?

Log in

No account? Create an account

philobate

Monogamy

« previous entry | next entry »
Jan. 24th, 2006 | 05:51 pm
sentiment: thoughtfulthoughtful
posted by: lolweasel in philobate

Why do you think monogamy is important in society?

Where do you think it comes from?

Is it important to you?

What does it mean to you?

My two cents:

Of women, the Bible's Paul has this to say (referring to the fall from Eden):

"For Adam was formed first and then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty."
- 1 Tim. 2.13-15 New Revised Standard Version.

This passage highlights several main points that hint to the roots of monogamy.
- women are not equal to men, because Eve's sin was greater than that of Adam, and because Adam was created first
- women will be saved, despite the sins of Eve, through childbearing, faith, and love (assumedly, from what I know of the Bible, this means marriage to one man)

To further condense, from these points it can be assumed that women ought to enter monogamous relationships because it increases their soul's purity to the level of men's souls.

To summarize my next related topic, I will merely quote from a research paper (one that I've written, to clarify). So be warned - it sounds a little awkward out of context.

"Because of the anatomical construction of their genitals, men proceeded to “rule” over women for quite some time by keeping them forever in fear of rape. Women soon began to seek out allies who had the power to protect them from assault. They could not productively ally themselves with other women, who were also similarly dominated by men with little or no power, so instead they sought out allies among their predators. And it was thus that women paid a steep price to put an end to “an open season of rape,” and female monogamy was born. Essentially, women consented to belong to one man exclusively, and became a sort of possession. It became the custom that a woman belonged to her father until she wed and her betrothed paid a dowry – at which point ownership was transferred from father to husband. By then, any “crime committed against her body became a crime against the male estate,” rather than a crime against an individual."

I cite: Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape (New York: Bantam Books, 1976), 3-5.

Please consider this topic.

The most incredible thing is how few people have ever asked why monogamy?

Question all. I beseech you.

Regards,
Cypress

entry | Leave a comment |

Comments {9}

mouse fitzgerald

Re: A social structure and its relationships

from: lolweasel
date: Jun. 6th, 2006 12:18 am (UTC)
entry

Well, I could argue about it. But it seems a little silly when I agree, that's all.

I'm also not going to argue with you about who said what, unless you really feel that it's a productive use of time.

I don't have much more insight into the reason behind the Bible. It doesn't make sense to me that woman is morally inferior to man, as both Adam and Eve disobeyed the same rule laid down by God. The trouble with Paul's reasoning (in which Eve was decieved but Adam, apparently, was not) is that it says that Eve was gullible, whereas Adam was wicked. So who is whose moral inferior?

I don't believe I took anything you said personally (bad form to take anything a stranger says - especially in a debating forum - personally, you know), but it's too bad that I gave you that impression.

Of course many differences between genders are influenced and created by society. When did that become a question?

RSVP | Parent | Thread

1ad_astra1

Re: A social structure and its relationships

from: 1ad_astra1
date: Jun. 6th, 2006 04:51 am (UTC)
entry

I’m going to work with things counter clockwise because that seems the only way my mind is able to function tonight.

I simply refuted you example of why monogamy is:

to support monogamy and its existence you stated:

"Because of the anatomical construction of their genitals, men proceeded to 'rule' over women for quite some time by keeping them forever in fear of rape..."

i simply elaborated on my reasoning because in your first reply you seemed to concentrate on certain aspects but not all. i.e.

*males ability to over come woman... why? (weakness and frailty on the woman's part)

*Difference in genitilia, I mentioned previous the differences between offensive vs. defensive and the upper hand only occurs when things are outweighed such as strength, something women lack due to social priorities.

I added to my argument in my reply against your reasoning according to anatomical features, women can "rape" a man in ways such as unwanted seduction.

For example: a female that one would not typically associate with gets the upper hand due to either a)intoxication more so on the males part b)exceeding amounts of sexual frustration (the coyote ugly effect on either a or b) its emotionally raping... and of course there are add ons that you are able to purchase at shady sex shops if your victims is unwilling... that was more of a twisted joke on my part but not ruled out entirely because people do crazy things.

Female raping male is more emotional currently, but imagine if things were not so "frail" on the part of the woman.. After all rape isn’t typically about sex it is more so about the violence or pure stupidity. Just because one requires arousal for anything to happen does not mean that rape can not happen.

~Therefore, the argument for why monogamy is: according to anatomic features is weak and that is why i decided to argue against it.

I am sorry i thought you were taking things personally but be more cautious with your tone, when you stated:

"I quote the Bible, but I didn't write it./I think you may have made the assumption that I am Christian. But I could be wrong."

Of course i would figure you were taking offense because of the way you lashed back; the person bellow average comprehension is able to understand that nobody currently alive wrote the bible.

I am curious though, how Adam was wicked? my knowledge of the story is at an elementary level due to my early loss of interest.

Finally, why not debate when we clearly have some differences in opinion?

RSVP | Parent | Thread

1ad_astra1

Re: A social structure and its relationships

from: 1ad_astra1
date: Jun. 6th, 2006 05:21 am (UTC)
entry

I was curious and looked adam and eve up in wikipedia:

"Because Eve had tempted Adam to eat of the fatal fruit, some early Fathers of the Church held her and all subsequent women to be the first sinners, and especially responsible for the Fall. 'You are the devil's gateway,' Tertullian told his female listeners in the early 2nd century, and went on the explain that they were responsible for the death of Christ: "On account of your desert _ that is, death - even the Son of God had to die."[13] In 1486 the Dominicans Kramer and Sprengler used similar tracts to justify the Malleus Maleficarum ('Hammer of the Witches') that led to three centuries of persecution of 'witches.'"

which given that tertulian was one to decide this, it makes more sense to me why such an irrational theory is taken from the story (i am not fond of most of his thought processes despite the fact that he was one of the few philosophers to not contradict themselves)...

if you get a chance to read the adam and eve bit in wikipedia, i would recomend it, it has some interesting historical persepectives and encompasses all religions to round the different perspectives from the different religions that use the bible as their divine text.

RSVP | Parent | Thread