & Rudolph, 2000; Guterman, 2006; Hartman & Marmon, 2004; Ostrov, 1978; Petok, 2001; Wenger, 1998/1999). Hartman and Marmon (2004) conducted interviews with Orthodox Jewish women. During these interviews, several observations were made. Many of the interviewed women found Niddah to be ‘‘particularly difficult,’’ as compared to other religious obligations. One interviewee described her difficulty with Niddah as, ‘‘My needs for being touched are not just sexual; they’re human.’’ This lack of distinction between sexual and platonic touching during Niddah is the cause of much controversy amongst Jews (Hartman & Marmon, 2004) and critics of Judaism. In fact, some have referred to the laws of Niddah as ‘‘primitive blood taboos’’ (Wenger, 1998/1999). While these complaints are certainly not permissions to transgress, they may help to understand why so many couples choose to decide for themselves which aspects they will (and will not) follow (i.e., the laws that prohibit certain types of sexual contact). Religion has long been considered an important influence on sexuality, defining the normative and penalizing the deviant. Research across disciplines has explored the relation between religiosity and sexual behavior (Davidson, Darling, & Norton, 1995). Previous studies have used a number of diverse methodologies (e.g., surveys, interviews, meta-analyses), and have studied the relation between religion and sexual behaviors (e.g., premarital sex, cohabiting, sexual behaviors while dating). Studies have found that women who more often attended religious services were less likely to have had premarital intercourse (Sack, Keller, & Hinkle, 1984; Thornton & Camburn, 1989). Other studies have found that this correlation persists through adulthood (Barkan, 2006). Studies have also reported that college students reporting higher levels of religiosity were less likely to give or receive oral sex or to participate in intercourse (Francis, 2006; Mahoney, 1980). Significant differences have been found regarding the degree of religiosity and the age of the beginning of sexual intercourse (Davidson et al., 1995; Hardy & Raffaelli, 2003). Women with religious beliefs reported fewer premarital sexually active friends 341 (Sack, Keller, & Hinkle, 1984). All told, well over 40 studies have found that increased levels of religiousness significantly correlate with lower levels of sexual activity (MurraySwank, Pargament, & Mahoney, 2005). The main factor at the root of these findings is that different religions attempt to regulate sexual behavior and, to an extent, they are successful. Therefore, one would expect that, within Judaism, higher levels of religion would correlate with lower numbers of transgressions of the laws of Niddah. While attention has been given to the emotions and thoughts of Jews observing the laws of Niddah, and studies have examined the relation between religiosity and sexual behavior, there is very limited research in exploring the actual adherence to these religious guidelines for sexual activity. Of the American Jewish population of 5.2 million adults and children, 46% belong to a synagogue. Among those who belong to a synagogue, 22% are Orthodox, meaning that over 526,000 Jews in America are dealing with these Laws of Family Purity (Kotler-Berkowitz et al., 2004). Given the importance of religion to so many people’s sexual decisions, as well as the fact that therapists must deal with many issues among Jews regarding Niddah (Keshet-Orr, 2003), empirical studies are needed to examine how well religious Jews adhere to their laws. The first study to look at the observance of Modern–Orthodox Jewish couples found that many laws were being broken overall and that more ‘‘lenient’’ laws were being broken than ‘‘strict’’ ones. In addition, the study found that older congregants were more likely to break the laws than younger ones (Guterman, 2006). This study was intended as a follow-up, to examine more closely, and in greater detail, the observance (or lack thereof) of Niddah among Modern–Orthodox Jews. Specifically, this study examined the difference in observance between the two weeks of Niddah. Method Participants Participants were married, self-identified Modern–Orthodox Jews who filled out an online questionnaire survey. They were recruited via popular Modern–Orthodox online communication methods (see below). Participants were asked to complete the survey only if they defined themselves as Modern–Orthodox. The survey was available worldwide on the Internet. The final sample consisted of 119 men (44.57%) and 148 women (55.43%). It is not known whether any of the participants were couples, though this is doubtful as all responses were obtained from separate IP addresses (i.e., no one used the same computer). 123 342 The men were, on average, 35.45 years old (SD = 10.83; range, 21–70). The women were, on average, 33.53 years old (SD = 10.40; range, 19–61). The reported age at marriage for men was, on average, 24.57 years old (SD = 3.48; range, 20–38). The reported age at marriage for women was, on average, 23.48 years old (SD = 5.04; range, 18–64). Measures Demographic questions included age, sex, age married, and a ‘‘religious observance’’ section (see below). These demographic questions were included because they logically seem to be the most important factors that may influence which types of behaviors are transgressed during the ritually unclean period. The ‘‘religious observance’’ section contained four questions. The participants were instructed to rate, on a scale from 1 (very poor) to 6 (excellent), their religious observance of the following: eating kosher, Sabbath, daily prayers, and blessings on food. These items were taken from a previous religiosity scale (Rettinger & Jordan, 2005). In this study, the four items had a Cronbach’s alpha of .78. The questionnaire included a list of 16 behaviors, divided into two categories. The ‘‘lenient’’ (Harchakot) items were composed of four behaviors: passing items to each other, sleeping in joined (not separated) beds, sitting on the same cushion on a couch, and tapping each other on the shoulder, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .85 for Week 1 and .87 for Week 2. The ‘‘strict’’ (actual Niddah) items were composed of 12 behaviors: holding hands in private, holding hands in public, kissing not on lips, kissing on lips without tongue, kissing passionately (with tongue), heavy petting (rubbing/squeezing/etc.), orgasm-directed caresses for the man (hand-job), orgasm-directed caresses for the woman (fingering), oral sex for the man (fellatio), oral sex for the woman (cunnilingus), anal intercourse, and vaginal intercourse, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .91 for Week 1 and .95 for Week 2. These categories were supported by Rabbi Y. Lehrfield, who pointed out that there were two main categories of items: those which were strictly forbidden by the Torah (categorized as ‘‘strict’’), and Harchakot, those laws instituted by the Rabbis to prevent the community from violating the Torah-forbidden laws (categorized as ‘‘lenient’’). It should be mentioned, however, that all these behaviors (whether ‘‘strict’’ or ‘‘lenient’’) are expressly forbidden by Jewish law (Eider, 1999; Y. Lehrfield, personal interview, June 19, 2005). These 16 items were listed twice–once under the heading of ‘‘Week 1’’ (the actual menstrual period) of the Niddah (ritually unclean) time of each month, and again under the heading of ‘‘Week 2’’ (the ‘‘clean days’’ following the cessation of bleeding) of the Niddah (ritually unclean) time of each month. Items were scored as either 0 (‘‘no’’) or 1 123 Arch Sex Behav (2008) 37:340–345 (‘‘yes’’). Menopausal women were instructed to note how they acted during their years of menstruation. Procedure Modern–Orthodox Jews were targeted for this online questionnaire survey using popular online communication methods (newsgroups [e.g., soc.culture.jewish.moderated, Rational Judaism], Yahoo! Groups [e.g., JewsTalk, TeaneckShuls, EdisonHighlandParkBulletinBoard], and other message boards [e.g., Hashkafah]). This allowed access to a large sample of the Modern–Orthodox Jewish community. Potential participants were asked to complete a quick, four-minute survey. Participants were given an explanation of the survey, emphasizing how important it was to be completely honest, and guaranteeing the participant’s anonymity several times. Results Descriptive statistics of frequencies were carried out on the data. During Week 1 (the actual menstrual period), an average of 3.76 behaviors were transgressed (SD = 4.08; range, 0–16). During Week 2 (the seven ‘‘clean days’’ following the cessation of bleeding), an average of 4.83 behaviors were transgressed (SD = 5.17; range, 0–16). The breakdown of participants performing each type of transgression is displayed in Table 1. A 2 (Sex) · 2 (Behavior Type: proportion of ‘‘lenient’’ vs. proportion of ‘‘strict’’) · 2 (Time: Week 1 vs. Week 2) repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted to test for any main effects or interactions. Mean proportions of transgressed behaviors are displayed in Table 2. Two significant main effects were found. First, a main effect of Time was found, F(1, 265) = 46.45; p < .001, eta2 = .15, indicating that more behaviors were transgressed during the second week of Niddah than during the first week. Second, a main effect of Behavior Type was found, F(1, 265) = 352.24; p < .001, eta2 = .57, indicating that there were a significantly larger proportion of ‘‘lenient’’ behaviors transgressed than ‘‘strict’’ behaviors. In addition, two interaction effects were found. First, Time interacted with Behavior Type, F(1, 265) = 11.33; p < .01, eta2 = .04. Specifically, there was a larger increase in the proportion of ‘‘strict’’ behaviors, compared to ‘‘lenient’’ behaviors, being committed (see Table 2). Second, Sex interacted with Time, F(1, 265) = 8.38; p < .01, eta2 = .03. Specifically, men, compared to women, showed a larger increase in the overall behaviors being committed from Week 1 to Week 2 (see Table 3). Correlations between religious observance and number of transgressions during each week were performed. For Arch Sex Behav (2008) 37:340–345 343 Table 1 Participants performing each type of transgression Men Women Week 1 Week 2 Combined Week 1 Week 2 Week 1 Week 2 N % N % N % N % N % N % Pass Items 97 36.33 101 37.83 82 30.71 86 32.21 179 67.04 187 70.04 Joint Beds Same Cushion 43 78 16.10 29.21 44 81 16.48 30.34 35 63 13.11 23.60 49 73 18.35 27.34 78 141 29.21 52.81 93 154 34.83 57.68 Tap Shoulder 66 24.72 68 25.47 58 21.72 63 23.60 124 46.44 131 49.06 Hold Hands (Private) 51 19.10 54 20.22 44 16.48 50 18.73 95 35.58 104 38.95 Hold Hands (Public) 41 15.36 44 16.48 34 12.73 41 15.36 75 28.09 85 31.84 Kiss (Not on Lips) 50 18.73 51 19.10 44 16.48 52 19.48 94 35.21 103 38.58 Kiss (No Tongue) 42 15.73 45 16.85 31 11.61 44 16.48 73 27.34 89 33.33 Kiss (with Tongue) 20 7.49 35 13.11 14 5.24 29 10.86 34 12.73 64 23.97 ‘‘Lenient’’ Behaviors ‘‘Strict’’ Behaviors Heavy Petting 17 6.37 31 11.61 18 6.74 36 13.48 35 13.11 67 25.09 Hand-job 13 4.87 24 8.99 13 4.87 30 11.24 26 9.74 54 20.22 Fingering 6 2.25 19 7.12 10 3.75 26 9.74 16 5.99 45 16.85 Fellatio 8 3.00 17 6.37 7 2.62 19 7.12 15 5.62 36 13.48 Cunnilingus 2 0.75 15 5.62 2 0.75 17 6.37 4 1.50 32 11.99 Anal Intercourse 3 1.12 3 1.12 2 0.75 6 2.25 5 1.87 9 3.37 Vaginal Intercourse 4 1.50 13 4.87 6 2.25 23 8.61 10 3.75 36 13.48 Table 2 Mean proportions of transgressed behaviors Week 1 Week 2 Lenient Strict Lenient Strict M SD M SD M SD M SD Men 0.50 0.39 0.16 0.24 0.57 0.42 0.26 0.34 Women 0.48 0.40 0.14 0.23 0.50 0.40 0.20 0.30 Combined 0.49 0.40 0.15 0.23 0.53 0.41 0.23 0.32 Table 3 Mean proportions of total transgressed behaviors Week 1 Week 2 M SD M SD Men 0.33 0.29 0.42 0.35 Women 0.31 0.29 0.35 0.33 Combined 0.32 0.29 0.38 0.34 Week 1, results showed a moderate negative correlation (r = –0.57; p < .01; n = 267). In other words, as one’s religious observance score increased, the number of transgressions during Week 1 decreased. For Week 2, results also showed a moderate negative correlation (r = –0.53; p < .01; n = 267). Overall, these two correlations show that the scoring of the religious observance questions can be used as a predictor of number of transgressions during the Niddah period. Two more correlations were tested. The first determined that there was no significant correlation between age at marriage and number of transgressions across weeks (Week 1: r = .01; Week 2: r = .05). The second showed that there was no significant correlation between how long one had been married, and the number of transgressions across weeks (Week 1: r = .16; Week 2: r = .16). Discussion Based on the above analyses, it is concluded that, despite the prohibitions, nearly every participant reported transgressing at least once during the taboo period (with an average of 3.76 behaviors during Week 1 and 4.83 behaviors during Week 123 344 2). This supports the previous study which reported that, over the course of the two-week period, 3.34 behaviors were transgressed, on average (Guterman, 2006). One may wonder why 3–4 violations constitute nonobservance; after all, a score of 3.4 (out of 16) is fairly observant. However, the reader is reminded that performing any one of these behaviors is a sin according to Jewish law. Therefore, while it may be better than committing 16 sins, each of the 3 or 4 behaviors was still a transgression. The interviews conducted by Hartman and Marmon (2004) may shed some light as to why these transgressions are taking place. One woman found the laws ‘‘dehumanizing’’ in that they disregarded her emotional needs. Another described her ‘‘intense frustration and inner turmoil’’ and felt ‘‘bound inextricably’’ to a ritual which caused her so much ‘‘personal torment.’’ In fact, a number of women expressed frustration about the absence of a sexually neutral space wherein they could relate to their husbands. Specifically, they wanted to have platonic physical contact with their husbands, which would not lead to sexual activity. Many interviewees did ‘‘not see the logic in [Niddah]’’ and stated that their lives ‘‘would’ve been much better without it.’’ The most important finding of this study was that, despite the Halakha seeing no difference between weeks one and two, there was a significant difference in the amount of transgressions being committed during the two weeks; participants were more ready to ignore the Halakha during the second week of Niddah. These data seem to reveal that it is not necessarily the Laws of Family Purity that are being observed; rather, it may be that the restrictive nature of the laws is simply convenient when a woman is actually menstruating. Once she has stopped menstruating, however, the stringency of the laws may seem too great (or may seem unimportant in the first place), and are therefore disregarded. The reasons for abstaining from sexual behaviors during the actual menstruation are still unclear: is it due to religion or is it due to fear of menstrual blood? Future studies should compare the ‘‘clean days’’ of Niddah to the permitted weeks (following immersion in the Mikvah), so as to further assess whether this increase in Week 2 is a full return to normal activity or whether there is still some restraint. This will help clarify if these religious Jews are following the common pattern of many non-religious individuals, who limit their sexual behavior during the menstrual period itself and increase their frequency in the weeks thereafter. The reason for the difference in adherence between ‘‘lenient’’ and ‘‘strict’’ laws may also be better understood by referring back to the women interviewed by Hartman and Marmon (2004). In the absence of a sexually neutral place for these couples, many seem to have drawn their own lines, and decided that the ‘‘lenient’’ laws (which are of a more platonic nature) are not as important. This certainly follows the logic of the complaint quoted above, ‘‘My needs for 123 Arch Sex Behav (2008) 37:340–345 being touched are not just sexual; they’re human.’’ Following the same logic, couples may have felt that they can decide for themselves, without the rabbinical guidelines, what ‘‘comes close to violating Niddah,’’ and therefore ignored the ‘‘lenient’’ laws across weeks. Finally, it is important to note that the ‘‘religious observance’’ section, a Likert scale rating one’s religious observance of eating kosher, Sabbath, daily prayers, and blessings on food, correlated well with transgressive behavior. This supports the reliability of the scale (Rettinger & Jordan, 2005), and allows for future studies to include this new, shorter version (containing only four items) to help determine religiosity. These results fit well with the previous literature on the subject. As mentioned earlier, over 40 studies have demonstrated that higher levels of religiosity correlate with lower levels of sexual behavior (Murray-Swank et al., 2005). Although this study looked at a different religion (i.e., Judaism), the results remained. That is, religious observance was inversely correlated with the total number of sexual behaviors. This suggests that these effects are not religionspecific, and can be applied to Judaism as well. The replication of the results of Guterman (2006), coupled with this study’s much larger sample size (and evenly sexed sample), makes the findings of these two studies hard to ignore. Certain laws are simply disregarded in the Modern– Orthodox Jewish community. The fact remains: public rules, whether they are of a religious or social nature, are often broken. The main strengths of this study lie in its straightforwardness and anonymity. Very little research like this has been conducted within the Jewish community, and it would be interesting to have comparative data of adherence and transgression in other ritual realms within Judaism. Furthermore, this is the first Internet-based study of this topic among this group, yet it reports similar results to the previous study, in which the sample was recruited through a synagogue (Guterman, 2006). This suggests that future studies in this area can make use of the advantages that Internet research has to offer. Being a survey, there were some inherent problems with the design. For one, it is hard to ensure that the participants told the entire truth. Repeated guarantees of anonymity probably helped, but there is no way to know for sure. Trying to reach a representative sample of the population is always difficult. It was for this exact reason that the survey was conducted online. However, this may have led to some complications in the sample (i.e., a response bias); one does not know how typical of Modern–Orthodox Jews the sample was. Yet, the results showed that there were both participants who transgressed none, or few, of the laws, as well as participants who transgressed many of the laws. This seems to suggest that this study obtained a representative sample of Arch Sex Behav (2008) 37:340–345 the Modern–Orthodox Jewish community, since there were participants from both ends of the spectrum. Additionally, there is room for speculation as to whether the same results would have emerged had the sample been recruited through Orthodox synagogues, rather than the Internet. However, the previous study (Guterman, 2006) used the recruiting method and obtained extremely similar results. Of course, an even larger sample size may tell us more information. Further research in this area is strongly recommended. Research should focus on other denominations of Judaism, and how well the laws are followed within these sects. Acknowledgment The author would like to thank Orit Avishai, Stephen Armeli, Robert McGrath, Winnie Eng, J. Kenneth Davidson, Sr., and David Moore for their comments on earlier drafts of this article. References Barkan, S. (2006). Religiosity and premarital sex in adulthood. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45, 407–417. Burt, V. K., & Rudolph, M. (2000). Treating an Orthodox Jewish woman with obsessive-compulsive disorder: Maintaining reproductive and psychologic stability in the context of normative religious rituals. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 620–624. Davidson, J. K., Darling, C. A., & Norton, L. (1995). Religiosity and the sexuality of women: Sexual behavior and sexual satisfaction revisited. Journal of Sex Research, 32, 235–243. Donin, H. H. (1972). To be a Jew. New York: Basic Books. Eider, S. D. (1999). Sefer Hilkhot Niddah = Halachos of Niddah. Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers. Francis, L. (2006). Attitude toward Christianity and premarital sex. Psychological Reports, 98, 140. Guterman, M. A. (2006). Identity conflict in Modern-Orthodox Judaism and the laws of family purity. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, 18, 92–100. Hardy, S., & Raffaelli, M. (2003). Adolescent religiosity and sexuality: An investigation of reciprocal influences. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 731–739. Hartman, T., & Marmon, N. (2004). Lived regulations systemic attributions: Menstrual separation and ritual immersion in the experience of Orthodox Jewish women. Sex & Society, 18, 389– 408. 345 Kaplan, L. (1979). The ambiguous Modern-Orthodox Jew. Judaism, 28, 439–448. Keshet-Orr, J. (2003). Jewish women and sexuality. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 18, 215–224. Kotler-Berkowitz, L., Cohen, S. M., Ament, J., Klaff, V., Mott, F., & Peckerman-Neuman, D. (2004). The National Jewish Population Survey 2000-01: Strength, challenge and diversity in the American Jewish population. New York: United Jewish Communities. Kurzweil, Z. E. (1985). The modern impulse of traditional Judaism. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav Publishing House. Leibman, C. (1982). The evolvement of neo-traditionalism among Orthodox Jews in Israel. Megamot, 27, 231–249. Mahoney, E. R. (1980). Religiosity and sexual behavior among heterosexual college students. Journal of Sex Research, 16, 97–113. Murray-Swank, N., Pargament, K., & Mahoney, A. (2005). At the crossroads of sexuality and spirituality: The sanctification of sex by college students. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 15, 199–219. Ostrov, S. (1978). Sex therapy with Orthodox Jewish couples. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 4, 266–278. Petok, W. D. (2001). Religious observance and sex therapy with an Orthodox Jewish couple. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 26, 22–27. Rettinger, D. A., & Jordan, A. E. (2005). The relations among religion, motivation and college cheating: A natural experiment. Ethics & Behavior, 15, 107–129. Ribner, D. S. (2003). Determinants of the intimate lives of Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) Jewish couples. Sexual & Relationship Therapy, 18, 53–62. Sack, A. R., Keller, J. F., & Hinkle, D. E. (1984). Premarital sexual intercourse: A test of the effects of peer group, religiosity, and sexual guilt. Journal of Sex Research, 20, 168–185. Schachter, E. P. (2002). Identity constraints: The perceived structural requirements of a ‘good’ identity. Human Development, 45, 416– 433. Thornton, A., & Camburn, D. (1989). Religious participation and adolescent sexual behavior and attitudes. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 51, 641–653. Wasserfall, R. (1992). Menstruation and identity: The meaning of Niddah for Moroccan women immigrants to Israel. In H. EilbergSchwartz (Ed.), People of the body (pp. 309–327). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Wenger, B. S. (1998/1999). Mitzvah and medicine: Sex, assimilation, and the scientific defense of ‘family purity’. Jewish Social Studies, 5, 177–202. 123