Comments on: Female Sexuality in Christianity

By: liverpool riots

liverpool riots — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 23:34:24 +0000

Woh I love your posts, saved to my bookmarks! .

By: Cutlery Tray :

Cutlery Tray : — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 19:15:05 +0000

mens underweare should be as comfortable as possible because men always engages in a lot of physical work”‘`

By: LeaT

LeaT — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 00:37:17 +0000

Interesting perspective.

By: Maximilliano

Maximilliano — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:18:14 +0000

I so much ought to get myself in gear and launch a weblog like this one.

By: 999 SEO

999 SEO — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:21:57 +0000

Just come accross your blog on digg, whats your favorite social bookmark site?

By: nazani14

nazani14 — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:11:07 +0000

I think we need to look at the economic life of the culture in which the bias against women arose. Largely pastoral, with men who amassed larger herds able to acquire more wives or slave/concubines. Quite a few of the Old Testament patriarchs were polygamous, and the constant raids that took place in the ancient Middle East would have further decreased the number of available women. The Egyptians and Assyrians collected women from vanquished tribes, as did the Hebrews under David. It was pretty hard for the ancient Hebrews to continue to exist as a people, which helps explain some of the OT laws. Although it galls me to admit it, I do think that the customs that subjugate women may stem from the need to keep control over the "breeding stock." Anyway, men who had no chance of getting their own wife may have reframed celibacy as a positive, even holy thing.
Suggested reading: The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley

By: LeaT

LeaT — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:59:11 +0000

What does NLP stand for?

By: John Taylor

John Taylor — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:59:12 +0000

Great blog. Do you know of any relevant NLP forums or discussion groups?

By: LeaT

LeaT — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:14:35 +0000

Yes, that is correct Christine, and I wonder why there is such a focus on ownership and patrilinearity to begin with. The biggest concern for the man is ultimately, am I the father of the child? This could be explained in a more Darwininan way saying that it is to ensure that their genes will be carried on with their offspring, but it doesn't explain why people in the West (and parts of Asia) then would prefer having a system of monogamy instead of polygamy then? In a Darwinian view, the man would then, to ensure the biggest possibility that just HIS genes will survive to the next generation, need to have sex with as many women as possible, but this obviously doesn't fit with the view of only having one partner. It is an interesting question which I would love to look into more further but I doubt such a question belongs to ACP, unless I somehow can connect it to religion. That however, will be hard in such a sense that I don't think monogamy is only supported in Christianity but pre-Christianity as well. Vikings, Ancient Greeks too, had only one partner and if you didn't it was considered adultery towards your husband/wife.

Even in such societies as feudal China/Japan, one wife/husband was preferred. If the partner was found out to commit adultery, the punishment could be severe depending a little on which social status he/she belonged to. If it was a lord or somesuch, he/she had the will to remarry, but if you had a low social status, you could be completely disbanded or even be forced to commit seppuku, particularly if you belonged to one of the samurai families.

By: LeaT

LeaT — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:07:05 +0000

Yes, I think you got a point there, although circumcision at least on females also lead to physical complications later in life, albeit less for men. However, scientists now claim that the argument that male circiumcision would improve hygiene is void, particularly becaue the foreskin is there to protect the more sensitive part of the penis. This is also very true, and I see no reason why chimps or any other mammal would have issues with their sexual hygiene because they got a foreskin.

It is also true that women in reality have control, but a control they seldom if never use. Coming back to the gypsies again, if a female would put the closest skirt to her body onto a male's head, he has to leave her immediately and wash himself, because he now has become unclean and tainted. Ultimately, the most striking question is, why do women consider themselves satisfied with their role of being inferior, when they obviously have means to change this actively? As a matter of fact, it is the WOMEN who uphold this power structure among themselves, not the men. This is very true for female circumcision as well, where the elderly women in the village (or society) will perform it on the girls, and same in societies where girls get married away where the MOTHER or any other close relative arranges the marriage, NOT the father or the man in the household. The man merely manages the economical part, but it is ultimately the mother who picks out the to-be-husband.

There have been an argument for that women (and men accordingly) are considered more attractive by having a clear seperation between genders and gender roles. However, this in turn, merely stems from a sort of romanticism of the opposite sex, and question in reality whether this still would lead to say, better relationships.