Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Christians and sexuality

The news is covering the trends among evangelical Christians more and more these days. And some are not impressed with what is being written by Christians about sexuality. From a recent article,
But behind it all, behind the outpouring of books celebrating the God-given gift of sex and offering tips on how to make it even better, there is a more pedestrian agenda: to prop up the institution of marriage by keeping husbands from straying. And here it is the wives who must do the heavy lifting. If only they would put out more, if only they would do a better job with their personal hygiene, their husbands would want to stay home at night and would be happier, more motivated breadwinners.

Can you save marriage by tarting it up? That is a question that conservative evangelicals must answer for themselves. But the historian in me has grave doubts. First food, then alcohol, now sex: America's evangelicals have compromised on so many core principles that one wonders which will be the next to go.

94 comments:

Jay said...

The modern trend in religious circles is towards a more positive attitude towards sexuality in general. This may be a good thing, but the reality of a long history of sexual repression, especially towards women’s sexuality, will not easily be erased. The woman has been given the responsibility to satisfy her man’s desires with the threat of him not being content and finding satisfaction from another “evil” woman. In either case, the woman is seen to bear the blame.

Mara Reid said...

I was shocked a few years back by a shock jock preacher who told women from the pulpit that Jesus commands wives to give their husbands oral sex.

On further study I found that accusation to be true along with much more. And the implication was that it was fully the wife's responsibility to keep the husband happy with sex acts and keeping up appearances. This is the same man who, when Haggard fell into homosexuality, said that he had met many preachers' wives who, "let themselves go."

Along these lines, I know a gal who says the same thing goes on in communist circles. There is an extra burden on the female comrades to keep the male comrades sexually serviced for the sake of the communist agenda.

It's sick. It's sin. It is pimping from the platform.

Preachers who want men to attend their churches tie up heavy burdens on the women. These burdens involve sexual acts that were once against the laws of our land. They were called sodomy laws.

I believe in happy, healthy, and if possible, lots of sex between marriage partners.

But much of teaching today is going away from happy, healthy, uniting sex and on into degrading, humiliating, painful, and abusive sex. Instead of preaching against porn, they are bringing porn and sexual impurity into the marriage bed and defiling it.

Anonymous said...

Sex is God-given and is to be mutual in marriage.

Don Johnson

gengwall said...

"Can you save marriage by tarting it up?"

Well, it certainly can't hurt.

OK, that was a little flippant. But I do have a point. The other end of the spectrum, I'm sure you would agree, is also unreasonable. Should a wife NEVER "put out" and never bathe?

Mara - your shock preacher sure has an unbalanced view of 1 Cor 7. (Or did he even give a biblical basis for his preaching?) BOTH spouses are supposed to give sexually to each other without condition or reservation. If the wife in the relationship has the greater libido (a situation that happens more than you would think), then it is the husband who should be "putting out" more. (BTW - for those husbands in this situation, Greg Gungor, in his "Laugh Your Way to a Better Marriage" series, accurately states that we hate you).

Nothing, though, justifies adultery and anyone who would preach that is seriously nuts. I believe two sections of proverbs illustrate the principles that husbands should live by. First, the reality.

Proverbs 31:30 (in part) "Beauty is fleeting".

The value (sexual or otherwise) that we accord our wife in our eyes can not be governed by some level of appearance that we expect her to maintain because, frankly, she can't. All manner of ills affect everyone's appearance over time. "Greener pastures" syndrome brings about the downfall of many marriages and seems to be what Mara's shock jock preacher is advocating, but it should have no place in a Christian husband's life.

So what should a husband's perspective be? That brings in the second proverbial principle. Proverbs 5-7 contains a long dissertation about adultery. Know what the primary allure of adultery is - "Greener pastures" syndrome. But Proverbs 5:18-19 show us how to avoid such foolishness. It is in the form of a blessing but it also expresses what our attitude toward our wife should be.

Proverbs 5:18-19. "Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice in the wife of your youth. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be exhilarated always with her love."

Notice what it does not say. It does not say "may she always maintain perky, 20 year old breasts and 'put out' with hot, nasty sex whenever you want." The onus is on the husband. He is to be satisfied and exhilarated REGARDLESS of what changes in appearance and circumstance happen over time.

It is fair, I believe, to say that wives should keep themselves reasonably maintained and hygienic. Is it also not just as fair to say husbands should do the same? The 1 Cor 7 principle applies equally to both. None of this, however, allows either spouse to put unreasonable expectations on the other and adultery is never, ever, justified.

JaneDoeThreads said...

Jay, I am going to use a quote as reference, here you say:

""The modern trend in religious circles is towards a more positive attitude towards sexuality in general. This may be a good thing, but the reality of a long history of sexual repression, especially towards women’s sexuality, will not easily be erased""

OK now Here's the gist and truth of the matter [coming from rad fem years of experience working against the Porn-Rape Culture]

the reference to Sex Positive is a culture today that is based upon 'free sexuality defined by MEN, via PORN, not by women.' It is coming from the sex positive feminism, that was born yes from Communist infiltrated far leftist [and VERY pro-sympathetic to both pedophilia/from liberalism of Europe-Academia/bourgeoisie ideology that Includes Atheism]and from as well [Very pro-sympathetic views towards Islam because Islam caters to the lusts of men, male violence towards women especially And pedophilia].

Therefore, the 'strategy' is Using the repression of Victorian ideals or Puritanism, coming from the Catholic base, that sexuality is dirty, especially female bodies, and that that repression is NOW used, in quite a clever way, to Force women, NOT into embracing their SEXUAL AUTONOMY [AND NEVER OWNERSHIP OF THEIR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS, CLUE FOR YA RIGHT THERE] but forcing them into

the role of the degraded, willing to be raped and subjugated female for MALE SEXUAL DOMINANT DESIRE.

con't

gengwall said...

I'll add one other quick point. The quote above makes "heavy lifting" out of "putting out". Even the term "putting out" seems somehow to suggest a chore. I believe that is the wrong perspective to take. Just as a husband should be always exhilarated by what he recieves from his wife, a wife needs to be exhilarated by his advances. When a husband seeks frequent sexual interaction with his wife, he is saying to her "I still find you alluring". I find it hard to understand why women respond to this by rejecting the advance. For men, especially those who's primary love language is physical touch, this is a rejection of monumental proportions. There is a stark reality in the quote. Many men do seek "love" outside the home because they can not find it inside the home, at least not in a way that is most meaningful to them. This, again, is not a justification, but simply a fact.

JaneDoeThreads said...

con't, as Mara stated, the subtle Porn encroachment, in Marriage Ministries I might add, is NOT coincidence, by NO means, it is a very clever means in NORMALIZING

1. pedophilia/child rape
2. rape
3. prostitution including trafficking sex slavery
4. temple shrine sacrifices via sex slavery esp children [their final goal]
5. normalization of these temples in so that Government, Geneticists, will be able to utilize pairing up of couples, to produce a genetic perfected seed [this is not AS public, it IS in UN policy on population, etc., policies, pushed heavily by many in atheist-scientific communities that are also pro-Environment, to the extreme, it is Also heavily RACIST. Also related to DNA cloning, for evidence research genetics ethics/feminism

So you see, there is a micro strategy as well as an overall macro strategy, but the base is, to make it Socially acceptable for normalizing SEXUAL MISOGYNY AND PORN RAPE CULTURE in every aspect of society,

this is where yes, the Fundies are correct, in that regard.

The 'oral sex' demand many are making is not oral sex as we know it in ancient 'erotica' depictions, it is oral sex, called Throat Rape, that many pulpit pimps [and they ARE pulpit pimps] are pushing,

as well as anal Rape, not just anal sex, bdsm, etc., the Reason many are naive to this is because they do not have a knowledge of what Porn entails, but rest assured, these Pulpit Pimps DO know,

and THIS IS WHY THEY ARE ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO YES 'FEMINISM, ESP RAD FEMINISM', not so much liberal feminism because you see the same debate/war for dignity for women as humans, not as cum dumps, is going on right now and the liberal pro-sex feminist IS a parrot for the Corporate PORN-RAPE INDUSTRY, fact. Rad fems fighting this know this,

and the ultra patriarchs [resp religions] know this because they STALK, LITERALLY, FEMINIST SITES,

what we call MRA's, Men's Right's Advocates, who are Very misogynist, who many of them ARE sexual abusers, domestic violence and Porn supporters....women to them are nothing but holes to be penetrated,

and if you know about porn, free positive sex means this:

a woman letting three men rape her at once
a woman being shaved [pubic area and looking like a child--the Latest trend-pressure is women Literally, bleaching their 'anus' no kidding, to look 'pink' like the Porn mags, this is the new thing right now--and MEN are demanding it]
a woman having breast implants, labia surgeries [cutting off], etc etc etc, numerous self harm done in the name of MALE AROUSAL

this isn't even the Tip of the iceberg

this is what they term, POSITIVE SEX OR SEX POSITIVE

it is a LIE, a misogynist LIE and one that KILLS WOMEN,

Rad fems, numerous of them Have been alerted and know the dangers yes to Christian women because they have been sheltered, many of them Did it to themselves by alienating themselves From feminism, and therefore they are many, yes, at risk of brothel style rapes in their own

marriages and homes, all cleverly disguised under SEX POSITIVE for the TARTING UP, OF MARRIAGE,

more like, Men who watch porn, who want the women, to be the degraded, rape victim [and they ARE raped] in the porn, because Porn has never, NEVER been about erotica
but about male sexuality, based on Domination [and religion is ALL about domination of women's bodies] and Power.

Jane

JaneDoeThreads said...

You know what Gengwall, I'll just say it, when Men shut their damn mouths, and stop defining for Women,

what sexuality Should be [for their own penis's, sorry am I too blunt--too bad]

and when Women, learn about their Own sexuality outside of MALE PATRIARCHAL CONSTRUCTS,

only Then, is there any TRUE reciprocal 'sexuality' going on,

in the meantime, all that is spewed is the typical Brainwashing, with the 'oh honey if you Luv me you'd do this, this'

leaving countless women, FAKING IT, submitting to their own rapes,

never being truthful to men because Even if they did, MEN wouldn't listen, they are too busy hearing what THEY WANT, after all, couldn't address the mentality of

male entitlement's to women's bodies, oh hell no,

why it's a DUTY, alright, MEN made it a duty, fact is, most women do NOT really enjoy sex in patriarchal marriages, because patriarchal sex has NEVER been,
about Women's sexuality,

but hey, we can keep on a FAKING, we've had years of mastering the craft, telling MEN [just like prostitutes are forced to do for Johns, why marriage is nothing more than private ownership of the whore] what they Want to hear,

for the most part [exceptions To this rule] and the male ego

will never Care to know anything better, and countless women will Internalize this whore-logic to Survive the cognitive dissonance, that silent nagging voice,

when they KNOW it's not mutual, that it is just yes a CHORE, and they'll do it for GOD

and the LIE continues, and Yes

it's just Jesus as PIMP. I can' wait for the photo op of Jesus, with the big hat, big rings with the brothel house, because that is ALL it is,

nasty ass truth ain't it? Why they hate me, oh well, boo hoo,

my heart So does bleed!

Jane

JaneDoeThreads said...

Oh, and the Truth EVIDENT of this ugly little nasty reality,

is in Every detailed 'exchange of roles in sex depicted like the john-whore exchange, using that Cor scripture to Do so'

funny how it's Never about, true intimacy.

And HOW THE HELL can it be, when Women, are instructed, to be Silent and Submissive,

the bend over, shut up and take it baby...

ATTITUDE that is HUGE IN CHRISTIAN MEN,

and good whores, do just this, obey big daddy, and do it with a SMILE,

feeding big boy ego. [because manhood is all in the thrusting, ugh ugh]

and women Faking of course, the courtesan [can we just say whore because That's what it is, the playing the whore role for de menz]for brownie points in heaven,

LOL, typical Roman style temple fornication, 101,

but Intimacy, respect for the feminine sacred in women, Never,

women are commodities, [capitalist influenced sexuality, this is where Marx was correct], sexually as well as domestic, for the private sphere of MEN

it's an institution, that carries over yes into the bedrooms, and they Wonder,

why the divorce rate among Christians is so high, so their solution,

more com-modification using scripture as the pimp fist, to force submission to the porn rape role,

Nice. Playing on women's already constructed 'guilt' to do so,

very Nice, just like it's done in the brothels,

and it's no wonder why pedophilia /child rape is an Epidemic among Christians today, not just Catholics, gee

duh, I wonder.

Jane

gengwall said...

So Jane - Do you believe there are any marriages that contain "true intimacy" as you describe it (I believe it started with husbands shutting their mouths or something like that)? Or are all husbands perpetual rapists? I'm not quite understanding what you are trying to say in your response to me.

JaneDoeThreads said...

""I'll add one other quick point. The quote above makes "heavy lifting" out of "putting out". Even the term "putting out" seems somehow to suggest a chore.""

Alright let's just call the misogynist BS on this one shall we,

your reference to Putting out is just that, the typical sexist asshole mentality [if you can tell I'm not polite nor do I care if I offend when it's truth, not submissive, and NOT sorry],

the typical sexist male privilege entitlement to oh my gosh his need to cum,

and the woman's Duty, by Birth, to yes, PUT OUT,

not Once did you say Anything about intimacy or anything emotional, no,

just Put out, breasts, hygiene [of course because we KNOW according to male definitions of women's bodies how utterly 'dirty' and UNCLEAN, OT STYLE, THEY ARE', arrrgh,]

and of course her Beauty because sex is all about

honey you ain't go no worth to hubby if you can't give him a hard on,

and you know your ONLY worth as Human [oops, sorry, er, object] is IF you can do that--otherwise,

YOU FAIL

AS A FEMALE.

Good grief one can Smell the sexist crap, a mile away, is it Any wonder why Christian women most of them Hate sex with these entitled pompous Assholes,

[don't believe me read the pages and pages of griping of Christian women, all denominations on the blog boards, even the Submissive ones, this is the number one complaint, if Men only really KNEW how much many of their women Detested them and how much they Only fake/obey for again, those brownie points in Heaven]

IF it wasn't so soul death murder for billions of women it would be downright Comical,

but it isn't, because it slowly rots away the woman's soul, to where she literally will detest even her own body/sexuality

and I yes, blame the patriarchy for this.

religious especially, it's medieval to B.C. attitudes, the whole concubine garbage mentality,

and a perpetuation of OT style marriages, where women are nothing more than Booty,

sure it may Work in externals because it's been constructed,

but relationship wise, it's nothing more than a LIE,

no different, from the whore telling the John,

"yes honey, you're the biggest and best and I luv it when you hurt me"

she does it, because she is Forced to--via violence

Christian submissive women, do the same, because they are forced to, by guilt, by pressure, by internalized misogyny, by violence
good marriages

no

good for Menz

damn right. The formula works--and don't think, the menz and their pulpit pimps and brothel ministry books,

don't know it, besides, it's Big Money to boot, highest profit margin of Christian Business--Religious Capitalism at it's best! and on your bodies ladies

;)

Jane

gengwall said...

Sorry Jane, but I'm not even going to finish reading your rant. You clearly aren't listening to what I'm saying and in fact twist my words into the exact opposite of what I said. Anybody else???

JaneDoeThreads said...

""So Jane - Do you believe there are any marriages that contain "true intimacy" as you describe it (I believe it started with husbands shutting their mouths or something like that)? Or are all husbands perpetual rapists? I'm not quite understanding what you are trying to say in your response to me.""

Gengwall, NO, and here is why,

going to do some deconstructing of Christian MYTH here, if I may,

1. the Bible itself, defines sexuality ONLY from a MALE PERSPECTIVE [and many women May not like this but its truth so, take it up with God on this one], the language from Genesis to Rev [and I won't even Touch the influence of Talmud which is horrid in it's male entitlements] so therefore, Any reference to intimacy, based on a MALE ONLY DEFINING OF SEXUALITY is a lie right there,

it's woman as object, not human, therefore, even With the command of 'give likewise' in Cor is moot and void,

the only tiny bit of salvation here that can Possibly be left for interpretation based on Evolution is the other scripture, Eph, that states, live with them [women] according to KNOWLEDGE,

THEREFORE, that does open the door to later future interpretation of women's needs/defining of Based upon learned knowledge, funny though how That part of scripture is NEVER MENTIONED, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER

in ANY church that I know of--according to Knowledge,

which HOW can there ever be knowledge of what Women want,

when they are commanded to submit, shut up, do as they are told by the DEFINITIONS OF MALES AND MOST WHO

DON'T WANT TO LISTEN NOR HEAR?

and Where does today's knowledge of 'women' and 'sexuality' come from?

80% PORN

and well, any Idiot knows, Porn is in no way, about Women's definition of sexuality,

or even erotica, not even,

so, it's downright Laughable for any male defined what sex is/should be, to claim

Intimacy, it's one sided, always has been.

And the sad truth is, most WOMEN, don't know because women have learned sexuality the same way as MEN have, by MALE DEFINING,

not by the autonomy of Women, even among Radical Feminists, this is one of the huge discussions/theories as to What truly is,

women's sexuality OUTSIDE of male constructs?

WE DON'T KNOW,

other than a few gleaning from lesbian relationships [not just talking Physical here, ok, talking true intimacy outside of male constructs] and even THOSE have had their issues, due to transference of male-female sub-dom roles, [I study secular as well so yes I have looked into those studies, particularly where violence among GLTB is concerned, it relays a lot and funny thing is, they are MORE PATRIARCHAL, than not]

anyhoo,

before we can Even begin to look at what TRUE intimacy is, especially sexually,

we must deconstruct the lies of male defined sexuality, male definition of what Woman is,

and WE can't do that, in an atmosphere where women aren't even allowed to Speak as women as autonomous Humans,

outside of male defined and often with violence, physical and/or psychological, environments,

to say we can is an oxymoron. And with the whole entitlement to sex mentality, via men [this applies to secular not just to Christian]

most don't even CARE to truly listen, they simply can't get past their own visual images of what sex-woman Should be, because it's always from that dom to sub dynamic and dichotomy,

so to your question, NO,

and EVIDENCE of this lies in the very fact, that the majority of religious men, want nothing to do with even Reading, women's views outside of male dominated role climates,

and when they do, what do they do,

'they tell women what women think, as IF men know this, better than Women',

male privilege, when you want to Address that,

then, THEN, you can begin to talk intimacy,

not until then.

Jane

gengwall said...

"the Bible itself, defines sexuality ONLY from a MALE PERSPECTIVE"

So if this is your belief then I take it you don't believe the bible is a source of truth regarding sexuality. All the more reason not to continue the conversation.

JaneDoeThreads said...

Gengwall and YOU have the GALL to come to a woman's blog, and spout off your

intimacy crap? [sorry sisters but bear with me]

and you call serious looking at your example as a RANT?

Is this how you talk to your wife as well, any complaint or legit pain is a RANT?

Typical, typical and proves EVERY SINGLE POINT I MADE

and this is WHY I am not polite, this is WHY I don't beat around the bush,

because Sir, it's not just the damage it causes women's souls IN Christian marriages, it is a Social Pollution that is literally

creating and NORMALIZING A

RAPE CULTURE

AND A PORN CULTURE

that carries over into the increase of prostitution and sex slavery, child rape, other religious theocracies that depend on those male entitlements to male violence/lust, and that is literally

KILLING WOMEN, in high numbers, domestic and globally.

Patriarchy and sexual misogyny/Male Violence does NOT operate in a vacuum,

the personal Yes is political and vice versa, for you then to say, it's simply a RANT

proves just how misogynist and indifferent you are,

to women, as HUMAN BEINGS.

You don't like it because it hits a nerve, so then it's either silence the woman or demonize her,

or distract from the issue at hand, good, but thing is, it doesn't work, sure it might work on your wife [though not internally, you may derive your entitlement because she Submits, but it will Never be from a true willing giving out of love, can't be, and THAT is the problem with most Christian and religious marriages or secular patriarchal marriages,

it's simply a form of slavery, out of yes DUTY, a CHORE, with a bit of benevolence/kindness thrown in here and there, That depends on the man,

but Intimacy? NO, when women critique and it's called a RANT

is the equivalent of calling women's complaints, as being

hysterical--or inferior,

the dom to sub relationship. AKA

slavery, no different from the john-whore exchange, no different at all...

I rest my case.

Jane

Mara Reid said...

gengwall,
Meet my friend Jane.
She is an advocate against the porn culture and she is right that it is infiltrating the church. She's seen the reality of the death and devastation due to the porn industry that polite people don't want to face. She also sees the slippery slope that the present trend among many preachers concerning marital sex and hierarchy is putting the church on.

Jane, meet gengwall. I know you are very angry right now, but I wanted to put in a good word for him. He really isn't one of the bad guys. He's one of the good guys. He simply isn't aware of the things we are seeing and the direction these trends are leading to.

gengwall, I actually do believe in intimacy within marriage. I just know that our porn culture works hard to undermine it and make it difficult and in some cases next to impossible even in Christian marriages.

I believe that God can heal and forgive people and marriages and even attitudes about sex. I have to believe it otherwise I would go into a depression.
I hold onto Isaiah 61 and the fact that Jesus read that in the synogogue at the beginning of His healing ministry on earth.

JaneDoeThreads said...

"""the Bible itself, defines sexuality ONLY from a MALE PERSPECTIVE"

So if this is your belief then I take it you don't believe the bible is a source of truth regarding sexuality. All the more reason not to continue the conversation.""

Riiiight, here we have the, coming from the 'why I know intimacy' lingo, the

can't debate/prove otherwise and don't like what a Woman has to say so monkey stick hand in ear and go

la la la la la la la la can't hear ya don't wanna

Come on, you can do better than that? Prove to me, where Anywhere in Bible, is a FEMALE VOICE?

Can't do because it DON'T EXIST, the canon [written 300 years later I might add] was written BY

OH MY GOSH

MEN

so, uh, do MEN NOW OWN A VAGINA TOO?

Tell me sir, where Anywhere in the Bible, is there any Female voice? NO, MEN TALKING ABOUT WOMEN, IS NOT FEMALE VOICE,

so AM I WRONG?

so Yes, the BIBLE defines sexuality from MALE VOICE/DEFINITION ONLY,

from the Torah, to the Talmud to the New Testament [Canon written by MEN, years later, with Scholars even debating the legit of some of the letters via by Paul],

and you want to now say, I'm wrong, for pointing out the

OBVIOUS?

Men defining female anatomy [OT] and female sexuality,

from Genesis to Revelations,

so now YOU don't/won't discuss, because what I say, is TRUTH?

hey don't blame me, I didn't create patriarchy, nor write the Bible, that's something you'll have to take up with your male fathers, ask them,

but I'll give you a bit of a clue as to HOW backwards their views on women truly were [and why in Islam, based on yes, ancient Mesopotamian sexual defining by the laws of all those ancient societies that yes including Judaism got laws/ideas from--FACT, look into crime/punishment/family laws of Hittite, Babylonian, Kassite culture pre-Judaic law, they are one in the same, BY MEN]

and those didn't change much under ROMULUS, aka ROME-GREECE, carried over by Paul, defining of sexuality Yes from a MALE VIEW,

be they pagan or Christian or Judaic

it's Always been, from a MALE VIEW

THAT'S WHY THEY CALL IT PATRIARCHY.

there IS no woman voice, no Mother image, no Female anything other than

the 'other' and virgin whore dichotomy,

I didn't write the book, just how it is, so Intimacy,

no, role playing and constructs, YES, and why marriages yes, Fail, unless of course, one stays in out of fear of damnation, etc., that's the ONLY true bond of a marriage, well,

Most of the time, there ARE exceptions to this rule, but truth of THAT fact lies in, they Don't follow, the Patriarchal Bible guideline of the Dom to Sub relationship,

king-sex slave, etc., and only reason why Those relationships DO have a chance at working.

Dom to sub don't, intimacy, in those cases, are the equivalent of saying

pedophile relationships [and for your information, the dom to sub husband wife IS simply a man to child pedophile relationship, why the more patriarchal they are, the more pedophilia occurs, the wife is simply playing the 'child bride' role]

[this is why yes, Islam is not that different from Christianity, fundamentalist more so, in their relations to Women]

Jane

JaneDoeThreads said...

I should add, just for sake of argument, this is why yes, in Ephesians where Paul opened the door [or who ever wrote it, Yes I am a skeptic of what is actually legit in Bible and what is a Roman scam, due to Mega amounts of research I'd done on the realities of sex slaves during 60 A.D. and the realities of family laws that didn't even Include non-Romans, any woman NOT Roman citizen was in fact, a gang banged sex slave, FACT, historical FACT, so a lot of the Bible yes, comes into Serious question as to the roles of Non-Roman women, particularly Jews], but anyway,

in Ephesians, where it says, live with them according to Knowledge,

this is based on Talmud law btw, that Paul obviously had knowledge of because MEN were always changing the Talmud, to 'create more freedom' for men, in my strong opinion, to their rights to sex,

this is Where they get the whole 'it's not sin to bang a Goy but it is if she's Jewish, in other words, it's NOT even adultery if she is non-Jewish because infidel women were all Whores, kind of like Islam, btw Gengwall I'm married to a very Orthodox Jew so I know a bit about the Judaic influences and yes KaKa of their misogynist bunk that YES filtered into Rome and the NT Canon, influenced that is--and it All

in fact, LOL, yes is influenced by Babylonian culture/laws,

another topic another time, hello there Catholic Church, [Isis of Egypt and all the rest, LOL]

but yes, ah, according to knowledge,

that DID leave open the door a bit, to EVOLUTION, of ideological thought, which is what Jews were known for, in that day,

scribes, so forth, men MEN, MEN MEN

who wrote LAWS AND CUSTOMS FOR SOCIETY/AND REGULATION OF

WOMEN.

the formation of Male defined/ruled hierarchies, etc.,

so, there is yes that door open but it's see, like numerous Other things,

open to Interpretation, this is Why, we have the egalitarian verses the complimentarian verses the dogma of fundamentalism and 1000 more various 'definings'

all but of course, Dominate, defined by MALES,

so, just saying, and this I suppose would fall into just HOW much of the personal one allows the Church to rule over,

only individuals can decide this, well at least in a society that theocracy doesn't rule with iron fist,

but you see My point is, this is why, intimacy and marriage problems Do exist when you have dogma, sexuality defined by Males, based on a Book that yes is DEFINED BY MALES, sexuality that is, even what women are and THAT is simply just the

whore virgin dichotomy

then Yes, you run into Serious problems, and why Yes, it Does leave a huge vulnerability for the encroachment of Porn culture to creep in.

Unless women resist, they are vulnerable and THAT is what concerns me.

Jane

gengwall said...

Mara - I know far more about the porn culture and its influence on the church and marriages than you may realize or I care to share. I also know about the wonderful picture of sexual intimacy and mutuality that biblical teaching presents.

I appreciate the introductions and am actually right with Jane when she describes not only the vile, insidious nature of porn but also it's horribly distructive effects. I just don't think every Christian marriage operates in a pornographic, patriarchal pardigm (mine certainly doesn't). As long as she insists that they do, and moreover, that the bible supports this sinful paradigm, there will be little I can say to appease her.

gengwall said...

"Prove to me, where Anywhere in Bible, is a FEMALE VOICE?"

Jane - I believe the bible is the voice of God, who is neither male nor female. You clearly don't trust the bible so it is senseless for us to use it as a foundation for discussion. I will not waste my time discussing truths of the bible when you begin the conversation believing the bible isn't true. (And I believe "live with them according to knowledge" is from 1 Peter 3, not Ephesians)

JaneDoeThreads said...

One, you may know Porn but unless you experience porn or rape or prostitution IN A WOMAN'S BODY

you don't know -- and to CLAIM YOU DO,

IS PATERNALIST, as well as insulting, I know the industry as a WOMAN, through MY BODY,

you don't KNOW what that is...it's like White privilege telling Blacks they understand Slavery and Racism,

so NO YOU DON'T KNOW

and that's the problem, MEN WHO THINK THEY HAVE 'RIGHT' TO DEFINE FOR WOMEN
OUR EXPERIENCES

you don't,

and it's NOT that I don't believe the Bible, another Paternalist accusation,

it is Still a book WRITTEN BY MEN, THROUGH A MALE LENS AND MALE VOICE,

period.

That's not even open for argument, it's Stupid to suggest different,

we only know God to be Spirit by what MEN TOLD US, and by our own individual faith,

there is NO where in Any scriptures or religious texts Anywhere, especially in That epoch, that was written by women or from Any women's LENS,

from HER EXPERIENCE, FROM HER BODY, FROM HER VOICE,

SO HOW IN THE HELL CAN ANY ARROGANT MAN, CLAIM TO HAVE DIVINE RIGHT

TO SPEAK FOR WOMEN THEN SAY, IT'S FROM WOMEN?

you know what I say to that, to hell with you then.

I hope to GOD most of you men have to come back, to another earth AS

A WOMAN--AND LIVE WITH THE CENTURIES LONG OF MEN TELLING YOU

WHAT IT IS, TO BE FEMALE...

the arrogance, is just Unreal. Like men telling women what it is to be Raped, but now THEY are the experts

at female sexuality and what women want, good grief

Jane

gengwall said...

"One, you may know Porn but unless you experience porn or rape or prostitution IN A WOMAN'S BODY

you don't know"

I didn't claim that. I said I know about the porn culture and it's influence on the church and marriages, not on you or a woman. That my perspective on the topic is masculine does not make it any less legitimate.

"and that's the problem, MEN WHO THINK THEY HAVE 'RIGHT' TO DEFINE FOR WOMEN
OUR EXPERIENCES"

I have done no such thing. What I have attempted to do is share mased on men's experiences. Sex is, after all, a two way street. The female perspective is not the only one of value.

"SO HOW IN THE HELL CAN ANY ARROGANT MAN, CLAIM TO HAVE DIVINE RIGHT

TO SPEAK FOR WOMEN THEN SAY, IT'S FROM WOMEN?"

Again - the bible is from God. Who wrote it is irrelevant. It is either the word of God or it is the word of particular males from a particular culture. It is up to you to decide which you believe.

"I hope to GOD most of you men have to come back, to another earth AS

A WOMAN--AND LIVE WITH THE CENTURIES LONG OF MEN TELLING YOU

WHAT IT IS, TO BE FEMALE..."

That sounds pretty mysandrous to me. It seems to me that you would like to change from patriarchy to matriarchy, not from patriarchy to egalitarianism.

JaneDoeThreads said...

First, Mara thank you for the kind words, wasn't ignoring you, :)

ok, to this: [two part reply]

""That sounds pretty mysandrous to me. It seems to me that you would like to change from patriarchy to matriarchy, not from patriarchy to egalitarianism""

spoken like a TRUE MRA, where do I even begin, do I even BOTHER???

of course, when Women dump the internalization's and become conscious of Male privilege, they are all of a sudden,

misandrous, hell bound determined to create a Matriarchy of butch females whipping men into submission and swallowing them up with their teeth razor sharp vaginas,

Plaleese, now you're pulling the egalitarian [translation, it's like shared custody, it looks shared but it's truly only sole custody via one parent, with visiting rights thrown in], to replace Intimacy?

and with the Historical widespread rule of the male dogma patriarchy,

any resistance to that, to SAVE WOMEN'S LIVES, LITERALLY, because WOMEN DIE, DIE, DIE IN PATRIARCHY ON LEVELS THAT ARE JUST UNREAL,

because of MALE VIOLENCE

now it's that Women who dare Protest, protest too much, are demanding a Matriarchy?

Any reason to perpetuate and protect the Status Quo of male rule,

and hey, why not? Women through out the world, are the most poor as well as slave labor [FACT], under PATRIARCHY,

Women are massed raped in wars and in land feuds such as in Congo and for Empire under PATRIARCHY to save the males from male savagery, why just take out the violence on Women's bodies--even our OWN militaries does this, you know, those RAPES OF WOMEN WITH IMPUNITY, [recent report though NOT the first time]

Women are trafficked and always have been from the concubine to the virgin girls saved for rape in OT [remember by divine order by God no less] to expand the tribe [and WHY do we criticize Milosevic for doing the SAME THING???uh gee duh I wonder], under PATRIARCHY,

not to neglect comfort women [trafficked sex slaves] for militarized zones [mostly USA] and trafficked virgins for de business menz and gambling houses and sex slaves for entertainment, under PATRIARCHY, all centered around glorification of MALE DOMINATION AND MALE VIOLENCE TOWARDS WOMEN

women used in male violence depictions or the damsel in distress via Entertainment under PATRIARCHY, always with that extra sexual focus,

women by far killed via Domestic Violence under Patriarchy and in regions sanctioned by law In addition to Honor Killings, death by fire when widowed [Hindu], rapes of women by MEN, women dependent on marriage or prostitution still in many parts of the world Due to economic policies under PATRIARCHY

etc etc etc etc

but when Women confront and speak up,

why, they are working towards building a Matriarchy of Amazon one breasted women with male slaves at their beck and call, always hen pecked of course and why by golly,

we can't have that,

JaneDoeThreads said...

con't


Give me a break, seriously, this is Such an old weapon used all the time to distract from the real issue,

male privilege, male violence, male entitlements

via through porn or through the pulpit pimp and ministries funded by the pockets and controls of MEN

PATRIARCHY.

always at your service, brothers...the Fraternal Order, Knighthood, yada yada yada

lol--women just bend over, take it, smile real big and remember to worship them in every way, that's our Divine lot, never forget that. And remember, your pain is not really Pain, why the MENZ know better and IF you complain, you are trying to usurp their Authority by divine right thank you Augustine of ROMAN EMPIRE [and watch out--get too uppity and off with the witch hunts they go, dare you have a mole on your body, then they rape you and cut you up, for GOD--lot of PORN illustrations acting out of Inquisition torture, FACT, big seller today, do a google search on numbers of hits, just type in rape porn, make SURE you don't have any food in your mouth, the shock you know, then do a hit on inquisition porn and violent porn even dog porn, see what these MEN are viewing, real nice, Divine lot, remember that],

but THEY are worried about a

MATRIARCHY

remember something, there IS no peace without JUSTICE

and there is no egalitarian, without

ACCOUNTABILITY AND CHANGING PRIVILEGE...


Jane

JaneDoeThreads said...

Actually, let me rephrase that,

there IS no peace without JUSTICE

and there is no egalitarian, without

ACCOUNTABILITY AND CHANGING PRIVILEGE...CHANGING PRIVILEGE, TOWARDS WOMEN, SEEING THEM AS 'HUMAN'

AND NOT AS THE 'SEX CLASS',

this applies to women as well, because THAT right there, is the root of it all, women oppressed and viewed as the Sex Class, as Sex, with men entitled TO,

this is why, Yes, just like in the far left/left, anarchism included, when they attempted Egalitarianism, through either forced de-gender [like the agnostics] or free sex [sex positive, Just like in the beginning of this discussion] they FAILED, miserably, and WHY,

they never wanted to Confront and DEAL with male privilege and entitlement mentality to women's bodies, as the Sex Class, equality in all other areas, but THIS one, THIS one,

remained under the control of male defining for the benefit of males, and women paid dearly as did children, the religious could take a lesson from this--there Can be no egalitarianism, as long as Sexuality, is defined by Males--and women sexually are controlled by male systems,

why it will never work. It is the dom to sub, be it private or communal, the dichotomy, if there Ever is to be a truly, egalitarian system of Any kind, sexuality will have to be defined by both

men AND women OUTSIDE OF MALE CONTRUCTS, and we aren't anywhere near that--and Never will be, with the sex positive porn influenced patriarchal man as dom being peddled today, under the Disguise of
liberalism. It's patriarchy under a friendly face--kind of like friendly fascism, :0

Jane

gengwall said...

Maybe it would be easier if I focus on where we agree and ignore all of the personal presumptions you have about me and men as a gender.

"the Historical widespread rule of the male dogma patriarchy"

I agree that patriarchy has been the historically dominate cultural paradigm.

"any resistance to that, to SAVE WOMEN'S LIVES...because of MALE VIOLENCE"

This is also demonstably true

"and hey, why not? Women through out the world, are the most poor as well as slave labor [FACT], under PATRIARCHY"

Also true

"Women are massed raped in wars and in land feuds such as in Congo and for Empire under PATRIARCHY to save the males from male savagery, why just take out the violence on Women's bodies--even our OWN militaries does this, you know, those RAPES OF WOMEN WITH IMPUNITY, [recent report though NOT the first time]"

"Women are trafficked and always have been from the concubine to the virgin girls saved for rape in OT [remember by divine order by God no less] to expand the tribe [and WHY do we criticize Milosevic for doing the SAME THING???uh gee duh I wonder], under PATRIARCHY"

True

"not to neglect comfort women ..."

True

"women used in male violence depictions or the damsel in distress"

True

"women by far killed via Domestic Violence under Patriarch...honor killings..."

All true

I don't disagree with your history or cultural analysis in the least. But I am not those men, I do not approve of their actions, and I do not subscribe to their societal structure, and I do not promote their sense of priveledge.

So, I go back to my original post to you. What exactly is your problem with me? I don;t get it.

gengwall said...

Continuing on since we cross posted...

"there IS no peace without JUSTICE

and there is no egalitarian, without

ACCOUNTABILITY AND CHANGING PRIVILEGE...CHANGING PRIVILEGE, TOWARDS WOMEN, SEEING THEM AS 'HUMAN'

AND NOT AS THE 'SEX CLASS'"

I agree

"there Can be no egalitarianism, as long as Sexuality, is defined by Males--and women sexually are controlled by male systems,"

True enough

"why it will never work. It is the dom to sub, be it private or communal, the dichotomy, if there Ever is to be a truly, egalitarian system of Any kind, sexuality will have to be defined by both

men AND women OUTSIDE OF MALE CONTRUCTS,"

Of course.

My problem is that you seem to think that last sentiment is completely absent in practice in society and antithetical to what the bible teaches. I think that it is absolutely what the bible teaches and is evident in many, many marriages including my own.

JaneDoeThreads said...

OK, I don't have a problem with you, not at all, I do yes, tend to get a bit militant, know this about me, I worked for years in far left, dealing with hard core pysops and men who as well with Islam [I know a lot about Islam and the ancient influences culture there and just so you know, I get into it a lot WITH feminists, because of this, it's the eastern verses western view on a lot of things] but anyway,

I tend to really hit hard at language and ideology, though I do admit when I am wrong, or when later I find something that furthers the need for challenge or investigation, I am always researching and reading, not just Bible, history, culture, archeology, you name it, warfare [use to read a lot on war/strategy] to political philosophy, etc., Because you see my main focus has always been Human Rights, particularly of Women and Children,

both on private, domestic and international levels, including trade, all of it, etc.,

so it was the Language-Male Culture I was targeting, which is from yes a male defined culture that is Heavily within religion, [religions through history/influence on language and male lens/societies, etc],

and I am militant on it because it's not that all men are deliberately wanting to perpetuate, but it IS a construct, that doesn't just impact women,

it impacts men [especially where WAR is concerned], and that's another topic altogether--con't

JaneDoeThreads said...

I don't have a lot of time, but this is one area where some of the Fundamentalists are correct in their leaning towards the influence of Babylonian culture in the church [and I concur on huge part of that] DUE to the studies I have done on ritual abuse and sexual exploitation of women, in the goddess cults, ancient cultures [Mesopotamia, Mayan, in Contrast to the more egalitarian cultures/defined spiritually by the nature around them--and I have a theory as to why this is that I am working on--indigenous cultures that is] and so anyway, a lot of what I see in NT and studying on Roman culture and slavery of that epoch, I do see a heavily influence of Babylonian/culture in the writings that were yes, heavy in early Catholic/Orthodox writings,

and I won't lie, it has caused me to question a lot of the legits of the Bible, with the agnostics, etc., though I am not thrilled with much of agnostic writings I have read--they sound more Plato to me, of a different bent [Catholic systems were also at least agrarian very Platonic] but anyhow, some interesting similarities with that and ancient, VERY ancient Sumeria, where that's concerned,

and all that of course had a lot to do with the Creation of patriarchy [way prior to Judaism] and the sexuality of women/control over,

my Concern, is that even today, for there to be any freedom for thousands of women, from male violence and particularly with what I see as a revival of Babylonian sexual abuses/also Egyptian creeping in churches under the guise of liberalism, even peddled yes into some egalitarian models, and it's very dangerous, BECAUSE unlike in secular circles where women [rad fems, etc] have been somewhat Free of religious constructs to voice or to resist,

women IN religious constructs do NOT have that as much, and esp when male language and male definitions of what the Bible says thus and thus to women,

I see as Very dangerous and yes I do confront it, sometimes militantly, because Women need to get out of the internalization's of fear driven constructs, Because this doesn't and will NOT just effect women

it has very dangerous influences effects on Children. And rest assured, the social machinery behind a lot of this IS because they are really after the Children,

I know from working in the far left, how the social psychology works--and so, not trying to be hateful to YOU personally, OK

I just don't have the room here nor time to really get into so much here, but IF we do not, begin to seriously confront and challenge male privilege, I promise you,

there will be a children's passing through the fire, and it's coming--both culture and political,

why I waste no time, calling a spade a spade-and it's biggest base right now, IS the pulpit of many a church. [fundie and liberal both]

Jane

Mara Reid said...

See, Jane.
I told you gengwall was a good guy. ;)

And, gengwall, to talk about something clear up the thread, I'm totally cool with a partner with a lower libido engaging in intimacy when they don't need it or particularly feel like out of love and affection for the partner with the higher libido.
I think it's a beautiful thing and a testament to the mutual love and devotion a couple should have for each other.

Was there something else you wanted to talk about that I missed?

JaneDoeThreads said...

Yes Mara he sounds like he is, and may I just remind everyone here,

and why I*did respond and confront immediately much of what you stated Gengwall, because it's Those definitions that are SO often used by the very sex positive lot that are Very dangerous,

the discussion began on the sex positive, that another brought up, and it IS a culture, it IS very misogynist based on the RAPE culture and it will be Easy to promote in churches BECAUSE of the male language/dom to sub in the Bible,

and many women are simply unaware of what is transpiring because of numerous reasons I won't get into here, I do believe some of this has been a deliberate strategy by the Powers to BE in both the political-religious unions, put it that way,

and it's not just fundie, in fact the fundie focus can be utilized as a clever distraction to a far more sinister enemy, be aware of that. Anyway, yes, this is why I confront and challenge male language/defining because Porn heavily relies on this, porn culture, that is also rape-war culture,

the god of war/goddess of fertility, is far more than just ancient cults, they are cultures, systems, systems of law and Porn is not some modern thing, there is a lot in ancient texts that are yes, porn, they are deemed erotica, but it's always erotica defined by males, NOT as violent then [B.C.] as today, because Today you see, and this is where Christianity is a lot to blame, there is the added bonus, of the Roman-Greek [Romulus] slavery/sex temples mixed with Babylon influence,

that was heavily laced in the Catholic Vulgate, because it All stems from the development of political-theocratic thought, through the rule of MEN over whole empires, where women had no voice, nor ability to even read or protest, they simply were commanded to submit--

I believe the early Christians [we don't hear from/nor have any of their texts] DID resist this culture, my theory, but that the Roman Empire, cleverly took the resistance, and twisted it, put it into several books and made sure, that slavery would be [esp sex slavery] permanent--it has to do with resources and monies, paid to temples, as well as Power,

I came to this theory simply because much of what Paul and Peter wrote, to women, could in no way apply to Women in that day, due to the social status of women, who mostly were slaves and sex slaves, that is how I stumbled onto a lot btw,

which got me to investigate, not religion, but the laws secular as well as society Then--it simply does not add up, so then Why did the fathers who put the Canon together [empire leaders I might add] take so much, regarding women, that simply could not have been the reality? Why, because women were the backbone of slavery, since Sumeria, and to set up Feudalism, and to protect it's empire the ancient norms had to be protected--that is why there IS contradictions, between the sayings of Jesus and writings of Paul,

now as to what is legit and what isn't, hard to say, not where my focus Is, but to point it out Because, globally, this NWO is going to be very much, a revival of a theocratic type of social control, that is very misogynist, and it has to do, I think, with the geneticist/eugenics One World Order, and Porn/Positive Sex, is one of the main tools they are going to use, through the dominion movements. Hittite, Hitler,

this goes Way back--too much to get into here.

Jane

gengwall said...

LOL - you keep saying more that makes the big long post I just wrote unnecessary.

Let me bottom line it. I think the the "pulpit pimps", as you so colorfully put it, promote an evil societal construct. BUT, their construct isn't wrong becasue the bible is wrong, it is wrong because it actually is antithetical to what the bible teaches. Simply put - the bible doesn't mean what they say it means.

My objective, is to promote what the bible actually does mean. In doing so, I often need to reference the same verses and passages that they do, if for any other reason, to point out their error.

It's funny, really. I remember some time back when I was in a discussion with some liberal Christian women about Paul. They were convinced that Paul was a mysogynist. When I tried to point out how Paul had been misinterpreted and misused thru the centuries, they told me that I didn't really believe what I said I believed. They were so convinced that EVERY male would do anything to hold onto male priveledge, that they refused, and I mean absolutely refused, to believe that I could actually believe what I said I believed. There was no talking to them from that point on because they, ironically, could not remove themselves from a male-centric paradigm when talking to a male, nor could they accept or even conceive of a non male-centric view of Scripture.

I trust your research and respect all the work you have done. I have not seen one conclusion about ancient cultures that I would disagree with. BUT, I believe the bible speaks out against those cultures and their practices. I welcome the opportunity to discuss that perspective.

So, going back to my first two posts. Obviously I didn't communicate effectively. Is there something I could clarify to set the record straight?

Kristen said...

I believe whoever said that the Bible viewed sexuality as a positive thing, was NOT talking about anything called "sex positive," as that term is apparently used by some groups today.

I think the Bible is about God's Spirit speaking into sinful, racist, misogynist cultures and slowly moving them away from those things. I think God gave as much revelation at a time as the people He was speaking to could hear-- so the Bible is not the final, true revelation of God. I think Jesus is the true, final revelation of God, through whom we find out what God is REALLY like, and Jesus spoke constantly against the sinful paradigms of the society into which He was born. Jesus affirmed the equality and dignity of women and never, ever treated them like they existed for men.

The writer of the article Sue quoted seems to think that Christianity is supposed to be sexually repressive, and if it's not, it's not Christianity. I think she's wrong. But the modern fundamentalist patriarchalists who STILL want to make this all about what women are supposed to be and do FOR MEN, are as far from Jesus' teachings of the Kingdom of God as the Pharisees were.

(BTW, I'm a 47-year-old women who enjoys true intimacy with my very respectful egalitarian husband of 23 years-- there are men who DO know to find out what a woman wants in the bedroom and who do their best to give it to her.)

Gem said...

I'm glad you brought this up, Suzanne. Porn use and sexual addiction (and the associated abuse) is more common that battering but no less hurtful.

The article you linked mentions Song of Solomon as the main text used by these Christian sex manuals. My husband's favorite preacher, David Jeremiah, just recently had a series on SoS and my formerly porn addicted and sex addict husband said that it causes him to stumble the way preachers (like Rev. Jeremiah) uncritically make Solomon into a role model for monogamous marital Love.

He of 700 wives and 300 concubines lived a porn user's fantasy. I'm afraid the closet porn pandemic among pew sitters has seriously impacted the fare that we are getting regarding sex in marriage. Solomon would role in his grave to see the ways his writing has been twisted!

gengwall said...

So Gem, that begs the question, what value is there in SoS for Christian couples if not to promote "monogamous marital Love"?

gengwall said...

Incidentally, I have heard a differnt interpretation of SoS which makes Solomon the bad guy who steals away the Shulamite from her betrothed shepherd boy but despite all his slick talk and fancy trappings can not lure her into his bed. Interesting.

Gem said...

Gengwall,

There is monogomous love in SoS between the woman and her shepherd lover. There is also LUST in the story. See Chap 6-7 for example. Solomon longs for her for his harem. He calls her "Shulamite" (feminine form of Solomon) which occurs ONLY in 6:13 followed immediately by a lustful monologue). Solomon is the VILLAIN of his story, not the hero. (See http://www.answering-islam.org/Andy/Songs/commentary.html )

I also think there is merit to the ancient understanding that it's a metaphor about the love between Christ and his church (if Solomon is understood as "Satan" attempting to seduce).

gengwall said...

Ah excellent. Then you subscribe to the same interpretation that I do. Do I take it that the pastor's sermon did not follow this interpretation? What do you mean when you said he held up Solomon as a model? Did he really hold up Solomon's real life example as a model, or the Song as the model?

I'm afraid Solomon falls into that "do what they say, not what they do" category, much like the Pahrisees in Jesus time. His real life example is not a model for anyone, but we should not use that fact to dim our appreciation for the wisdom he imparted through the Proverbs and even through SoS.

Kristen said...

I think I see the SoS differently. It is a love poem. It is my understanding it was common for poetry of this kind to be associated with a king, to give it a sort of glamor.

I don't think any connection to the actual life of the actual King Solomon is necessary or intended. I don't think Solomon wrote this book. It is a celebration of love between a man and a woman-- and when looked at closely, it's remarkably egalitarian, especially for the time it was written.

Yes, it's divinely inspired. But a love poem is a different genre than an OT history, and there is no need for it to be tied to the real history of the real Solomon.

Gem said...

Gengwall,

Pastor David Jeremiah preached his whole sermon on the beauty of mongomous love between Solomon and the Shulamite(Solomon-ite) as if SOLOMON was the hero. Jeremiah had some nice thoughts about marriage, but it's completely impossible for Solomon to be a good role model for married people! I didn't listen to any of his sermon myself. My husband brought it up as to how it makes him stumble for preachers to put Solomon on a "marriage advice" pedestal.

I've heard James McDonald preach on it. He suggested that Solomon wrote the play incorporating a story from his own life about a woman he desired for his harem but she remained faithful to her shepherd lover. MacDonald suggested that Solomon admired this woman. At least that makes sense instead of ignoring the elephant in the room of Solomon's lustful lifestyle.

Driscoll (the BJ evangelist) uses proof texts out of the book to advocate for various sexual practices which he apparently favors. I agree with Mara (2nd comment at the top) on that.

Not on Solomon, but Josh Harris was on Focus on the Family today and has a book out "Sex Is Not The Problem (Lust Is)" Home Run show IMO! He rightly observed that LUST will not be satisfied by sexual release. LUST is never satisfied.

The obsession with "Tarting it up" by conservative evangelicals just feeds the monster.

gengwall said...

arrrggghhh! I just typed a big long comment and it disappeared on me. Let's try again.

Gem - to reiterate, I agree with you and McDonald on the interpretation of SoS and would be disappointed if a pastor held up the real life Solomon as a model of anything marrital. But monogamy - what a joke. Still, Kristen's comment directly above should not be overlooked. As I stated before, Solomon's wisdom is directly from God. That he does not practice what he preaches does not necessarily eliminate the wisdom in the preaching. If "Solomon" in SoS is a fictionalized character (despite the name and claim to authorship), even a 2 character interpretation can teach us. Still, I support the three character take on the play.

I'm not sure I agree with connecting Driscoll with Mara's "shock jock preacher" despite the fact they address the same sexual act. I have not read Driscoll but I would hope he does not suggest that "Jesus commands wives to give their husbands oral sex", does he? Certainly there is a vast difference between saying something, within guidelines, is an allowable practice in marriage and saying that a husband can place demands on his wife to engage in that practice.

Which brings me to this: "The obsession with 'Tarting it up' by conservative evangelicals just feeds the monster."

I was unclear at the outset when the author of the article Suzanne quotes used this expression but now I'm completely lost. What do you consider to be "tarting it up" and what monster is being fed by it. I'm guessing the monster is lust (I've read Josh's book BTW and agree whole heartedly with his premise), but I would disagree that "tarting it up" is inherently, universally, and exclusively a lustful expression of sexuality. But maybe I'm reading too much into what you said. Please help me out here.

I consider "tarting it up" and "spicing it up" to be semi synonymous terms. I guess "tarting" would be a little more erotic or provocative than "spicing", but it is all symantics. Frankly, I disagree with the use of "tart" in general because coloquially "tart" and "slut" are also fairly synonymous and I simply don't think you can refer to a wife in the private sexual interaction with her husband as a "slut" any more than you could call her a "whore". So I would have preferred "spicing it up", but it isn't my article.

At any rate, I see nothing inherently sinful with "spicing it up" in the marriage bed. Conversely, I see making sexual demands or even exerting mild pressure on one's spouse to do something "spicy" to be inherently sinful. The two aren't the same thing.

Kristen said...

Gengwall, I think "tarting it up" means something different from "spicing it up." I think "tarting it up" means a woman being encouraged to act like a whore in her marriage bed-- ie., to do what her husband demands (or even simply what she think's he would like when she wouldn't actually like it herself), regardless of her own pleasure or enjoyment-- to treat herself as a second-class participant in the act of love, cheapening herself and laying aside her own human dignity.

Anonymous said...

From m-w.com
Definition of TART UP
transitive verb
: dress up, fancy up

Don Johnson

gengwall said...

Fair enough Kristen. I have a followup then, still reflecting on Gem's comments. Are there certain acts that some universally associate with whoredome that therefore they would universally categorize as "tarting it up" and therefore universally exclude from the marriage bed? Also, if that is the working definition, then the author of the article is including something seemingly (at least to me) as innocuous as trying a new position or making love in a new location as "tarting it up". It starts to sound like anything outside of good old missionary for procreation purposes securely within the boundaries of the couple's bed is "dirty" and therefore should be avoided by Christians. Where do we draw the lines, especially when the bible is literally silent on things like sexual acts, positions, and locations? Or is it motivations, attitudes, impositions and comfort levels that really determine what is allowed and isn't, regardless of how "tarty" somebody may view a particular act?

Anonymous said...

Related to TART
Synonyms: bawd, call girl, cocotte, courtesan, drab, harlot, hooker, hustler, sex worker, streetwalker, strumpet, prostitute, whore

So the use of tart is negative.

Don J.

Kristen said...

Gengwall, when the Bible is silent, we fall back on the rule of love, right? Do unto others. If you would want your own comfort levels, needs and desires considered carefully in the act of love, then do the same for your spouse.

gengwall said...

Kristne - I absolutely agree. But that doesn't answer the question. I get the feeling that the author of the article, and maybe some here, albiet to a lesser degree, believe that there are some sexual acts that are inherently incapable of having a love component and therefore universally excluded from the marriage bed. So I'm still trying to figure out - based on your definition of "tarting it up", which I believe effectively paraphrases what the article's author is trying to convey, is something tarty because of the act or because of the actors?

Kristen said...

Gengwall, I think it's both, and IMO the line is drawn when it causes either partner pain or humiliation. Even if they like, or think they like, pain and humiliation.

gengwall said...

Let state my position a little more clearly.

You said "If you would want your own comfort levels, needs and desires considered carefully in the act of love, then do the same for your spouse." I totally agree. But I also believe that leaves sexuality open to a wide range of actions and expressions. Simply put, in a loving relationship where both spouses are giving freely and without reservation to each other, pretty much anything goes, as long as it isn't expressly forbidden in Scripture, even if it is something that ALSO happens to be associated with tarts. If an author wants to call that "tarting it up" because of the association, so be it. But the author of the article invokes Billy Graham and calls such actions "sin". She even includes in her list of actions something as innocent as trying a new position or location. Therefore, I think the label is misapplied given a loving relationship.

gengwall said...

Sorry Kristen, we corss posted. That is absolutely where I draw the line too (although I would add emotional as well as physical discomfort, and force, although your humiliation aspect probably includes that).

Here is the point I'm trying to make, and I think you agree with. All of this has to do far more with the people involved and their motivations and actions toward each other, than their sexual activities with each other. What say you? Gem? Others?

Gem said...

Gengwall (11:42)

I'm pretty sure Mara meant Driscoll who advocates BJ "evangelism" twisting 1 Peter 3 which speaks of "CHASTE behavior" to mean that a wife needs to "serve" her husband with BJ's.

QUOTE: "A transcript of the sermon quotes Driscoll saying he told her, "1 Peter 3 says if your husband is an unbeliever to serve him with deeds of kindness," referring to oral sex.

Here is the link: http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=30700&ref=BPNews-RSSFeed0617

Gem said...

under the photo at http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=30700&ref=BPNews-RSSFeed0617

"Speaking in Scotland, Mark Driscoll dramatizes how he counseled a (new Christian) woman to pull down her husband's trousers and perform oral sex on her unbelieving mate – because she was a "repentant woman" who is "supposed to be a biblical wife." "

Gem said...

Gengwall,

Far be it from me to tell people what to do in their bedrooms. Several things I know from experience:

1) porn use, strip club use, and adultery is destructive to a marriage and the one doing it is abusive and neglectful in many ways

2) It's not the wife's fault. It doesn't matter how available and for what positions, his problem is not the availability of sexual release. His problem is LUST.

3) While sex is an entitlement of marriage, so is kindness ("benevolence") per 1 Cor 7. A wife need not do anything she dislikes or finds humiliating. She should not be coerced, shamed, nor badgered about such things.

4) I learned from marriage counseling with a sexual addiction specialist that the DEMAND for certain positions (particularly OS and AS) is symptomatic of porn use.

5) I am glad I am not married to Mark Driscoll. I feel sorry for his wife, Grace.

Kristen said...

Gengwall, you said:

"But the author of the article invokes Billy Graham and calls such actions "sin". She even includes in her list of actions something as innocent as trying a new position or location."

Yes-- this author appears to be basing her definition of evangelical Christianity on the pietism of 50-100 years ago rather than on how evangelicalism sees itself today. As a whole, evangelicalism has abandoned as unbiblical the idea that our commitment to Christ is tied up in what we eat, drink, wear, etc, all of which, as Paul says, are "elemental principles of the world" that are "destined to perish with the using" Gal. 4-5, Col. 2.

She is correct in noting that evangelicals have rejected the idea that sex, in and of itself, is dirty or unholy. She is incorrect in equating this with mere "wordliness" on the part of Christians, without examining how or why evangelical beliefs have changed.

Mara Reid said...

Wow, I miss a lot when my day job calls me away.

Yes, Gem is right, Mark Driscoll is the shock jock preacher I was referring to in my first comment on this thread.

I wanted, very bad, to link John McArthur's 'The Rape of the Song of Solomon' but their archives don't go back that far. And in a link in that four part series there is a quote of Driscoll saying to women from the pulpit that God commands them to give their husbands OS and uses Song of Solomon 2:3 as scriptural support.
The link Gem gives is the watered down version.

Personally, I feel AS, even between a husband and wife, is still Sodomy and an abomination.

OS is borderline. I know many engage in it and claim it is completely normal and healthy, but the common acceptance of it makes me uncomfortable. I stop short of putting it on the level of AS. But only because I'm not 100% sure that it is so I want to err on the side of grace.

New places and new positions don't bother me at all. Outside, out in the woods, with or without a tent, vehicles etc.
As long as both are comfortable with it, no problem.

My problem is with parts that weren't designed to go together being put together. And worse, being told that God says you have to do it because it is one of His commands.

JaneDoeThreads said...

Alright, Gengwall, sorry but you opened the door, and well, LOL, ya know I just ain't gonna sit quite on this one, SO, here goes, [brace yourself folks cuzz I'm about to get street brutally honest with ya]

one, what I keep hearing from you Gengwall [and not attacking you just saying, because I hear where you are coming from but I also Hear what so many men/culture uses to 'manipulate' or use guilt against women, etc., with scripture, and it IS based AGAIN, sexuality based on Male defining on Male wants that is yes heavily influenced by Porn and Media Porn culture, what we in Rad Fem call the usual Het sex, and OS falls into this [and Driscoll is an Asshole, seriously an Asshole] but anyway, OS falls into this as well Because Usually, 90% of the time, when neo-cons [can I use that, LOL] define OS what that means, is woman, on your knees and well you know...the Reciprocal of course is usually NOT There because well you see women are unclean, nasty, blah blah blah, the Usual b.s. crock these Same OS for man use all the time on women,

I grew up many years in the KKK Bible Belt Fundie Yee Haw South with these types so kind of know how that ole good ole boy Logic works, with the whole shut up in the truck line, Anyhow,

yea, so the whole 'spicing it up' lingo, so Often used, is really the man saying

ya know ya kind of prudish and why I want you to be all submissive and dumb like [like a pet dog] but in the bed, can you just act more like the woman at the strip club [never mind she is Paid to do this/and often doesn't really Want to] or the woman on the street corner, or that woman in the Hustler lay out, why they are Women, and Shouldn't you uh, take care of my uh neeeeeds here...

and this, bottom line, is usually, I would say about 89% of the problem Right there, [con't]

JaneDoeThreads said...

and as for AS, yea that's a big one too, because you know if it don't cause pain then why you just don't luv your man enough [and if it is painful well don't ya know ya just ain't doing it right, yea I mean the lines of b.s. is just Unreal that these men use] but Anyhoo,

two things, 1, sexuality Defined by males as to WHAT sex is to be, according to Their image of sex which is more often than nought, about HIM, the phallic center because you know that's the other 'god' and well the woman is there to service him, etc., well he Might give a bit of uh, FP for about five min but remember she's dirty and well cooties and well so like usually he has reasons, justified Always,

because in porn you see it's NOT about women, it's about penetration, in just about every orifice there is, because that's the Dom to Sub thing there going, and THAT is why you get most of the time That definition of sexuality and
while the physical in of itself [leaving out AS will touch on that in bit] is not bad, per se, it is the Environment of the dom to sub/penetration/degradation and submissive Role the female plays, in Porn, ok that IS yes, what is the emotionally destructive BECAUSE

it is NEVER, I REPEAT, NEVER ABOUT THE WOMAN BEING 'EMPOWERED SEXUALLY' but being DIS-EMPOWERED,

and that is key right there, HE is in control, HE is the one leading up to be it through force/guilt or using MANIPULATION, therefore he is in the dom power and she is acting out for Affirmation, to Appease or Please, either way,

therefore, she will submit in love even Though, she knows inside, somewhere that this isn't about HER or THEM both, but about HIM, and then the cognitive dissonance, the 'well maybe I'm a prude, maybe it's me, yada yada' she remains silent, stuffs, he thinks, hey fine, this is great,

and then He begins to demand more and more acts that are yes, dis-empowering. For her that is, not for him,

and that's the issue with the male defined porn influenced [even if one doesn't watch porn the info from schools to boys locker rooms to movies is There] sexuality,

so Therefore, sexuality defined that way, anything that is empowerment of females, is deemed as prudish,

which is not, in fact the One label that pro-porn folks Always use against Rad fems against, is that they are prudes, and THAT right there, is another, porn language tactic to guilt the woman into sexual degradation, because it says, 'there is something deviant about you because you aren't enjoying your humiliation like you should' to Prove your loyal bdsm luv for me

and then they cleverly add Scripture to this, and whola, you got the perfect religious backed pimping of the wife in the bedroom [and this has a lot to do with the lust for Virgins too, another topic but it IS related to the whole blood-pain thing] but anyway,

[con't]

JaneDoeThreads said...

as for the AS, which from all the studies I've read, nearly all women say is painful, so then, why do men insist on it? Well misogyny is a huge part, the subjugation another, because AS is All about domination, it is the utmost removal of face to face intimacy, and not condemning any who partake, not my point here,

but, well, I think it's like this...when a man demands a wife to do this, I think, what She should do, is this:

fine, but let's share alike, let me grab the ole baseball bat and do you first,
Oh, then you see, NOT so much reciprocal going on there now is there? Gee wonder why? I mean after all, it's equality and luv right? Wrong,

MEN know this is all about domination, and has Nothing to do with Empowering women, as equal partners, in intimacy,

and so, Again, and sorry for going into crass detail here, but what we have is not so much about the old adage in 'well can we be a bit more creative Kamasutra here' type of thing [which that book, is also, about male dom though it's covered with a load of poetic b.s. to mask it, I at least give them some erotica credit there, on a small scale but Anyway] but a very cleverly 'manipulated' pressure to wives to comply with a Disempowered sub position,

and it Will, guarantee you, eventually, cause resentment and erode TRUST in the relationship, as well as I believe, feeds into the base nature in the man To lust for more power/dom rather than intimacy.

This is where, I agree with some of the New Age [I know, oooh it's all bad] but with some of the more Eastern beliefs on intimacy sexually [in marriage] also with the universe, what is termed Tantric sex, [not the religion so much OK but the idea of the Spiritual union as well as physical] Because, unlike the Western and Oriental influence [what I term the Harem-Temple dom-sub sex slave sex] which is heavily based on recreation, sex as sport/dominance for men,

tantric sex is more about KNOWING one another through massage, communication, as well as spiritual connection with the life forces in universe, etc., it's not prudish, allows for creativity, etc., but the Difference is,

women are Empowered, rather than Disempowered, but I have to say, I think, not to be insulting but I think most Western men, simply are too infantile/sexually immature for this, seriously,

Because of the gross influence of porn and Male entitlements, not just to Women's bodies, but to dominate/the Earth, yes, because That's a huge part of it,

rather than garden and care for plants it's more like the 'hey let's drill a big hole in Mother Earth for gold and minerals and poison water while we're at it because we big He men, ugh ugh'

con't [word count]

JaneDoeThreads said...

con't [last on this--sorry in addition to four replies above, had to split this up]


it's the same way sexually, with relationships, because BOTH are LIFE FORCES,

it's not just a hole, it's not just a pole, it's a Life force, whether the desire is to Create a baby or not, that LIFE force is Still there, and the thing with the Cheapening of sexual intimacy, is that it cheapens the entire force union, this is Why yes couples can have sex, they can be married for twenty years, have maybe even great sex,

but Never, join intimately in spirit or in soul, Why? Because they haven't gotten past the dom male/sub female power dichotomy and the FEAR of true intimacy, power dom-sub sex is THE huge wall to Prevent true intimacy,

it's a mirage, a fraud, it's no different than a lifetime of one night stands, just sharing the same house,

to KNOW, someone, one can't KNOW [Biblical term] someone when it's all about dom to sub, even if disguised under a few acts of kindness,

and you know, WOMEN, know the difference, Because, they carry the life force womb/garden Inside them--they know, by instinct,

they know. With every forced act, that disempowers the woman/wife,

she, though she may not vocalize it, will surround that life force within, with an iron wall, to Protect that force, Because the womb will protect the womb, just like Mother Earth, protects Herself [or vomits out later via violently I might add] because SHE knows,

and she might submit, she might even convince herself that she's taking on for the team, so to speak--but HE, will never, truly KNOW her from the inside,

no matter, how much 'tarting' it up they do.

Peace,

Jane

Jay said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jay said...

Throughout most of the history of Christianity, sex was viewed negatively and women were severely repressed in leadership positions because of their gender. Buddha taught that sexual desire is best to be avoided as it is an obstacle to enlightenment. Much of traditional Buddhism believes a woman must be reborn as a man before they can reach nirvana. Judaism had double standards about sexuality. (Just think woman slave) Islam demands a woman must stop what she is doing and respond immediately to her husband’s lust. In all of these religions women have been forced to take second place to man. Any progress beyond this is positive and I think in all of the above mentioned religions there has been positive discussions. Any notion that it is THE WOMAN who is responsible to service a man’s sexual needs is a continuation of the sexual oppression of women. There is a mutual responsibility in a relationship toward sexuality and we need to respect each other.


JaneDoeThreads said that “the discussion began on the sex positive, that another brought up”

Hmm, I wonder if that was thought to be me when I said “The modern trend in religious circles is towards a more positive attitude towards sexuality in general.” I suspect I was misunderstood and I am not sure why I am even bothering to say anything in defense. Maybe I am just too proud or just too stupid to be silent.

BTW here is a good link my daughter, who is studying sociology and was watching this as one of her class assignments, sent me that talk about the porn culture issue that JaneDoeThreads has been focused on in this discussion. Some of it is rough so if warn you to think twice before watching it. Nevertheless, I think it is something that has victimized us all and we need to understand its deceiving and numbing effect on us.

http://stoppornculture.org/watch/

Gem said...

Mara et al,

Found the links to MacArthur's repudiation of Driscoll's Rape of Solomon's Song. Please add a www. at the beginning. I want to avoid being deleted as spam for too many links

shepherdsconference.org/pulpit/4168/the_rape_of_solomons_song/

shepherdsconference.org/pulpit/4169/the_rape_of_solomons_song_part_2/

shepherdsconference.org/pulpit/4172/the_rape_of_solomons_song_part_3/

shepherdsconference.org/pulpit/4174/the_rape_of_solomons_song_part_4conclusion/

The last of MacArthur's critiques links to a transcript which contains the BJ evangelism bit:

QUOTE: [In recounting the story about the man who started coming to Driscoll’s church because his wife began performing oral sex:]

She [the wife] says, “I’ve never performed oral sex on my husband. I’ve refused to.” I said, “You need to go home and tell your husband that you’ve met Jesus and you’ve been studying the Bible, and that you’re convicted of a terrible sin in your life. And then you need to drop his trousers, and you need to serve your husband. And when he asks why, say, ‘Because I’m a repentant woman. God has changed my heart and I’m supposed to be a biblical wife.’” She says, “Really?” I said, “Yeah. First Peter 3 says if your husband is an unbeliever to serve him with deeds of kindness.” [Laughter from audience] How many men would agree, that is a deed of kindness. He doesn’t want tracts. Those won’t do anything. What we’re talking about here could really help.


BTW, while I applaud MacArthur's discernment about Driscoll's lust promotion, MacArthur's treatment still takes Solomon as the HERO and (gently) criticizes those who see three characters in the story or take the ancient view that the story is a metaphor of the love between Christ and the church.

I am assuming, based on Kristen's comment, that she would agree with MacArthur? My question is, if you can't see three characters in the story, what do you do with this?

“threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number. My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her. The daughters saw her, and blessed her; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her.” Song 6:8

What kind of god would have His Word validating a "join the harem" paradigm like that?

Anonymous said...

The Solomon characterization by this pastor is so typical. God is the hero of the OT. Not the characters He worked through to His own purposes.

Seriously, David would be in jail today. David is dying so what is done? A "beautiful" girl is found to "keep him warm". Where are all his wives?

If they want to use OT characters to model behavior today, why not choose some of the prophets One pastor could wear a yoke or lay on his side for a year. Another could go naked for a time.

You get my point. They only pick and choose which ones and what they did that they WANT to model.

Mara Reid said...

Thanks Gem. And in the fourth part of that series, the conclusion, McArthur reluctantly gives the link to other quotes. Follow the link yourself and read the words highlighted in yellow. You will find this among them.

[Driscoll tells a story about a wife who won her husband to Christ by performing oral sex on him. Driscoll told the wife that “Jesus Christ commands you to do so,” referring to oral sex.]

How anyone can't see this as spiritual and sexual abuse and a gross misrepresentation of Jesus Christ, Himself, I simply don't know.

The current problem now is that even though he might not be so blantant to say such things in public, he's never admitted he's wrong and he still counsels women in private. So how do we know that he is not still telling women they are in sin and disobeying the command of Jesus when they don't drop on their knees and service their husbands like common whores in order to keep the men happy and in his church.

And I think this is what the original post is about. Laying extra burdens on the ewes in order to garner favor with the rams, because it's more important to make sure the rams get into church than any damage done to the ewes in the process.

JaneDoeThreads said...

to Jay, yes it was the reference to sex positive, that I was referring to, it's a Very common term used by the pro-prostitute/pro-porn LOBBY, so even if not being used in that way, overall it IS and so why I referred to it, and the pro-Porn/pro-Prostitute LOBBY is using the Exact same arguments on repressed sexuality, goddess movements [they've hijacked that one too though historically those were exploitative cults] and even the more woman centered 'earth' centered movements, the Pro-sex or positive sex Male defined, have hijacked those as well--it's been a warfare to try and keep Any form of female autonomy in every one of these areas, and sadly the colonizers [of both women's bodies and minds] manipulated by the Interests of selfish Men, are often the women who have internalized--

that's why it's been hell fighting these industries, as well as raising consciousness. [within feminism, I work mostly with Rad fems/anti-porn, anti-trafficking] and so yea, we see all the arguments,
including Yes Buddhism, the whole Nirvana thing--which is a lot like Gnosticism too, the book of Thomas [it says same thing, women get to Heaven IF they grow a penis], but anyway,

just the other face of Misogyny in my book. All in all, the Repression of women's sexuality, will Always be repressed sexuality as long as the 'liberation' is defined by MEN,

it's the same thing we see in liberalism/leftism [far left], women be liberated, oh, MAN SAYS, HERE'S HOW, you can suck my dick...OK, that's blunt but that's about it, [and that IS the whole crap shoot of Positive Sex Lobby]

men saying, We support your liberation, as long as it's at the service of my penis...yea, So much for

liberation. That's the Equivalent, of a white masta telling the black slave

we support your liberation, now go fetch me this and that and later [to the woman] meet me in the shed...

it's the free sex culture, free sex, as long as Women still obey the 'demands' of the men, liberation means,

pass her around.

But SHE still is in the position of 'obeying', and 'following' HIS whim, not HER's,

and I'm going to go ahead and bring this up, where this is Really exposed the most vividly, is man's hatred towards Lesbianism, and Why is that?

Because that is the ONE area where Man has no CONTROL, where sexuality is concerned and where Women, define, NOT men [except in Porn where lesbian sex is portrayed as the male 'fantasy' of threesomes, from male perspective, showing the same dom-to-sub role, shaved pubs/the child sex fantasy, long nails [no lesbian Has long nails, FACT] and well yea, read what lesbians have to say about male defined porn/sexuality, then you really get an understanding of the Difference between male defined and female defined female autonomy

and they are WORLD'S AND I DO MEAN WORLD'S APART,

NO I'm not lesbian, but I've done the research both in GLBT and in Separatist/Amazon communities discussions and there is Such a HUGE night and day difference between Patriarchal male defined compared to Female Woman Womb centered female autonomy/defined on Every level, spiritual, physical and sexual, Why I bring it up,

I would strongly suggest reading [to all interested] Andrea Dworkin, she's one of the authors I believe really tears apart the rape defined sexuality of men,

because sexuality IS defined by a development, of male thought, based on conquest and dominance, ESPECIALLY in patriarchy...

[con't]

JaneDoeThreads said...

so, OK Jay you brought up a couple of things I would like to address because it is So much of the whole sex positive culture [that is pro-porn and Hardly whatsoever friendly to women or women's autonomy so Women need to be aware of the manipulations of it--not saying You are doing this, just saying, this is what we see in the positive sex arguments],

on the point about gender parity/leadership, uh, that hasn't changed Today, any reference to this notion of arrival of female autonomy and liberation is pure unadulterated crock, it's MYTH, and any Feminist knows this, I shouldn't have to explain this one, so I won't...

on the point of Buddha, yes true but that same mentality is also in numerous Christian sects [the whole Sons of God in Rev but no mention of daughters or even Women, it IS overall a boys club culture language except ONE Line in Gal, which in no way does anything to lesson the impact of the excluding of female in Bible, it was culture then, predominant everywhere and heavily in Gnostic beliefs [book of Thomas, woman accepted IF they grow a penis, the same logic used in communism, not accepting of woman because it's misogyny to the hilt, but woman, evil, transform into penis to be accepted into God's kingdom/nirvana, it's Misogyny, no ands ifs ors buts about it, the Ultimate of male homosexual desire which Was Greek culture and filtered over into yes Catholic, why pedophilia/boys is So rampant]


so basically, it's a Very poor foundation for discerning By women, what sexual autonomy is therefore it's still under the defines and control of MEN and as long as That is in existence there is no True mutual anything,

it's simply women parroting what MEN have always defined for Male benefit/desire, now to next point...
[con't]

JaneDoeThreads said...

On the comparisons of Judaic-Islam and any progress from that....one, both Judaic and Islam where sexuality of women is concerned are One in the same, they are identical, worded differently but identical and they Come from the same laws/systems of the ancient Mesopotamia age, even prior to Judaism, FACT. [Lerner, Creation of Patriarchy, Oh, for a Realistic [not fairy tale] truth about women in ancient Rome, "Prostitution, Sexuality, and the Law,Ancient Rome" by Thomas A.J. McGinn, and no where in scripture was Any of this refuted nor rebuked, just saying, and One book you All should read, if you want TRUTH about just HOW horrid both Judaic and All ancient Mesopotamian societies were for ALL WOMEN, read

"Women, Crime and Punishment in Ancient Society/Near East" by Elizabeth M Tetlow, it will really depict/blow myths out the window, especially about the fantasy 'glorification' used to justify or lesson the misogynist blog of much of the OT law, and it ain't pretty...myths don't hold up in light of written legal documented facts, and if you want an actual today depiction, Afghanistan and girls killing themselves because Hell is preferred, would be THE example of ancient society including Judaism FOR women, all women, except for the Elites of royal households, the reps for de gods or God or what have you...this transfers over into the slave-class system of NT as well, hate to burst the utopic ideal bubble but there it is...life was hell for women, from birth to death, she Had no right even to have a soul much less sexual autonomy.

Why Martyrdom was Liberation for early Christian woman, like girls in Afghanistan IT WAS PREFERRED TO SEX SLAVERY/RAPE BY ROMANS, fact...

Anyhoo, word count, con't

JaneDoeThreads said...

So, sorry about the cont posts, word count, So, the whole problem with attempting of this so called utopist 'mutuality' under patriarchal defined sexuality, we have one, the using of MYTH of so called 'women were liberated under NT times/300 years later I might add' that is used as the Platform of this so called 'male leading us to sexual liberation kaka' which continues to perpetuate the male owned/ruled infrastructure, including their 'guiding over/Lording over women's ministries, policing them so that Women never truly come to a consciousness of woman centered Outside of male defined roles, etc,

therefore, the point made that Any progress from the ancient/Judaic/Islamic systems is therefore progress is a poor argument indeed, it's the same logic that was used by far leftists/liberals in the bourgeoisie 'sexual freedom/Kinsey report crap' that Yes they gave women reproductive freedom, meaning 'she had a right to screw outside of marriage' but she Still had no right to say No to comrades or to men nor did she Ever have right to autonomy over her body or even her own labor [failures of de-gender/forced women into malehood/Soviet style/Kollantia Women's Commission] and nor did she have any true autonomy over reproduction, evidence, abortions were yes legal, but Without anesthesia [nice but hey Men don't have them so Men don't care] and birth control was a luxury, that could not be afforded for the expense of oh my gosh, not being able to Build more war machines and industrial machines for de State, Man State I might add] and I bring This up,

because believe it or not, it is So much of the Backbone of the Liberal/Stalinist form of sex positive corporatist kaka that is infiltrating Every aspect of our society and they Especially thrive on the fundamentalisms of Religion to do so

because it's a RIPE environment, women have by far In these environments, been conditioned to already respond favorably to a form of friendly male fascism, in every sense of the word therefore making a Dominion movement via sexual liberation 'male controlled' very possible,

it's a form of social engineering that I wonder if many Do see, it works both in the macro as well as micro, and WHY this is relevant?

Because in ancient societies, the control of female sexuality [Judaism, Hittite, Babylon, Egyptian] was Always centered around the production of labor/agrarian set up of society for Labor, FACT. This is Why you have the harem systems, polygamy, etc., and until you deconstruct the lies used there,

any attempt to form some delusional mutual agreement between a master dom to a sub service/sex slave, is just another clever means of perpetuated Sexual exploitation of women's bodies As well as domestic services,

via labor. Both in home and out of home,

and this is Why, the ones who push this, are So outspoken in rage against, yes, any autonomous, be they right, left, religious, movement of Women, Women's Space and Women defining what They are, as

human beings, sexual and otherwise,

and any attempts of Consciousness [the Wretched of Earth/Fanon] of this By women, is always met, with the Immediate, encroachment of Big Brother and His 'we know better how to free you sister' Especially when it's about Sex,

sexuality and of course, to protest, is to be, obviously,

repressed. And an impediment of course, to progress, the always voice of the friendly fascist, the face of Misogynist Patriarchal Benevolent sex masta...because Men know better, and always have Our interests, at heart,

always... :0

Jane [of course, perspective from a very radical 'autonomous' spinster supporting no to male entitlements feminist here, as well as pro-separatist, until Women are allowed to Define themselves, outside of male constructs, what Woman is...which flies in the face of religion I know, but hey, there it is]

gengwall said...

Whew - lot of catching up to do.

Gem. Above you posted a list of 5 items. I agree with each one emphatically. And as for the posts before that - Driscoll is nuts if he thinks that what 1 Peter 3 says.

Mara - First of all, I agree that ANYTHING that either partner is uncomfortable with is out of bounds for their marriage, and God never says you HAVE to do anything. Anyone who claims that is in fact playing God. The "parts that weren't designed..." argument has significant flaws, but you are being gracious and not condemning people for their own personal experiences so it seems sensless to delve into it. And BTW - Driscoll is nuts. Did I mention that before?

*takes deep breath* now on to Jane...

gengwall said...

Not nearly through all of Jane's comments but this

"fine, but let's share alike, let me grab the ole baseball bat and do you first,"

Just made me ROFL. BTW - I have seen a disagreeable word yet. I'm completely with you.

gengwall said...

Jane - you know, when you aren't writing angry you are very funny.

OK - I quite seriously have no objection or disagreement to anything you wrote. You even have men pegged pretty good (although I'm tempted to use your logic and say you really can't possibly know what we are thinking/feeling becuase you are a woman).

Here is my only question. You began by saying "what I keep hearing from you Gengwall" and then proceeded with 4 posts worth of things that I certainly hope you aren't hearing from me. Did you really mean that what you hear from me is a reiteration, or worse yet, defense of the DOM/SUB culture whose evils you so clearly describe? I sure hope not.

gengwall said...

Oh, and two comments up, that should have ready "I HAVEN"T seen a disagreeable word yet"

gengwall said...

I should address AS (thanks everyone for at least attempting modesty with the initials. You never know whose eyes might stumble onto a blog).

I admit that I suffer from a significant "eeeeewe" factor regarding this and I definately agree with Jane about the DOM/SUB aspects. But I can't claim to speak for every woman and every man in every marriage. I simply don't know if it is true that it ALWAYS is how Jane describes it to be even though I would be inclined to think it almost always is. But since I can't know for sure, and since the bible doesn't give us a clear prohibition, well, I just don't know. I have known married women who testify that they do it freely and willingly (even some who claim to have initiated it), don't feel degraded or subjected at all, and acually enjoy it. I can't imagine how, but I have no evidence other than their testimony to go on so I can't judge whether or not they are telling the truth - nor can I be the judge of them and what they do in their marriage. I would be overjoyed to find an avenue to a universal prohibition of this act, but to date have never seen one presented. So I am as conflicted about that as Mara is about OS.

gengwall said...

Having said all that, let me be clear again on my postion.

Forcing or coercing any sexual act is rape. And anybody who says God says you HAVE to do anything sexually is...well, I can't think of a vile enough word to do justice to their sin.

My perspective is that God leaves sex to the couple. Any interference from the outside, whether it is porn or pastoral preaching (or, can I even add, past sinful sexual history), violates the sanctity of the marriage bed and destroys intimacy. BUT, where love is the motivator, pretty much anything goes.

Kristen said...

Gem said,

"I am assuming, based on Kristen's comment, that she would agree with MacArthur? My question is, if you can't see three characters in the story, what do you do with this?"

I don't necessarily agree with MacArthur. I think there could be either two or three characters in the poem. Whichever way it is, I see no reason to see the real, historical Solomon as a character in this poem. It could just as easily be a glorified, larger-than-life version of Solomon for poetic purposes. Poetry is not a genre that requires historical accuracy.

As far as the mention of Solomon's queens, concubines and virgins, the poetry simply mentions that they exist, and that the Beloved outshines them all. I see no reason to read more into it than that-- whether the Beloved is anticipated to become one of these queens is not at issue in the poem, which is about the true love between the Beloved and her Lover, whoever he may be.

Certainly the sensibilities and mindset of the times show through the poetry. We see this especially in all the livestock/agricultural imagery. There is no reason to see those mindsets as part of God's divine plan-- if it were so, then modern love poems that didn't compare the woman's teeth to flocks of sheep, might be seen as somehow lacking in beauty or compliment to the woman.

Muff Potter said...

Jane Doe and others,

Leave it to a post with a sekshull topic to generate a huge number of responses!

I am in much agreement with many of Jane's comments (not all though) even if they are quite angry. The anger is understandable and I'm sure you have good cause Jane.

What astonishes me is how the scam & illusion of male sexual prowness could have survived as long as it has. Men have what? the sexual equivalent of a one-shot flintlock musket?, by contrast, many women sport Kalashnikovs as a metaphor for orgasmic capability.

The references to Driscoll were highly entertaining. How does a buffoon like that gain any currency at all, much less a kind rebuttal from a fellow Calvinist? Driscoll's preachments on Christian blow jobs are as absurd as Herr Doktor Goebbels ruminating on the differences between Aryan and non-Aryan skulls.

It's obvious that Driscoll does not like the smell of woman. But for me it is the most divine smell in this universe provided of course that she is healthy and not afflicted with some vaginal infection.

So my original question remains, how has the fiction of male superiority stayed for so long? Is it just brute force in the face of what can clearly be seen in some respects as vulvular superiority? Or is there an even subtler dynamic here?

JaneDoeThreads said...

Muff, I might be able to add some insight as to Why the machismo what I now term, Larry Flint Christiandom culture has increased,

using the left/far left analogy and their alliance with Islam...as a basis. We see the Same identical process at work within the secular [philosophical bent] but there it's more of the 'embracing pedophilia', stemming or increasing a Lot in Europe. [i.e. Dutch/Holland] In the left, it's what we call the liberal bourgeoisie influences [Lenin] that took hold, in fact you'd be hard pressed to Find in this post modern age a die hard Conservative [moral] leftist, they at one time Did exist, during Bolsheviks, they don't any longer, Stalinism purged the majority then of course the New Left[heavily influenced by Trotsky which he had the morals of a slug when it came to sexuality] but anyway...[this is where Lenin strongly disagreed with the liberal socialists and on this, I always had a lot of respect for him, he wasn't a Puritan by no means but he was very adamant in his opposition to the 'free liberal sexuality' that was truly just exploitation and com-modification remnants of a capitalist market culture'].

Lenin warned that if the liberal influences took hold that the moral cohesion of society/family and fraternity [among working class] would unravel, putting it in laymen's terms, the liberals of course strongly opposed, in that like mixed wine [leaven] they wanted the cake while eating it too--sure enough, Lenin was right,

he called the liberal bourgeoisie socialistic a capitalist traitor, a wolf in sheep's clothing, this was in regard to sexuality and the treatment of women, as long as women were commonly held as a 'sex class via property, either private or communal' then there was no freeing of labor as a property class/aka slaves. The liberals disagreed,

and sure enough, the liberals took hold and feudalistic capitalism [state fascist run capitalism, which is slavery for masses, capitalism for the rulers] took power via Stalin, Mao [though differently with Mao] and then of course that took over into Nationalist Marxism [Africa] and then the Islamic Alliance with left socialism/that was theocratic Feudalistic and Slavery friendly--of course, women as slaves and pedophilia legalized through so called 'child marriage'.

That is what we of course are dealing with Today, it can work either right or left, as the women [wombs] are merely toys to be exploited, for sex as well as for producing Labor for the state/military/theocracy machine, what is known as TOTALITARIANISM.

con't

JaneDoeThreads said...

[see above, reply to Mutt], anyway, prior to 60s, I would say 50s, the new left begin to take sway, over media here in West [and in Europe prior to that, esp through Academia, the Kensey studies, have a LOT to do with the far left/fascist as well as right Nazi fascist goals] and he, it's been reported, raped his own daughter [she was six I believe] to study her 'orgasms', etc., to justify pedophilia, a means of getting rid of what they social engineers deem as 'taboos that hinder state ownership of wombs/and GENETICS', this is where Yes, the right wing/ is correct in that the PTB want to erode the family unit, darn right they do, fascist social engineers want a mass slavery of perfect soldiers, labor, and race], so, then it was impacting opinion through Academia and Media here in the West--first however they had to remove the 'conservative' elements within the far left [why the division in labor] and this is what many Don't realize, is that when it comes to the global engineers, they are not divided into right/left camps, they are Elitists, corporatist's, they may Differ on opinions, but the Ends are the same,

they are Scientists, above all. The machismo male culture got huge in the 60s but more so in 70s, through Hollywood [the City of Angels, not a coincidence], with the prowess of the macho hunter male and the sexual 'porn depiction want to be raped' damsel bimbo image, the revival of the union with the goddess [Farrah Fawcett, for example], which this was already being primed in 50s, but the 70s it took off to a new height, the 80s was the 'DOORS' [remember Doors band], of the Cocaine age, like a Stargate, yes it works that way, like Studio 54, that would open the door to the opening of more altars so that people would embrace this new liberal ideology of sex, de gender but with patriarchal 'hierarchy' ruling over it,

that is Identical, to the Bacchus cults of Rome. [or Baphomet, take your pick], then the hijacking, through clever means of using yes, race guilt, on the women's issues, then later through multi-culturalism which is anything But anti-Aryan, and now

it's filtering [has been for years, through long time secret Occult societies that work In the churches] Christian culture.

This is why I say, it doesn't operate in a Vacuum, it's not some isolated culture phenomenon that is just going on in the church culture, it works like a spider [just like the web], through various cells, a hierarchy, and they Appeal to the material wants and like in marketing, they 'persuade' desire [just like James said, entice] for objects,
women being one of those,

when God says do not carve an image that includes the carving of 'sexual images' of de 'temple goddess' on t.v., the STAR, Chaldean Stars worship of, Babylon, City of Angels,

the fertility and war cults [Aries and Venus] always used the appeal to the desires in the temples/Market of Rome economy--same thing with B.C., Baal and Ishtar, Ashtor, etc., Molech, etc.,

it's only changed Mediums [media]

it's Sorcery folks...I don't know how to just say it out == it's flat out Sorcery, Enchantment, what you Have going on with the male culture in churchianity today is flat out SORCERY, the divination, the roll of the dice [the Mafia/Catholic], THE Confessional/same way for prostitutes in temples, to gain those Secrets so the PTB can control,

Illuminati, Masons, I mean...it's right in the face, the Nordic Christian pantheon, Hitler and the Orient, Hitler Hittite,

Piper--aka the pipers, enchantments,

James, we are tempted by our sin desires then Enticed...etc.,

Jane

gengwall said...

Jane

Help me understand your view on the exploitation of women in media (whether advertising, literature, film, or whatever) as it relates to the church. I don't see a lot of pastors or church leaders running around promoting sexually explicit media. Is there a connection and I am just missing it, or are you saying instead that both the chruch and the media have the same ends (exploitation of women) but utilize different means (sexually explicit media vs ???? on the church side). I was following your east to west path until you got to sorcery and then I kind of got lost.

gengwall said...

"So my original question remains, how has the fiction of male superiority stayed for so long?"

While the "how" and "why" is well worth discussion, the actual reality lived out of the fiction should not be surprising. God told us it would be this way in Genesis 3. The natural male inclination will be to practice domineering, selfish, sinful rule (I guess there really is no other kind) over females. It is in our DNA. Only when we attack this fleshly predisposition with all our heart, mind, and spirit will we see the truth, reject the fiction, and abandon (though not perfectly) our lust.

JaneDoeThreads said...

Gengwall, later on, after I do some pondering, would like to touch on the whole DNA bit, well, to make it short, [for now], I think that the matter of 'your desire will be for husband [meaning your soul, self will be for him and you will be erased, which sadly is how that plays out] and the whole he'll rule over you, has More to do, with the De-evolution of humankind that is also linked to the disconnect that happens with man/nature with the earth, bearing thorns/thistles, meaning bitterness, again through De-evolution,

not bio-determinism, biological determinism is a Patriarchal justification, the cave man it is what it is, but I don't think that's correct IN that, in Numerous egalitarian-linear societies/indigenous that were NOT of the Mesopotamian desert region/climate constructs, they did NOT have the same bio-determinism's, and were less, Far less violent, more matri centered and [not matriarchal just matri/earth centered] and lived harmonious with the earth/land, they didn't Have the disconnect, I also, theory, think this has a LOT to do, with the types of foods they ate, in that they did not eat animals that were carnivores Blood eaters, in other words, but ate animals that were herb eaters, herbivorous. From comparisons I've done in studies there is HUGE and I do mean HUGE differences in how these tribes Treated women, viewed women and how they Evolved as a species, therefore the whole patriarchal Euro-centric argument that ugh ugh man's desire to rule and women's to submit, is really not based on Facts or DNA, as much as it is based on Justifications for status quo as well as simple belief systems, rooted in constructs/learning. There simply is just too many indigenous peoples, MEN who are in no way, of that mindset, so is their DNA wrong? No, it's not biology, and this isn't just about the treatment of women, but the level of violence within societies, the types of farming/survival of community, etc., All in which, no doubt, were influenced strongly by numerous factors, including the nature environment, types of food available, in which ancient peoples perceived who God was,

or the Great Spirit, etc. This gets more into sociological studies/sub cultures, nethertheless, these indigenous cultures still exist today [note, they are NOT all egalitarian, again, I believe this has more to do with the type of natural environment/meaning geological and types of food], as well as externals such as colonization, isolation, etc., as to how early mankind developed into a species or being--and their relations to Women,

in Every single Native Indian tribe, even the ones [a few] that Were patriarchal [not egalitarian] even They, had far more, less violence and more empathy both towards women/and the earth, because their spirituality was always connected To the nature-environment around them, still is in fact, it reflects in their beliefs, in their trade, interpersonal relationships and even in the political--the less assimilated they are/were into Euro-centric [in spite of the cultural genocide via Christiandom, fact], the less likely they were to take on the Euro-centric religious-paganist mix of patriarchal male dominance characteristics,

generally speaking that is, therefore, there is far enough evidence to prove, that the basis for male cave man Neanderthal treatment of women on scripture, which is an Allegory, using some biological determinist argument, is pure false,

but rather, these behaviors and attitudes are Culturally learned as well as Environmentally learned.

Muff Potter said...

Hi gengwall,

Our English word "lust" has too much negative baggage attached to it, when in German, it simply means "desire". If I say that Mozart's "Eine Kleine Nacht Musik" makes me feel gay, the negative baggage becomes a large steamer trunk in current American parlance and you get a picture quite different from the one say a century ago.

I don't think it's possible to have any kind of sexual congress apart from "desire". It is desire that fuels a kind of pheromonic music that has nothing to do with conquest or domination. In this way, "lust" for me is holy magic.

JaneDoeThreads said...

On the portrayals of women in media,

ok, when I look at patriarchal images of women, I look at the woman as the image of sexual [fertility cult] as well as labor [her as consumer], because since B.C. the two have Always been linked, in B.C. [Mesopotamia region, some other regions but not in All regions] ancient societies, the whole creation of patriarchy/via woman/as loot/war and slave, to expand upon agrarian- Economy esp during Famine [Lamech/two wives-Genesis/Gen as in Genetics as in Generations btw], for labor to farm, then through out the expansion of that, to tribe/economies, see early agrarian development/irrigation, etc., in ancient Mesopotamia, gives you good idea as to Why the laws/Judaic as well were so horrid to Women, some of that was to spare the savagery of anger on man to man, using the woman's body to unleash the savagery so that the Worker Men/slaves would be spared, for de rulers of empires, such as Hittites, Assyria, etc., why women/children were killed for Man's sins, because men were needed for the harsh labor which whole kingdoms were dependent upon, the first harsh communism, how I term it

anyway, if you look at the images of early Goddess's, you kind of see how they played a role in the luring women to modify their desires to be that/as well as men, tapping into jealousy [esp minority ethnic groups/slaves] to also desire the kingdom, etc., which could be utilized, in the

if you serve our god/fight for us YOU too can have this, this and this, THE first 'work of hands' of gods, which God of OT says, do not serve,

the use of Image.

Also these images, if you look at them utilized Fear, as well as Power as well as a type of superiority thought, in the mind of viewer, reminding people/ethnic groups [the slaves] of their debased and inferior status [the sackcloth/ashes, etc]

so anyway...in Western culture [let's bypass Romulus/Protestant Monarchy, etc and focus on today], it's still the same, from Industrial to technology images in media, that yes churches are also a part of because Religion has always been one of the main Institutions of social controls over the masses, they are part of Culture, the images, both Visual through media [the white woman, usually, the Nordic/or Aryan, the housewife, the bombshell always smiling and willing and Passive, emphasis on Passive]

and the Verbatim Image, used through words, using scripture, are identical...because Both are Cultural and Patriarchal, and Both play on the virgin-whore dichotomy with mother-slave/martyr thrown in, of course now throw in the mother-corporate-slave martyr,

and both, tie into Consumerism because women, by far are the major consumers, Therefore, the images women see/and the Verbatim they hear, is what They will internalized [and marketers know this, Religious marketers as well/Tithes you know, kaching$$], and then to be Affirmed in a society where 'external motivators' are deemed more important than internal values, consumers, esp Women, will like the ancient [men too do this] will assimilate into a type of female defined culture, through the types of purchases as well as Lifestyles, that are marketed to them,

if conservative housewife she will consume the puritanical martyr products or lifestyle that will rely on that, if liberal/corporate the same, etc., but the Constructs, you see [this goes far more complex I'm sure you know this]

via image through media or verbatim, work the same--this is Why we though claiming individual culture, really have more of a hegemonic, white centered, capitalist/conservative Patriarchal culture, and it shows, in our Consumerism,

[con't]

JaneDoeThreads said...

particularly where women are concerned. and don't think this isn't a part of the fertility/war cults, always has been,

sure there are 'deviants' from this, However those too, always fall into the hands of Corporatist Culture, controlled through both media as well as religion. Both are manipulated by infrastructures that are Political and rely heavily on mass manipulation of Women,
through Constructs, of what a woman Should be, if she is to be accepted in patriarchal culture, to be a 'good girl' so to speak, or bad girl IF that bad girl contributes to the war culture [Aries-Venus] or the consumption of sex culture/market,

and Though they may Appear different, they really are not, the commonality, can be seen, in the hegemonic, consumer culture, even among some of the more ultra patriarchal christian cults. Just saying...[btw, early Christians, pre-industrial, WARNED about this very thing--sure enough, they were Correct]

this is really a kind of sloppy way of relaying here, because it kind of needs a chapter or two with empirical data to go with it [and I have that data] but, well it should give an idea,

there is no doubt, in some of the warnings of church back in pre-industrial/industrial age in the West, who warned of this, also knew how the overall economic structure was manipulating both, the culture of women [and on that they were so right] as well as the worldliness [consumption/greed] that they warned of, which of course,
the capitalist morality won out...for progress,

this doesn't EVEN touch into the whole racism/slavery factor that played a HUGE role in the development, of cultural norms in this society that yes also play huge in media depictions, that effect consumerism, etc.,

this has a lot to do with the backlash of other cultures [East] against globalization--due to the cultural genocide that occurs, we See this, for example,

in the case after case of non-white women, Literally torturing themselves in China, Asia, South America, to look like Euro-centric beauty standards of American women, due to media--such as, Chinese women having their legs sawed in half, horribly torture, surgery, stretched, so they'll be tall, or their eyelids changed, etc., labia surgeries,

this is just one example of the Extremes, taken, to fit an 'ideal' which to Us, may seem absurd, to Them however, it is the difference of ability to Marry [economics] or be forced into prostitution or sweatshop-slave labor or worse,

again, this is just ONE example, so Yes, the patriarchal 'image' of woman, plays out in both religion and media, is the same, crosses over, is hegemonic-ally white, etc.
and All in all, bottom line,
it's profit

sales or tithes, take your pick or ministry/book/dvd sales, it's Profit, through the Image, of what men, yes,

lust for....no different than the images, used to lure the slave man, to sell his soul, back in B.C.
Jane

JaneDoeThreads said...

Gengwall, see above replies,

""Help me understand your view on the exploitation of women in media (whether advertising, literature, film, or whatever) as it relates to the church.""

again, look at the commonalities of patriarchal defined Roles for women, in consumerism, [end product], and you'll see the cross over, especially in marketing/media images, which all of us, are influenced by, add Verbatim to that [and the political leaven/with religion, aka Herod], and you'll see it--film plays accessory to advertising/social roles/labor roles as well as race/class, media reading same thing-pop culture, even the News, plays huge role in defining gender roles/social conformity,

as church, the Heavy and I do mean Heavy references to Prov 31 has often been used as a cultural-gender role means that has Been used, yes to push a type of 'housewife' aka Consumerist role--I mean, if you turn a woman into a dumbed down co-dependent Stepford Wife child and porn whore at night, she's got to have Something to occupy her mind when NOT having children, etc., that's consumerism--keep her idle hands busy, with house wares,

that's not me being a smart ass btw, [well yea it kind of is LOL], but it is Exactly what our ancestors, Women, WARNED of us, who saw this Exact trend/construct being played out, back in pre-industrial times when women were being lured into textiles in opposition to living on farms, textiles-fashion, HUGE, huge on Global exploitation and slavery btw, and Women are mass consumers--the Second largest Global Industry, second or their, WTO, anyway,

Charlotte Perkins, wrote exceptional warning of this--she was one of many, when you get into more of the fashion-textile-household labor/industry consumption, you Really see, how Big of a role, esp Victorian and Puritanical Christianity, played in,

and what is Media? Do a three hour view of advertising and count, how much of it is centered around Textiles, beauty, along Patriarchal

gender construct lines.

Then listen to the Roles, women are TOLD they are Expected to live up to, through church/religion, how to Plalesse de menz, yada yada, and when they Can, what do they do? They go out, shop/conform to the standards, [or shop to make, same thing] so that they Fit into a Pattern,

just like cutting out a sewing pattern, women actually into Mannequin dolls, when you think about it, through clever use of Scripture to do so--churches make Darn good money--successful market, more tithes,

it's Business. On the bodies/roles of Women,

don't take a genius to figure it out, just takes, having EYES WIDE OPEN.

Peace out, Jane

gengwall said...

Thanks Jane - I'm absorbing. I'm not clear on what is meant by "verbatim". Please clarify.

I know Proverbs 31 has been used through the ages to create a portrait of a wife as:

"a type of 'housewife' aka Consumerist role--I mean, if you turn a woman into a dumbed down co-dependent Stepford Wife child and porn whore at night, she's got to have Something to occupy her mind when NOT having children, etc., that's consumerism--keep her idle hands busy, with house wares,"

I did notice you prefaced this with "Prov 31 HAS OFTEN been used..." and again, I agree. But I'm curious how you personally see Proverbs 31. I see a very different portrait of a wife in the passage than the one you point out, rightly, has often been presented. In fact, I think the traditional patriarchal presentation of Proverbs 31 is horribly corrupt and indeed leads to exploitation as you outline. What do you think? Is the patriarchal interpretation correct in your view and therefore another example of male priveledge played out in Scripture, or have the patriarchalists co-opted and distorted Proverbs 31 for their own selfish Dom/Sub purposes?

gengwall said...

"Our English word 'lust' has too much negative baggage attached to it, when in German, it simply means 'desire'."

Same in Greek. I use it to indicate immoral desire for two reasons - 1) the bible translators use it in the same way, and 2) the word has been bandied about quite a bit in this thread.

I have been inclined to view the word more positively but it is difficult to get past, as you say, the American parlance. So I have no problem using a different word. But to reiterate, my intent in the comment above was to indicate "bad" desire as opposed to the good and holy desire that "fuels a kind of pheromonic music that has nothing to do with conquest or domination".

gengwall said...

"generally speaking that is, therefore, there is far enough evidence to prove, that the basis for male cave man Neanderthal treatment of women on scripture, which is an Allegory, using some biological determinist argument, is pure false,

but rather, these behaviors and attitudes are Culturally learned as well as Environmentally learned."

I don't buy it. Regardless of diet and environment, men have significant hormonal realities that influence our behavior. Not that those are the only factors, certainly, but they are significant factors.

And BTW - are you saying the Native Americans were not violent, or just not violent toward their women? I hope it's the latter because the former is most certainly false. Although even the latter has flaws once you look at treatment of other native American women outside of the immediate community.

gengwall said...

Oh, and one more thing on the Native Americans. If they were so good to their women, then why did they prostitute them out to explorers and settlers in hopes of somehow getting a transfer of White man power into the blood lines?

JaneDoeThreads said...

Gengwall, ok on Prov 31, what I mean by Verbatim is,

'a consistent use of language-words that describe, set forth, an image or images in the minds of hearers, pertaining to a god or God or roles or stories, etc., via Verbatim, word for word',

it's just a term I borrowed, Verbatim, from legal terminology, which means word for word, in using it with image, it's simply a pattern of using language to form a mental image that hearers, will come to a form of agreement on, when that or those words are used often enough, like how that 'if you hear a lie enough it becomes truth', kind of like that,

numerous texts in the OT and NT do paint a verbatim 'image', that create a type of belief-cohesion, particularly when it comes to roles of people or gender, Because especially, of the Consistency of which they are Used,

such as, the virgin-whore dichotomy, and the verbatim image, even WITH various interpretations, the Images of the virgin-or whore female, the evil or disobedient female aka Eve, the image of the strong woman being Jezebel [though strong men who portray the same are depicted through imagery of being men of valor or men who Err], etc., so These would be, verbatim images.

What I mean by that...

Jane

JaneDoeThreads said...

Oh, on Prov 31, I think it's both, meaning, OK, historical setting, context, for THOSE few [and they were few] Elites of the ancient Mesopotamia the set up of the household with the slaves, duty of wife, etc., the Spice Trade [which was huge in that era], and the labor, does match a lot of what is transcribed in Prov 31, HOWEVER,

in Light of those facts, historically speaking, Prov 31 is in NO way about ONE WOMAN, simply is not even realistically the reality of even the most elite of elites back then in that era, but is a compilation of the lives of SEVERAL VARIOUS WOMEN and the labor roles/duties they contributed to that was beneficial to both Israeli/Judaic society as well as to the region as a whole, and This is why, taking both Historically and Allegorically,

there are various roles as well as some allegory that I think, is just so missed in modern interpretations or readings...For example, and how I came about the 'role-labor' and various women was, from reading a book on the Diaries of women in Early America who had to Divide up labor, and that was years later of course, with the agrarian Cotton Gin Age, one woman Simply could not in any PHYSICS, MATHEMATICAL, REALISTIC WAY do all the chores listed in Prov 31, it's Humanly impossible--labor was Divided even then, e.g. spinning was an all day job in of itself, which was often left to the younger daughters, while the mother/wife made soap, another all day job/or most of day, the next day it was weaving or sewing/mending, the next day this job, next day that job, and All the labor was divided and why girls didn't attend education Except for the Elite families who could afford maid servants which were debted workers/immigrant women sent to the Colonies, and that's With modern [for that era] tools...

therefore, taking studies of earlier times, B.C. and the means of basket making, grinding millet and grain for bread [another half day job/and was in Mexico even till the 50s in areas until the relief trainers sent in those bread grinding metal devices one hangs on the edge of a counter, which cut down time] but anyway, so taking the early labor of B.C., there is simply no way, one woman could do all the jobs/labor with the primitive tools they had then--So, historically, that means, it has to be the jobs of numerous different women, so the MEN and WOMEN who take those scriptures today and attempt to put all those 'characteristics' onto one woman, Seriously, need to go to school and learn some ancient History, they are Clueless, no offense but seriously...

and IN those tribal societies then, [and still in a few indigenous tribes In Africa they still operate labor this way], they worked in groups, not individual women, split into teams, because of the labor intensity/time frame required for certain jobs, such as spinning, weaving, basket and/or pottery [depending on tribes, men often did these labors], food prep, tanning hides, etc., and that doesn't include the markets that women did sell vegies [and still do] and traded for spices, selling linens for those who wove flax and weaved them, etc., etc., etc., so--

and it depends on region, like if flax isn't grown in a region they won't be making/producing linen, or seasonal work, etc., just depends, and so like the roles/labor that Paul speaks of when he is referring to the jobs of widows, that's the Same thing, that isn't ONE woman, doing All those jobs, but a compilation of the types of Labor that women do, that God recognizes and that He says, has Value, whether a woman does three of those jobs or just one...[and you can tell how they are listed out with the ; ]

anyhow...so, historically that's what I think that means, and those jobs would vary according to family, region, size of tribe, seasonal work, size of family-if they owned slaves, so forth...

con't

JaneDoeThreads said...

sorry word count, see top two, reply to Gengwall on Prov 31

OK, now for allegorical, as to your question...I've gone over the various roles/division of labor of Prov 31/how it applies to more than one woman, so now to allegory,

good example, is verse 21, where it says, 'She is not afraid of snow for her household is clothed with scarlet [para a bit here],

well, OK, scarlet is a COLOR, I can wear the color scarlet until my hands turn blue, the Color does in no way warm anyone...wool in That era esp was not colored scarlet, the closet they had to dyes then was indigo and that was later, maybe some tans/tone taupe's, if they could get enough berries to dye fabric [very costly then] and so anyway, not that THAT is important but just saying, that can not mean,

the color keeps warm...so then, what Does it mean? Well scarlet is allegorical of Warmth, of love, so that means,

snow, as we know Jesus referred to winter as time of cold/hard times, times of Lack, harsh times, so that to me reads as

she keeps her family covered during harsh times with love, like scarlet...warmth.

That's one example, though Yes it also means, Depending on region [and btw, it rarely snows in that region, in Turkey in mountains yes, in Iran yes, rarely in Israel region, except sometimes in Hebron mountains] and Numerous other scriptures, all through OT, also I take allegorically, mention the garments, as pledges or robbed or split, because Garments were rare, fabric was Extremely hard to come by then--I've read that it took one year to weave/spin one coat which they wore all the time, so, that yes could mean in the literal sense,

also on the rising up night and providing portion for slaves, food that is, we know historically it was Slaves who did the serving/mostly farming for food, so allegorically this could mean wisdom, providing nurture to the female slaves to keep peace in the household/managing how day to day chores went, etc., the course of day [also how it was done with those women/Elites who had slaves/or domestic servants back in early America], so,

while yes some of it can be taken literally [though various women, the spindle alone, again, all day job and we know historically these jobs were divided by all females in a household] I personally tend to think it's more allegorical,

including the 'price worth more than rubies' which pertains to dowry, wives were simply, labor/sex commodities, then, still ARE in those regions, sad to say,

they don't marry for companionship in Mesopotamia region, but for sex and labor, child birth, that's it...IF they have companionship [Islam, parts of India] that's luck, all there is to it,

that's how I see it. NOT that I don't believe they have merit, I do, but I personally, take them in the context of which they were written and why that was,

and yes, I do firmly believe, they are very sadly, abused, and used to Abuse women, hell they aren't even used for the betterment of community anymore, more like, a means for selfish stupid men [sorry being blunt] to push for a in house slave--with perks,

that even under Tribal patriarchy/Judaism, was in no way, what that Prov 31 was meant for, and they were patriarchal/misogynist in their Own right, but at least, they were tribal about it, not male centric--and they divided labor.

Bottom line, these were societies that were Labor central, because they were Dependent upon that labor with a type of rule, that was necessary for their survival as a human species in hostile climates, hostile environments, in a period where there wasn't jobs and malls and so forth--very primitive in other words.

just my take on it

Jane

JaneDoeThreads said...

on Indigenous tribes/egalitarianism, not going to get into long discourse on this, will simply list these:

[I prefer academic/scholarly journals/studies, I can list tons of those, but for brief, one can pull their own research from these, I always cross examine from various cross references, then pull out common threads, there is Enough, to prove, that yes, the biological typical white privilege racist [sorry but it is Darwinist influenced and been proven to be such, in a lot of Christian beliefs on race/etc., in West, not so much in Europe/Asia, another topic/time] but here's a couple,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_roles_in_First_Nations_and_Native_American_tribes

http://indigenouspeoplesissues.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1777%3Athe-headman-was-a-woman-the-gender-egalitarian-batek-of-malaysia&catid=50%3Asoutheastasiabooks&Itemid=67&lang=en

seen photo ops in gender studies years ago on this tribe, they are truly egalitarian, and more than disprove the nonsense of the whole patriarchal ugh ugh men and hormones bunk--if one wants to debunk the passive female sex toy and male hormone driven rapist determinist nonsense,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people

as for yes Tribal indigenous peoples that did lean more towards violence, INTERESTINGLY, MIDDLE EAST, duh, again, my theory is it has a lot to do with types of animals/such as Mayan-serpent--the serpent was their most feared creature as was jaguar, the lion in M.E. as it was, at one time, their most feared [in places now is near extinct, like the one time Syrian bear, that was also a feared creature], a good analysis of,

on tribal egalitarianism/tribal violence,

Tribes and state formation in the Middle East
By Philip Shukry Khoury, Joseph Kostiner, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University

google it, it's pdf file.

Jane

JaneDoeThreads said...

Gengwall, et al., just to mention,

one of the reasons I began to question the whole bio-determinism reasoning used in patriarchal religions, was that it's often [quite I should say] used in separatist feminism as well--As the rationale, to not only segregate the genders/sexes but, in some more radical groups, to actually kill off the more violent by biology sex, that's right, men.

So, those biological determinist rationales do More to spread hate, as well as this belief system that it's biology therefore can't be changed,

and one that can Backfire, on the very MEN who promote this type of thinking,

because the more the male violence spreads towards women, in cultures, the more Those women, will turn against men, including their own SONS,

and that's one nasty little aspect of this that many don't even consider, but if you want to look at how a Social Engineer could take and utilize the bio determinist argument--it's simple

create a mass society of violent men with entitlement, tell them it's their 'nature' to do such, they act out on 'passive women' who are destroyed slowly, those same women are dead inside and do not love [maybe they care physically but not love] their children, particularly their male children,

the genders are segregated...men learn violence and women learn passive indifferent self hate

the boys grow up with violence no nurture, thinking it's bio determinism

the boy turns into man with EMOTIONAL DETACHMENT unable to have empathy, thinking it's NORMAL because he's been told it's biological determinism by Gawd

he becomes the Perfect Soldier, killing machine for the state,

create Enough of these, detached soldiers you have a mass Alien army,

ha, you have Islam...or similar examples, of a State Machine, of detached [non empathetic] soldiers, who rape, kill, even kill their own Parents, as they did in Cambodia,

biological determinist rationale, while it may Work to 'excuse' men for male violence/rape/domination it later,

will be the Very means the STATE will use to destroy them, men need to remember that.

Jane