Lot and his Daughters Cartoon for Children??!!? NSFW (not safe for your brain either)

Yes, it’s true that the cartoon is not truly accurate to the bible verse in question. The authors embellished a bit. And, the fucking took place on two different nights, not the same night. Here’s a link to the original text.

As you read Gen 19:30-38, keep in mind that these are the same two daughters from Gen 19:8, just a few paragraphs earlier, whom Lot offered to sell into sexual slavery to the men from Gen 19:4 “the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter.”

Isn’t it nice to know the daughters, even after this attempt to sell them into sexual slavery to a whole city full of men, still loved their father and wanted to “preserve seed of [their] father.”

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0119.htm

Also, note the bit in 19:37 mentioning the Moabites. It becomes important later in the Bible. In Ruth 1:4, we learn that Ruth is a Moabite. Big deal. But, in Ruth 4:22, we learn that this lineage leads to David. Yes. King David. So, the line of Hebrew kings comes from the daughter-fucker Lot and the elder of his two father-fucking daughters.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2901.htm

Yes, the Bible makes wonderful reading … if you can stomach it.

Oh wait. There’s one more little detail. From the lineage of David allegedly comes Jesus Christ. So, even the Son of God is somehow also descended from the daughter-fucker Lot and the elder of his two father-fucking daughters.

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

What’s really amazing though is that some still want to actively teach this crap to their children.

Advertisements

54 Responses to Lot and his Daughters Cartoon for Children??!!? NSFW (not safe for your brain either)

  1. ECA says:

    And we bitch about being a bastard son??
    MS, I sent a movie your way on hulu, did you get it?

    the first thing I can say is this..
    the WORLD population did not exceed, 1,000,000,000 until recent history.
    And even KNOWN populations didnt get much over 100,000,000 until 1200-1400?
    And the past was mostly farming and farming families..Groups floating around and intermingling..
    RAIDING was stupid..but SOME did it..it was easier to ASK first, and take after.. You needed farms. And I have opinions about them.
    Its funny that all the old movies SHOW that area as desert, and it WASNT.. it became that way after all the farming and devastating the ground..
    they had to ROAM around abit to keep the soils fertile..but after you kill off allt he trees and Brush in a large area..what GROWS?
    Goats and sheep ATE everything..the wild life was given nothing..

  2. ECA says:

    AS to family matters, it was a closed group. AS most religious groups are. And marrying inside the group SOON, changes things..and the RIGHTS of women wasnt even considered..IF’ you wish to believe in the bible. remember its SIMPLIFIED..even with tons of Documentation. Many records and opinions WERE part of it.

  3. I’ll have to rewatch that film. I haven’t since you sent it. I did see it though and rated it 3 stars on netflix. But, I don’t remember it at all.

    As for small closed groups, the Bible segment that caused me to start this thread is about Lot after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. (What were they doing in Gomorrah??!!?)

    So, it was a particularly closed group. Lot’s wife was dead or barren (turned to a box of Morton). Salt was also a metaphor for barren, so maybe she was not quite dead yet. (Gotta get those Monty Python references in whenever possible.)

    Regardless, the Bible no longer talks about Lot’s wife after that. So, we’ve got Lot and his two unnamed daughters living an alternative lifestyle in a cave. A group can’t get a whole lot more closed than that.

    From that (dare I say it) unholy menage a trois, we get two whole lineages in the Bible, the Ammonites and the Moabites. Ruth being a Moabite gets that blood line into the line of kings.

  4. Rodnikov Magilovich says:

    All that gobbledygook is utter Bullshit, and a total waste of time / brain usage time! Homo stupidous will believe anything if you word it in a way that it is the least bit salacious!

  5. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    I think its nice that Lot treated his daughters so well that they wanted his seed. And who knows what with S&G destroyed how long it would take before other men would be found.

    Lot is shown as a righteous man as he had to be gotten drunk before he would lie with his daughters. The idea and lust was not his own. Might fine line there…so drunk you don’t remember what you did the night before yet still performing?

    You don’t have to only pray in order to keep the family together.

    • So, do you think his daughters had been fantasizing about being gang-raped by all of the men in Sodom, young and old, and were just hoping that they’d have to pay up on their father’s offer?

      Perhaps being left disappointed and horny is why they later double-teamed their father.

      But yes, keeping the family “together” has never been so literal.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Well, you are missing a major theme in Monotheism that women are evil and the source of all mans’ (man’s?) sorrow. It really was the women who screwed their father. They got him so drunk he had no memory of events which is about as clear as you can be that he was so drunk he could form no intent to have sex. Like the snake in the garden they obviously stimulated him to ejaculate but he was most likely unconscious.

        Now, why did they do this? I think ECA is on to something here. As a farm family, the girls would have to do all the work so they wanted more kiddies asap to lessen their load.

        You have to read the bible in context to get its full revelatory meaning so as to worship god for all and only the right reasons.

      • Yeah. I know the women initiated and got their father drunk. I don’t have any kids, personally, as you know. I’m just having a hard time imagining any father being so drunk that he doesn’t realize that the woman getting in bed with him is his daughter but still being able to get an erection. I’ve said it before and you pointed it out above as well. It’s ludicrous.

        I’d also point out that the entire work of fiction was written by men.

        This is just some wacky porn fantasy from a guy who was probably named Moshe, generally credited with the authorship of the first 5 books of the Torah. IMNSHO, what it really tells us is that Moshe was a sick fuck.

        But, we also knew that from many other places in the Wholly Babble.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Hah. That cracks me up. So, its was written by a bunch of old jewish guys? Or pre jewish?? I don’t know. Rural farmers and sheep herders but “the wise me” of the communities???

        IDKY but it put me in mind of Govenor Walker–the guy just convicted of corruption. Big graduate of Religious U and a big bible thumper and family man. But corrupt as the day is long ….. because…. you know….. he deserves it.

        My target is “the psychology” of what is written. Sounds like old men having sex with their daughters but they tell a story that justifies it as much as they can? They were drunk, they didn’t do it, and it keeps the family together.???????

        Nothing changes. Our hero, Gub Walker, even tried to blame his wife===>and she went along with it.

        Ha, ha. Old Men………assholes.

      • Yup. It was a bunch of old Jewish guys. Or Hebrews at that time. Since I’m descended from them, perhaps I have some of Lot and one or both of his daughters in my ancestry. Who knows?

        Woody Allen? Almost certainly so.

        He stopped just short of a true daughter fantasy, hence he could legally marry her. And, I often point out that he did NOT marry his daughter, which would actually be illegal.

        But, he sure came close, no?

        Strangely, given the duration of the marriage, it seems to be his healthiest relationship in life. Yeesh.

        Walker is a major league bucket of scum not just for this corruption charge but for basically everything he wants to accomplish. I think he really just wants to legislate that women remain barefoot and pregnant. Oh, and they don’t deserve cancer screening or prenatal care either. Just pop out the babies ladies. And, if some of you die in the process, who gives a shit?

        This message donated by an enemy of Governor Walker and everything for which he stands.

        Too bad his name isn’t bad enough to turn into a word for some disgusting thing, the way that people did to Rick “Frothy” Santorum.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Don’t confuse your own marriage with the majority.

        As the bible and Walker and Woody show with authority, a long term mutually satisfying marriage is made by the kinks lining up and being consistent with and supporting, one another.

      • I mentioned my own marriage on this thread?

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Not to my recollection. Do you see anything in quotes or linked?

      • Sorry. Perhaps I’m overly defensive. It sounded as if you were accusing me of stating that my own marriage is the only valid form. I’ve said numerous times on this blog, though not necessarily on this thread, that I do not make such judgements. In fact, in this case, I was stating that Woody’s marriage to Mia’s adopted daughter is probably the healthiest relationship Woody has had. Woody is a pretty neurotic individual regardless of any other issues. Have you seen his films? I like them, especially the funny ones (i.e. the Diane Keaton ones, not the Mia Farrow ones). But, he’s still a pretty neurotic individual.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Yeah, I made a double funny. Too twisty? But I defined Woody’s and the other ones as “long term” but not really healthy. Just the various needs and neuroses lining up to support one another. ie: actually not healthy.

        Then, I CONTRASTED those with your own which I do assume on scant but still reasonable clues is long term but also “actually” healthy.

        And yes…you are too defensive. Not a generally healthy thing to be. I assume you shelter your marriage from such burdens?

        I also have no idea what you mean by having your own “form” of marriage. But, I’ve crossed and stayed over the line long enough, even in good spirit….why take the risk?

      • We’re agreed then on Sporting a Woody Allen.

        What I meant by not assuming my own marriage to be the only valid type is that what happens to be right for me actually is one man one woman, just the way a repugnican asshole would be happy to define marriage.

        But, I don’t assume that what’s right for me is right for everyone.

        Some people might want a marriage of two men, fine with me.

        Some people might want a marriage of two women, fine with me.

        Some people might want a marriage of seventeen people of assorted sexes, sexualities, and genders, also fine with me.

        What others choose to call marriage is not my business. If everyone concerned is a consenting adult, with all of the baggage that legal definition carries, why should I care? The only issue I’d see with a seventeen person marriage that might concern anyone outside of it would be how to file taxes.

        That said, there are valid reasons for the incest taboo. So, Lot and his daughters are an issue. The children created from such a union have a high probability of birth defects. That’s not fair to the children or to the society that must care for them.

        You might then ask about incest between consenting adults with no risk of progeny, for whatever reason. I’d be stumped. Lots of people would have trouble with it. Most people would rationalize some reason to be against it. It has a high ick factor to me as well. But, again, if there really were no risk of progeny, I wouldn’t really have much to say about it other than ick. And, me saying ick has no bearing on anyone else, as far as I can tell. I also say ick about eating snails. So what? I wouldn’t want to make eating snails illegal either.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Marriage has tax and other financial consequences that affect us all. 17 people married…who gets the gubment soc sec check?

        I agree–who should care about incest if there are no offspring? And that would call forth the discussion regarding eugenics on which we have not fared well.

        Marriage is not “just” about people living together. It all goes to why I think Partnership Agreements “should be” a very real alternative, but our culture has not gone that way. Fair enough. Who marries who and who gets what tax and benefit treatments is about numbr 138 on my list of whats important in life.

      • Yeah. Taxes are the main issue in 17 people getting married. There would also be issues of visitation in hospitals, with respect to not disturbing the person in the next bed.

        As for who actually marries whom, that won’t even make my list, not even as low as 138.

        As for who has the legal right to marry whom, that probably makes my top 10 or maybe top 20 list.

        There are a bunch of things I feel quite strongly about. Being allowed to marry the person(s) you love is one of them.

        Partnership agreements are probably good for those who want an intermediate level of commitment. They’ve taken off in at least one European country for that reason. I think they were created as an alternative to allowing same sex marriage. But, since they didn’t restrict it to same sex couples, they soon found a great many heterosexual couples signing up for them as well.

        True marriage though would be hard to replicate with any other legal contract. I guess we could just call it something else and create a contract that conveys all of what marriage does. But, it might not be legal.

        Marriage automatically conveys the following partial list:

        1. Next of kinship. This is huge. This creates a whole host of sub items along with it:

        a. Hospital visitation rights.
        b. Default inheritance.
        c. Decision making rights for end of life concerns.

        2. Transfer of ownership, sort of. Some states actually have community property laws. But, even in states that don’t, a marriage in the absence of a prenuptial agreement means that there are going to be lawyers collecting hefty fees for determining who gets what in a divorce.

        3. Sex. No, a husband does not automatically get away with raping his wife whenever he feels like it. But, marriage is, in all places where prostitution is illegal, the only legally binding contract for sex. This might be hard to replicate without the word marriage. Lack of nooky, generally called “alienation of affections”, is a legally recognized grounds for divorce, meaning it is a breach of contract to completely stop having sex with your spouse without a medical reason. No other contract has this clause, except where prostitution is legal, such as Vegas.

        So, it would be kind of hard to convey all of this plus whatever I’ve missed with some other legal contract.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        I disagree with everything you say. A Partnership Agreement is easy to write into law: A & B are married with all rights and liabilities but their relationship is called a Partnership.

        Rape “should be” impossible in a marriage. As you note, sex is what it is uniquely about. And just as is the case, a charge of assault and battery can still be made against involuntary sex. If you want a rape charge, then get legally separated.

        I mean==does marriage stand for something or not?

        Since in most places any two people can live together without too much hassle, marriage in fact actually does only come down to the government money aspects…..getting the others retirement and access to other quite specific government benefits like immunity from testifying (one I’m against just to begin with).. Every other thing can be contracted. Perhaps not always “honored” but mainly honored.

        Why is it high on your list when its not personally relevant? I bet we could make a list of 10 more important issues we all should have for our fellow man? Access to food, clothing, shelter, healtcare, education, etc?

      • Wow bobbo. And, to think I once thought you were a lawyer.

        I guess not.

        First things first though. Women do not lose the ability to say no when they marry. You’re too drunk. You smell. You pissed me off today. All valid excuses for a woman to reject her husband.

        If he does not take no for an answer, it’s rape.

        In fact, that is the definition of rape. Forceful sex. Pleading is OK. Force never is. And, the crime is not assault. It’s rape.

        Second, you seem to have misunderstood what I said about contracts for sex. Clearly you do have no understanding of the law. Except in states like Nevada that allow prostitution, any contract for sex is void … except marriage. The marriage contract does not specify that the answer will always be yes, as you so blatantly incorrectly assume. But, it does specify that in the absence of medical conditions that prevent it, the answer can’t always be no. Once a year? Once a month? Once a week? I don’t think there’s a set minimum. But, after some amount of time it becomes alienation of affections and is a breach of contract and a cause for divorce.

        Call the contract anything other than marriage, put a sex requirement in there, it’s void.

        Perhaps the cocaine is clouding your thinking.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        I thought you might think twice and not post as is your wont.

        Rape “used to be defined” as forcible sex with someone not your wife. Feminism got that changed.

        You still aren’t allowed to force yourself on wifey…its assault and battery still.

        These are………………..dare I say……….. just words.

        ……………..and words only mean what we say they do.

      • I wasn’t looking for a history lesson bobbo. I was talking about the current definition. And, so were you. You said:

        Rape “should be” impossible in a marriage. As you note, sex is what it is uniquely about. And just as is the case, a charge of assault and battery can still be made against involuntary sex. If you want a rape charge, then get legally separated.

        And, don’t you wish you hadn’t? What age are you living in? The rest of us realize women still have rights, even in marriage. What have you been doing, living under a rock for a few centuries?

        From a legal dictionary:

        A criminal offense defined in most states as forcible sexual relations with a person against that person’s will.

        http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rape

        Note that even when the legal dictionary is discussing history, it just says:

        Historically, rape was defined as unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman against her will. The essential elements of the crime were sexual penetration, force, and lack of consent. Women who were raped were expected to have physically resisted to the utmost of their powers or their assailant would not be convicted of rape. Additionally, a husband could have sex with his wife against her will without being charged with rape. Beginning in the 1970s, state legislatures and courts expanded and redefined the crime of rape to reflect modern notions of equality and legal propriety.

        Yes, it’s all just words and how we define them. But, read the above words very carefully. It does not say that sex against the will of one’s wife was NOT rape. It merely says that the husband would NOT BE CHARGED with rape. It was a get out of jail free card. But, the crime still happened. It was still rape.

        As for what I perceive as your derision of feminism, I would say that feminism is merely the radical idea that women have brains.

        If you can’t deal with that, you are a misogynist, plain and simple. If you really believe that wa wife can’t be raped by her husband or that it should not be considered rape, I would strongly advise women never to marry you under any circumstances. Why on earth should they give up the right of the integrity of their own bodies?

        Would you call it rape if your wife drugged you or tied you to the bed against your will and strapped on an enormous dildo and fucked you in the ass? I would. But, I’d also choose not prosecute since you have demonstrated that marriage, in your warped mind, relinquishes one’s control of one’s body to one’s spouse. In fact, this would be a very fitting (and tightly fitting at that) response on the part of your hypothetical wife.

        You would then learn what it feels like to be raped. And, perhaps you would lose your blase attitude toward rape.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        What “is” marriage?

        You identified it along sexual lines but then immediately drop the history of the institution for laws that are only 40 years old.

        Why should assault and battery with a penis have its own special laws whereas assault with any other part of the body does not?………………History.

        Why would you assume anything other than what I said and is the truth that the feminist movement got the sexual privilege of access within marriage changed? Seems to me that has nothing to say about brain power and only something to say about political objectives.

        You vary too far from the point.

      • Co o o o o caine rollin’ round your brain.

        ‘What “is” marriage?’

        For someone who claims everything is definitional, you sure have a lot of trouble finding and using a dictionary.

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage

        The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties’ legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.

        Surprisingly to me, sex is not even mentioned here. Perhaps it is assumed in the definition of spouse. But, note, the consent is to marriage not to having things inserted into any orifice against one’s will. If you got married, would that give your spouse the right to drug you or tie you down or merely overpower you and insert a huge gasoline powered vibrating fist in your anus?

        Remember, rape is not about a penis. It’s about forced sex.

        http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rape

        A criminal offense defined in most states as forcible sexual relations with a person against that person’s will.

        Rape is the commission of unlawful sexual intercourse or unlawful sexual intrusion. Rape laws in the United States have been revised over the years, and they vary from state to state.

        Marriage does not prevent either party from saying “not tonight, I have a headache.” It’s as old as time. Yes, the parties in a marriage are assumed to have sex at least occasionally, medical conditions allowing. But, no, they have not consented to any single particular sexual encounter. They can still say no. And, forced sex is still rape.

        You identified it along sexual lines but then immediately drop the history of the institution for laws that are only 40 years old.

        Yes. I ignored history and am talking about the present. In 1950, a couple could not marry if one party was “black” and the other “white”. What’s that got to do with marriage today? In biblical times, a man could marry many wives. Ditto for Utah not that long ago. What’s that got to do with marriage today?

        We’re talking about marriage now not then.

        Why should assault and battery with a penis have its own special laws whereas assault with any other part of the body does not?………………History.

        Rape has nothing to do with penises. Where did you get this idea from? It’s all definitional only when you don’t own a dictionary. Legal dictionaries do not define rape to mean anything to do with a penis. A woman can rape another woman. A woman can rape a man. A man can rape a man.

        Perhaps your problem with rape is that you think it can’t happen to you. I hope you never find out first hand that you’re wrong. But, if you do, it would likely broaden your mind as well as your anus.

        Why would you assume anything other than what I said and is the truth that the feminist movement got the sexual privilege of access within marriage changed? Seems to me that has nothing to say about brain power and only something to say about political objectives.

        Because what you’re saying just makes no fucking sense, literally. How is it sexual privilege for a woman to be raped? Seems to me rape victims of any sex or gender are not exactly privileged for the experience. If you see it differently, I have an enormous 100hp gasoline powered vibrating fist with your name on it.

        You vary too far from the point.

        Really? I’m too far from the point? Check the original topic of this post. I think we’ve both gone through so many tangents that the point has long since been lost.

        co o o o o caine ….

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        You can start with a dictionary or the law or what is and go from there or you can restrict yourself to those scenarios. A good conversation only requires that the context is identified and adhered to.

        What “should be” is not restricted to any of the above.

      • bobbo,

        You can talk about what should be. But, you must start from a point of using words with their accepted meanings. What happens when you don’t is that kjh cdsabj laikjan cadscoi lkwer oiczx. And then no one understands dfsgibn bchds ahasd.

        Got it?

        So, if you want to be understood, you use words with their meanings and then discuss what you think should be the case. So, for example, there is no definition of rape that means assault with a penis. There is no current definition of rape that requires a penis. Though I do admit that most rapes happen to involve a penis. But, it is not part of the definition.

        So, use the words the conventional way, then discuss what you think should change.

        How’s that vibrating fist working out for you? Has it expanded your mind and anus yet? Do you now understand what rape is and what it means so that you can begin your discussion on how you think the meaning should change?

        This is what your asshole looks like before rape with a vibrating fist (.)

        This is what your asshole looks like after rape with a vibrating fist (O)

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        A statement that begins with “should” starts with the premise of the accepted definition.

        How rigid you are.

      • A statement that begins with “should” starts with the premise of the accepted definition.

        Too bad you don’t actually do that. You don’t start with the accepted definition. You start from a premise of your own demonstrably wrong definition.

        So, starting with the definition of rape as forced sex, go.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Scotty….. I would…. and would like to…. but its become unpleasant for me. We simply aren’t on the same wave length. Its ok initially, but its coitus interruptus…I never get the big finish. Different strokes for different folks.

        Fundamentally, I am fascinated by the ideas that flow from words being definitional. We’ve discussed this enough to establish we don’t connect when the pay off should be delivered.

        I withdraw.

      • Sorry to see you go bobbo.

        As for the coitus, I didn’t even know we were having sex. Was I being raped?

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Its all definitional.

      • What if we agree to go by specific dictionaries for ordinary English, legal definitions, scientific definitions?

        Then we can always start from an agreed upon point. You can pic the dictionaries. Or, if you prefer, I can find two of each and you pick between them.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Scotty—thank you very much for the entreaty. After all, I could have meant that I withdrew only from this topic or thread? But indeed, I’ve voiced my distress before, not as a calculated insult to you but as my own lament. I’ve in fact quit 3-4 times but just not said so knowing I would return.

        In my view–we just aren’t on the same wavelength. When I say that statements that begin with “should” already assume the standard definition…… thats what I mean. Suggesting we use a standard dictionary misses the entire point…and THAT is my frustration: not that we disagree but we hardly “engage.”

        As with this thread, I kinda want to talk about how the concept of Marriage applies to the Football Player Rice who punched out his gf in the Elevator….. THEN they got married ….. and now she supports him. Purely a money move on her part? I don’t think so.

        I DON’T want to talk about the legal definition of marriage or assault and battery. Too simple, too basic. We can’t get to what I’m actually interested in because we can’t get off the ground.

        Like the definition of human races. Wanting to restrict the conversation to conclusions reached in one source or another fails to give flight to deeper analysis….. of language, of the way we think, of how the way we use language affects the way we think…. and vice versa.

        I have this issue/challenge….. “all” the time. So its me. >>> which isn’t true. Its me…..and everyone else.

        But thanks. I do appreciate the thought. Hope you enjoy those pics I sent. some great ones there.

      • bobbo,

        The problem is with me as well. Definitions are important to me. If you want to go from A to B to C with me and I don’t agree with A, I have a huge problem going to B, let alone C. I have had this same problem in offices as well.

        In software, if I see absolutely no way to implement A, I have a hard time discussing the requirements for B and C, even at a high level. Once I know that A is at least feasible, I am fine.

        It’s the same kind of thing here with getting past definitions. I easily get stuck on the point because I think that the definitions of words can shape our thoughts and behavior.

        (examples, ignore if too long)
        For me, race is and always will be a heritable thing. I can’t ignore the genetics. I also feel that dispelling the myth of race will go a long way to improving the way we treat each other. So, there’s a social mission in there for me as well. It’s not just about being a pain in the ass, it’s about making a better life for my niece and nephew.

        For me, rape is forced sex. Calling it assault to me feels horribly insulting to rape victims. Being punched in the nose hurts. Being raped hurts people’s brains. It’s far more intimate and violent than a mere punch in the nose. It intrudes into and penetrates the body and mind. It’s about injuring the victim’s psyche. It’s about control.

        For me, talking about creating a legal contract that conveys all of the aspects of marriage without calling it that is exactly the software situation I described above. I think it’s not technically feasible. So, it’s hard for me to progress to B and C if we’re stuck on A.
        (end of examples)

        In this particular case, I had no idea you even had a B or a C. I thought we were discussing A.

        So, let’s move on and talk about whatever else you want to talk about. I’m fine with that. I thought you actually wanted to talk about the definition of marriage. My mistake.

        Why people continue in abusive relationships is a very interesting topic. I just saw a new study about it on IFLS, I think. I’d have to search for it. I’m not sure if I even read it.

        So, please start a new thread at the bottom. This one’s getting to be a pain in the ass typing so far from where the post will appear anyway.

  6. ECA says:

    Lets point something out here..
    How many of these families had MORE children then listed..
    Adam had 26 children? or 14?
    and all we hear about is 2.
    Farming families are not Small..at the time the chances of getting Born were not always good, getting to 5 were hard enough, and age 12-13…THEN you would become a MAN..
    Between Birth(more then 60% chance the wife or child died) and getting to age 20, with fighting, disease, Famine, and Wild animals..it was LEARN FAST, or DIE fast..

  7. Funny ECA. You and I are taking two very different, and probably equally valid or invalid, looks at this. You’re analyzing the Bible for its accuracy in depiction of life in biblical times.

    I’m pointing out that this particular story in the Bible has a father fucking (and impregnating) two of his daughters and one of the inbred mutant piglets with cloven hooves* goes on to become part of the line of kings of Israel which somehow even goes as far as Jesus Christ through his father’s lineage despite the whole virgin birth thing. It’s more comical than a really bad daytime soap opera, or would be if people weren’t killing each other over this shit.

    * The “mutant inbred piglets with cloven hooves” line is actually a Lou Reed lyric. I wouldn’t want to take credit for that. “Just like these redneck lunatics I see at the local bar with their tribe of mutant inbred piglets with cloven hooves”

    For the full lyrics, see the lyrics for the song Beginning of a Great Adventure. (Great song, IMHO.)

    http://www.lyricsfreak.com/l/lou+reed/beginning+of+a+great+adventure_20085216.html

    Or listen to it here:

  8. ECA says:

    yES, you are talking about the interpersonal relations inside the family, and Im talking about Environmental reasoning WHY this could be happening.
    isolation, and restricted locations, and familiarity…boredom, and TEENAGE hormones..
    I will have to ask, as virgins, HOW did they know how to do what? Watching the farm animals??

    • They were nomadic herders, so watching the herd, yes. But, not technically farm animals. Minor difference. Besides, they grew up in Sodom. They probably saw a lot before ever reaching puberty.

  9. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    bobbo,

    The problem is with me as well. /// Well, darn. Your graciousness has pulled me back in…. for a go or two.

    Definitions are important to me. /// They are the entire discussion most of the time. Hardly ever used, which is why most discussions go no where.

    If you want to go from A to B to C with me and I don’t agree with A, I have a huge problem going to B, let alone C. I have had this same problem in offices as well. /// THAT is NOT a problem with definitions. Its a problem with process: “going to”. Damn thing is: that is all definitional too. I don’t see it exactly right now, but its why many people have problems with “hypotheticals.” Hypo’s are the moving on/going to part of the discussion/thinking–separate from the definitions/preconceived and over invested in dogmas we want to hold on to.

    In software, if I see absolutely no way to implement A, I have a hard time discussing the requirements for B and C, even at a high level. Once I know that A is at least feasible, I am fine. /// Why? Seem like totally separate issues. What would it take to live on the Moon? Why would How do we get there play into that? ((Yes, lots of overlap in the tech but the questions are different.))

    It’s the same kind of thing here with getting past definitions. I easily get stuck on the point because I think that the definitions of words can shape our thoughts and behavior. /// Yes, just as the notion of “should be” should also shape them. Should be sets a definition. Its hard to change a position if you can’t change a definition: thats how we think. You go through the various definitions and the analysis that flows from that and evaluate what conclusions/final resolutions you have and think: which one do I like best? And from that more freed up process, you can decide whether or not to work your way back to the beginning and strive for a different dictionary, legal, commonly accepted definition of marriage: just as has been done. No longer a man and a woman. If the original definition had been stuck with, change (for the better) would never be possible.

    (examples, ignore if too long)
    For me, race is and always will be a heritable thing. I can’t ignore the genetics. I also feel that dispelling the myth of race will go a long way to improving the way we treat each other. So, there’s a social mission in there for me as well. It’s not just about being a pain in the ass, it’s about making a better life for my niece and nephew. /// Yep…and in your advocacy, you ignore simple truths like being able to “see” the difference between black and white. That works only when talking to the similarly inclined. Its not honest, and not justified by ultimate goals. I desire those same ultimate goals for the same simple humane and just reasons… I do it with understanding semantics, you do it in words we can’t agree on.

    For me, rape is forced sex. Calling it assault to me feels horribly insulting to rape victims. Being punched in the nose hurts. Being raped hurts people’s brains. It’s far more intimate and violent than a mere punch in the nose. It intrudes into and penetrates the body and mind. It’s about injuring the victim’s psyche. It’s about control. /// That most fits stranger rape, acquaintance rape, and “can” describe rape within a marriage. But all three situations have general different traits as well as similarities. When you lump different things/issues under one label and refuse to discuss any of the subtles….. thats fine. Just as the opposite is.

    For me, talking about creating a legal contract that conveys all of the aspects of marriage without calling it that is exactly the software situation I described above. I think it’s not technically feasible. So, it’s hard for me to progress to B and C if we’re stuck on A.
    (end of examples) /// Well….. then you have something that is pretty simple to learn. compartmentalize it. Use it if and when it is ever useful. ITS JUST A LABEL—and should not control your thinking…. nor discussion.

    In this particular case, I had no idea you even had a B or a C. I thought we were discussing A. /// I always have K & L in mind. My refusal/failure to discuss A was a more than obvious “clue.” Some other discussion was being urged. Obviously.

    So, let’s move on and talk about whatever else you want to talk about. I’m fine with that. I thought you actually wanted to talk about the definition of marriage. My mistake. //// There is nothing to discuss about what the definition of marriage or any other word is. You look it up–there it is. AFTER THAT==all discussions take place on what the definition SHOULD BE. Again…obviously.

    Why people continue in abusive relationships is a very interesting topic. I just saw a new study about it on IFLS, I think. I’d have to search for it. I’m not sure if I even read it. /// Yeah…and what you and I would call abusive “can be” exactly what is wanted and needed. I am somewhat revolted by that. Urban Cowboy had a good work up on close to that issue. Never gets talked about though. Man can express his disagreement only physically and goes after guys that he knows can beat him up, but that is “his way.” No different in a disagreement with wifey. And wifey thinks men that don’t physically express their anger don’t really love. I know…… dysfunctional and abusive.

    So, please start a new thread at the bottom. This one’s getting to be a pain in the ass typing so far from where the post will appear anyway. //// I say stranger rape is worthy of greater punishment than is spousal rape when the injury is limited to the non-consensual behavior. Think of the co-ed passed out in the upstairs bed vs the 12 year marriage where wifey is holding out for a new refrigerator.

    Go.

    • ECA says:

      Wouldnt that depend on how badly you beat her??

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Gosh–a whole new thread has been started!

        In my view, this discussion is supposed to tease out the special relationship of sex/rape to a marriage as opposed to sex/rape between those not married. I say there should be a recognized difference.

        When you ask about issues of “beating” or assault and batter, that is a completely different issue drawing out the distinction that “should” exist within marriage.

        If you beat a person with a stick, the punishment should be the same whether committed against a spouse, significant other, or a stranger. Maybe stronger penalty if done against a child. Maybe stronger if done for hate or political reasons especially as part of some larger conspiracy.

        But “sex” alone should not be a crime within marriage. If you don’t want to be sexed with==then get legally separated. If you get hit, tied up, coerced, threatened, blackmailed within a marriage==then file those criminal charges. Rape still does not apply…sic…”should not” apply.

  10. bobbo,

    What would it take to live on the Moon? Why would How do we get there play into that?

    Good example to make your point. But, it’s not a good example of where I get stuck.

    I get stuck discussing how to increase comfort during the jump to hypoerspace our interstellar space ship when we haven’t figured out any possibility yet for the hyperdrive. Note that if I can at least get some feasible hypothesis in my mind for the hyperdrive, then I can move on. Hopefully, it will be better than merely saying dilithium crystals. But, as long as I think it’s not technically feasible, I never get to things like “will it cause discomfort?” and “how can we reduce the discomfort?”. How could I possibly know?

    Well….. then you have something that is pretty simple to learn. compartmentalize it.

    You mean simultaneously believe two things that are inherently contradictory? Isn’t there a word for that? Isn’t it hypocrisy?

    I say stranger rape is worthy of greater punishment than is spousal rape when the injury is limited to the non-consensual behavior. Think of the co-ed passed out in the upstairs bed vs the 12 year marriage where wifey is holding out for a new refrigerator.

    Using my right-left parser (geeky of me), I see your example indicates quite strongly your sexism. Instead of an example where a woman is concerned about the refrigerator more than the man because well, women care about refrigerators in your mind and men don’t, how about an example where your spouse, who may or may not be female, happens to have a much weaker sex drive than you?

    So, your spouse loves you but simply does not want sex as often.

    So, since in your mind your spouse must be female, let’s take the conventional example first. So, you push her down on the bed. She resists and tries to get up. You smack her. You rip off her clothes. You forcibly have sex with her, all the while, she’s screaming and crying.

    How is that better than the passed out coed?

    How about when your wife decides she wants to try pegging. Now you say no. But, in this example, your wife is actually larger and stronger than you. She pushes you down on the bed. You get up and try to resist. But, she smacks you and overpowers you. She pulls off your pants and rams her enormous strapon dildo up your anus.

    How is that better than the passed out coed?

    I’ll leave as an exercise for the reader the cases of woman on woman and man on man.

    Now, even in your example of “wifey” holding out for, of all things, a refrigerator, obviously, your failure to buy her one (which for some reason she is incapable of doing herself in your scenario) has her far from sexually aroused.

    But, you force yourself on her. You bend her over the table, lift up her dress (clearly the woman is not wearing pants in your house) rip off her panties, and ram your prick into her. Perhaps your wife is less active in her resistance. She merely screams and cries throughout the experience. Of course, since she is not aroused, it is also quite painful for her. She has now been both physically and mentally violated. Worse, it has been at the hands of someone she loves, or did until that day.

    How is this any better than the passed out coed?

    I’m really trying to understand bobbo. I’m also really trying to make you understand what rape is and why it is and, in my opinion, should remain different than simple assault.

    Understand bobbo, we are having your discussion of definitions. I do understand what you are trying to say. I’m just strongly disagreeing in this case. I think that if anything, the definition of rape, especially in marriage, needs to be strengthened. Sex is very stigmatized in many human societies. We have strong opinions on a variety of subjects regarding sex. And, we still use sex as a form of domination in unequal relationships and even more so in abusive relationships. As such, it is a more disturbing form of violence when non-consensual. It takes something that should be beautiful and renders it more ugly than standard violence, itself a rather ugly thing.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      You mean simultaneously believe two things that are inherently contradictory? Isn’t there a word for that? Isn’t it hypocrisy? /// Words are important. I didn’t say believe anything. I said compartmentalize them and to CONSIDER them when relevant.

      You do this all the time…. make associations between words and jump to what is not clearly said. Its a very bad habit that inhibits your own understanding of a subject.

      But, you force yourself on her. You bend her over the table /// that force is assault and battery. A crime. Wifey can charge hubby for that. Standard Domestic Violence. Not to be confused with……nonconsensual sex within a marriage.

      How is this any better than the passed out coed? /// You are married to your wife and have had sex many times. Hard to see a life changing violation of personhood for the very same thing that has been going on for years. Not so with the co-ed.

      I’m really trying to understand bobbo. I’m also really trying to make you understand what rape is and why it is and, in my opinion, should remain different than simple assault. //// Outside of marriage—I agree.

      Sex is very stigmatized in many human societies./// Not within marriage…. or less so within marriage. Certainly it is stigmatized when you apply rape laws to what was previously allowed, expected, sanctioned.

      As such, it is a more disturbing form of violence when non-consensual. It takes something that should be beautiful and renders it more ugly than standard violence, itself a rather ugly thing.. /// Disturbing and ugly? Esthetic choices??? I’d rather be raped than shot in the chest, or hit in the head with a baseball bat. Yes, its all ugly and disturbing but like everything else I can think of: its not just one thing. The activity and experience/expression of it falls across a range of competing interests.

  11. bobbo,

    On the topic of abusive relationships, you said:

    Yeah…and what you and I would call abusive “can be” exactly what is wanted and needed.

    I realize I’m cutting your quote short and that you don’t approve of this. But, when you say what is wanted, in some cases, perhaps unfortunately yes.

    But, as for what is needed, that would be psychiatric treatment. A woman who gets beaten to unconsciousness and still marries the fuckhead who beat her up did not need to be beaten and does not need to be married. She needs mental help.

    I don’t remember Urban Cowbow that well. But, I would say the same for anyone who wants to get the shit kicked out of them. The problem is inside and needs to be addressed immediately and certainly before the beating becomes lethal.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Urban Cowboy is a bad example as it is about physical violence. I was just taken by how it defined John Travolta’s character. He wasn’t sexist or a bully. Just an idiot….and so was she.

      The problem is: we don’t have enough counselors or money to pay for counseling for all the people who could benefit by being taught not to be idiots.

      Its the human condition.

  12. bobbo,

    I realized I should allow for the possibility that I’m really just not as imaginative on the subject as you are. Please detail for me at least one scenario of your non-consensual but still somehow kinder and gentler rape in marriage. I’m curious to hear how you describe this.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      I already did.

      Good solid 12 year marriage and wifey is pissed at hubby for spending the nest egg on Apples latest watch rather than the refrigerator she wanted. That night while having sex, hubby mentions he needs get up early for work and he’s glad his new watch has an alarm. Wifey says: “Oh George…we need a refrigerator, not a new watch. Get off me this instant, I’m pissed at you.” But George keeps going until climax.

      No means no. Rape is Rape. How many years do you think George should go to prison for….and on what charge or combo thereof?

  13. Good solid 12 year marriage and wifey is pissed at hubby for spending the nest egg on Apples latest watch rather than the refrigerator she wanted. That night while having sex, hubby mentions he needs get up early for work and he’s glad his new watch has an alarm. Wifey says: “Oh George…we need a refrigerator, not a new watch. Get off me this instant, I’m pissed at you.” But George keeps going until climax.

    What if the verbal exchange happens before the sex begins?

    Personally, I have never ever had such a discussion during sex. The very start of the conversation would be an instant boner-killer. There would be no need for my wife to tell me to get off in such a circumstance. I’d already be flaccid.

    Have you really had such conversations during sex?

    In my own case, being in a peer relationship, this would simply not happen. The discussion about how to spend any significant portion of our nest egg, whatever the size of the nest egg, would never happen after the fact.

    So, before the sex begins, the conversation is had. “Wifey” as you derogatorily call her is already pissed at you, not least of which for calling her “wifey”. But, you start to have sex with her anyway.

    Actually, calling this sex is a misnomer.

    You begin to violently force yourself on her. Forced sex isn’t. It is not actually an act of sex. It is an act of violence.

    So, now back to your scenario. You force her to have sex with you against her will.

    I understand your comment above that you have had sex with her numerous times. Still, she has not consented this time. There is nothing in the marriage contract that indicates that either party permanently relinquishes control over their own body.

    You can call it whatever you want.

    I call it rape. The law calls it rape. The law has called it rape for many many years, even when it law enforcement officers chose not to prosecute. And, IMNSHO, it should continue to be called rape.

    Let’s move on to K and L. We will not agree on this one. I understand your point. You understand mine. Neither of us is likely to change opinions on this.

    That said, I would recommend that you show this thread to any potential spouse prior to signing the marriage contract. She has a right to know what you believe about marriage and her rights prior to signing on the dotted line.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Completely non-responsive out on its own tangent.

      • Bullshit. Unless you mean your own response.

        I acknowledged your point, made mine, disagreed with yours and explained exactly why at every step of the way then respectfully suggested we move on to all those topics you claim to always have up your sleeve.

        Your response did none of those.

        You metaphorically just came into my digital living room and shit on my floor.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        You did not answer the direct hypothetical that you asked for. It isolates the assault and battery element from the sexual element.

        Then as you so often have done, you launched into personal attack. I don’t mind that except you didn’t answer the question….. meaning….. again…..”we” (meaning YOU) did not engage each other.

        Again, I withdraw.

      • OK. I’ll answer specifically about your scenario. Consent at time of entry. You have a stupid hypothetical conversation during sex, which is obviously not sufficiently holding the attention of either of you. Wife then says “get off of me”. But, somehow the thought of that new Apple watch is still giving you a boner. *

        It is too ludicrous for serious consideration.

        I think that in such a case, the wife would not report rape. I think it is most certainly not assault and battery since there was no assault or battery.

        There was only forced sex.

        Therefore, in such a case, technically it must remain rape. In our society, I am having an incredibly difficult time imagining that he would be charged as there had been consent at the time of entry. But, if he is charged with a crime, what other crime could there be but forced sex, i.e. rape?

        Quit threatening to walk away. Nike says: just do it. Or don’t. You’re welcome to stay or go back to your cocaine. Whatever.

        * Note that your scenario is similar to a bad joke about rodeo sex, where you mount your wife from behind and after some amount of time say, “Yes! That’s just the way my girlfriend likes it.” Then, hang on!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: