Well, then we are still faced with the issue of Isaiah and what this boy god's intentions were exactly as it related directly to these ladies of Zion who were presumably out of control what with their wanton eyes and outstretched necks and such.

Lets bring it back to the scripture if you prefer.

I like wanton woman

Me to. I did my "college day experimenting" and though I tend to like the menfolk now, it certainly was nothing I found disagreeable by any means.

KRIM, have you ever read song of solomon?

Yeah yea, its a love song and its very hot. That is not addressing this passage of the bible at all Sam.

double post

well i can't help but agree with everything you state here - its a miracle - now your getting to the core problems -

I just wonder how you make a tinkling with your feet??

maybe thats where the "hidden parts" are located - let me check your feet K !!!

Well these issues certainly require further scrutiny. Its not as if we are dealing with a separate tribe of people Sam. The Hebrew or the Canaanite or the Roman. Whoever. Females represent HALF of humanity and from a purely biological and reproductive standpoint, the more significant aspect. So why so much hatred, hostility and emphasis put into controlling and suppressing their sexuality and importance as the creators? Hmm? Is it because a male deity has decided it will be him that takes this job on henceforth?

I tend to agree that any prohibition against something will naturally produce a desire for it. (I think there’s a whole subject there. I think it has its roots in the natural human desire to “rise to challenge” or “play a game” or “win” or something like that. But I don’t want to go off on a tangent.)

I just think that if one wants to “correct the problem” (or the prerequisite – to understand the problem) one has to go back farther than “what it is” to “how it came about”.

Why is it that those things are considered “evil”? I am a firm believer in there being some logical or reasonable origin behind anything that is considered right or wrong. At some point it was determined to be contributing to (="good") or contrary to (="bad") the general welfare of some group. Whether or not that reason still applies is the real question.

For example, the consideration that it was “good” for a woman to obey her man actually does have some logical survival-related benefits in a very primitive society. But in a technologically advanced, socialistic society, pretty much all of those reasons are completely irrrelevant.

Yes, there is no doubt that Christian indoctrination has generally influenced the current views on pornography. And yes, those majorly-Christian-based-prohibitions against it definitely contribute to the “equal and opposite reaction” of the desire for it.

But I also think that there was some valid reason behind the prohibition in the first place. And in order to truly understand the entire picture, that original reason has to be fully understood and evaluated against the current needs of society in general.

well what gets me is there didn't seem to be a problem at the beginning with A&E - god was all for the human body unclothed, and for reproduction - hmmm? maybe that's the problem with him sex for pleasures sake and not just for reproduction? but then again why bother with the song of soloman? unless that is to be taken as love among married peolple. or why give us such a strong desire for sex if were to curtail it? its the old holyness issue again.

Plus the fact that married or unmarried the same sexual feelings are present. he must be a mysoginist.

"Secret parts" is referring to their vaginas Sam. Dont start down that road of "exegesis" to the tune of simply reinterpreting what is blatantly being imparted. We saw what happened with that in Leviticus.

boy no more humor for you - you take me to seriously -

I looked and saw it was a joke. I thought you were trying to "run away" with interpretation as some other folks have done in past debates. I wanted to nip that in the bud.

And Skyhook, Im not really certain when, at any point in history it would have been advisable to simply insist that one gender obey all commands and essentially subjugate themselves and listen to the other without imparting any information or input of their own. That to me sounds defeatist. I would think an egalitarian or a partnership society would be far more successful over the long haul. In fact, archeological evidence indicates this.

I suppose you could make the argument that women menstruate and as a consequence of this become overly aggressive and emotional during this span of time thus effecting their capacity for judgment in social matters. Well dont men behave that way 24/7?

sure worked for the first people, the women had as much freedoms and say so in this society,, for a looooong time! wouldn't have stopped if it hadn't been for the white man and his "civilized" [yeah right] society.

women of the first people:


SAVAGERY TO "CIVILIZATION"
THE INDIAN WOMEN: We whom you pity as drudges
reached centuries ago the goal that you are now nearing
The use of Indian women to provide an exemplar of feminist liberty continued into the nineteenth century. On May 16, 1914, only six years before the first national election in which women had the vote, Puck printed a line drawing of a group of Indian women observing Susan B. Anthony, Anne Howard Shaw and Elizabeth Cady Stanton leading a parade of women. A verse under the print read:

"Savagery to Civilization"
We, the women of the Iroquois
Own the Land, the Lodge, the Children
Ours is the right to adoption, life or death;
Ours is the right to raise up and depose chiefs;
Ours is the right to representation in all councils;
Ours is the right to make and abrogate treaties;
Ours is the supervision over domestic and foreign policies;
Ours is the trusteeship of tribal property;
Our lives are valued again as high as man's. [67]




Figure 38, from Exemplar of Liberty, Native America and the Evolution of Democracy,
Chp.11, "The Persistence of an Idea, Impressions of Iroquois liberty after the eighteenth century"





On the Web:

Tribo you dont need to appease me with this. Many of the North American Indian tribes were matrifocal in their societal structure. Probably not all of them and certainly not after they were moved from their native lands onto reservations. They were then forced to assimilate in certain respects because the federal government took much of what had been traditionally handled by women away and gave control to males in the tribe. This caused a tremendous degree of confusion and upheaval to their homes and family life.