Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Religion There Ain't No Ladies Now, There's Only Pigs And Whores
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 4:30 PM
This one goes out to my good friend David Klinghoffer...
The basic gist of David's latest post: "There ain't no ladies now, there's only pigs and whores—and they're stankin' up mah comments!"
Following on our discussion of gay marriage and the stake heterosexual women don't realize they have in opposing it, a friend writes to correct me for giving women too much credit for innate modesty.... I have to admit that many of the comments left on our earlier threads by women (or people identifying themselves as women) were almost as crude as the ones left by men. Many had to be unpublished. Yes, I find myself wondering about my original thesis.
Giving women too much credit—that's David comin' and goin'. But who's to blame for the mouths/fingers on the ladies in David's comments threads? Me! David says that the sodomites of Sodom were to blame for Lot offering up his daughters to a mob to rape—the Sodomites having set such a bad example!—just like contemporary sodomites like me are to blame for the phenomenon of modern "female crudity." We so nasty. See how that works?
But a quick point of biblical scholarship, David. What's with the revisionist treatment of the story of Sodom?
Something else I realize is that the story of Lot and Sodom is an even more illuminating parable than I thought when I wrote about it before. You have the city with its depraved, shameless culture that gives us the term sodomy. You have the father (Lot) who, despite being from Abraham's household, assimilates its values to the point where he's willing to give his daughters over to the howling mob. Finally you have Lot's daughters themselves who, escaping from the city with their father, show us the idea of modesty they learned too well from their residency in Sodom.
Um, David? God spares Lot because he is the one and only righteous person with a Sodom zip code. Lot isn't presented as semi-righteous, or nearly-righteous. He's righteous. Period, full stop, end of discussion. The angels warn Lot to flee Sodom with his family because he's Sodom's only good guy—and his willingness to "hand his daughters over to the howling mob" to be raped is held up in Genesis 19 as proof of Lot's super-duper righteousness, not as proof that Lot has "gone native" or that Lot has assimilated the values of Sodom. And "Rape my daughters, please!" wasn't Lot's last, desperate attempt to placate the howling mob and save the angels who came to dinner, but the very first thing that popped into Lot's righteous head. Genesis 19:
(5) and they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.(6) And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
(7) and said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
(8) Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
Offering your daughters to the mob to rape: I think that's wrong and so do you, David. And that's to your credit, I suppose, given your fondness for literal interpretations of the bible. But an honest reading of Genesis leads to just one conclusion: whoever wrote this book doesn't think Lot did anything wrong. Quite the opposite. Whoever wrote Genesis—God?—believes that offering your virgin daughters up to a howling mob to rape is the goddamn righteous thing to do. More proof that God approves of Lot's actions: What did the angels do after Lot offered his daughters to the mob to rape? Did they pull Lot aside for a quick chat about responsible parenting? Did they say, "Whoa, Lot, offering your daughters to a mob to rape—not cool. You've clearly been living in Sodom a little too long. Now stand back and let us smite these bastards"? No. The angels—the angels!—didn't take action until the mob threatened to break down Lot's door and rape their angelic asses. You get the distinct impression reading Genesis 19 that if the mob had said, "Sure, send out the girls!", the angels would've been just fine with that. God too.
The idea that the men of Sodom were a bad influence on Lot—just as modern-day sodomites are a bad influence on the ladies—and that this explains Lot's actions, actions that shock the modern reader, is something you pulled out of your bigoted ass, David, it's not something you'll find the biblical story of Sodom. And I can't imagine that the pigs and whores who stank up your comments threads wrote anything that can touch the obscenities that you'll find in Genesis 19, David.
Share via
1
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
these people have never made sense, what else is new
and
who gives a shit
they have little impact beyond their cult followers
these people have never made sense, what else is new
and
who gives a shit
they have little impact beyond their cult followers
2
Yet another argument about how women are "malleable" and it is all the fault of gay men. Remember, women do not choose to do depraved things, they just ape the men around them.
4
So, I forget, how many slaves are we supposed to trade for a concubine, and are we limited to a number of wives equal to our limbs or our fingers?
And when do we get to stone the Pharisees anyway?
And when do we get to stone the Pharisees anyway?
5
Arguing the bible with these morons is like arguing with ants. Who gives a shit what their ridiculous bible says? I know I don't.
6
To say that I have complicated feelings about R. Crumb and his work is to put it mildly, but his comments about the book of genesis (his illustrated version is coming out later this year) hits the nail on the head:
"The whole thing is a piece of patriarchal propaganda, engineered to consciously and deliberately suppress matriarchy."
(from the Francoise Mouly review in the New Yorker, June 8 & 15, 2009)
"The whole thing is a piece of patriarchal propaganda, engineered to consciously and deliberately suppress matriarchy."
(from the Francoise Mouly review in the New Yorker, June 8 & 15, 2009)
7
Oh, Chicago...always good for a snappy quote. Too bad you couldn't find video footage of Bebe Neuwirth and was in Marcia Lewis? Nobody's got no CLASS!
8
Here's an illustrated retelling of the story of Lot (for those of us too lazy to read): http://www.creasedcomics.com/video_page.…
9
@5, I'm really tempted to agree with you, but I do think there is merit in exposing the really farcical parts of the bible to public ridicule because "these morons" always seem to want to sweep those bits under the carpet. You're never going to change Klinghoffer's mind but that's not the point. The point is to try to reach others who might otherwise be influenced by the nonsense he's peddling.
10
Whats wrong with Pigs and Whores? Everyone seemed to like those movies Babe and Pretty woman, right? & those were at least more credible on those subjects then the stupid fucking bible.
11
There has seriously got to be some sort of chemical imbalance or something ... I mean seriously. Truly "devout" religious nuts are scary. It is scary how skewed their reality is. It is true that many of the leaders in the religious communities are totally leading their followers astray because they are power hungry pigs with a vendetta against certain groups of people (women, homosexuals, any race other than white, etc.)
But the people who follow them? Who truly and honestly believe the crap that they are peddling? Who can so blatantly ignore the facts that are thrown in their faces in opposition to what they say they believe? That is some scary shit dude.
It's like going to a seriously fucked up crack addict and being like "yo, that shit's gonna kill you" and them saying "But it feels so good ... "
There has got to be something going on up there in the head ...
But the people who follow them? Who truly and honestly believe the crap that they are peddling? Who can so blatantly ignore the facts that are thrown in their faces in opposition to what they say they believe? That is some scary shit dude.
It's like going to a seriously fucked up crack addict and being like "yo, that shit's gonna kill you" and them saying "But it feels so good ... "
There has got to be something going on up there in the head ...
12
Rather than face the many, many charges of misogyny and sexism from commenters, he would rather change his thesis to say that women today are all crude and therefore worthless. Nice. Stay classy, Klinghoffer!
13
The guy clearly believes that women are/should be docile, humble creatures and that men need to suppress their 'animalistic' sexuality because he was brought up in a cultural milieu that believed such things on the face of it, and never sought to examine his own beliefs (besides re-reading bible stories).
Of course, women are free to be homemaking housewives if they'd like to, and men are welcome to be sexless if they think it adds something to their lives, but why's it gotta be a moral imperative to live within tradition's walls? I mean, my support for gay marriage is based out of an acknowledgment of human nature with respect to partnership; this compares favorably, I think, to his argument against, which reduces to 'I'm afraid to think for myself, and this is the way we've always done it.'
Of course, women are free to be homemaking housewives if they'd like to, and men are welcome to be sexless if they think it adds something to their lives, but why's it gotta be a moral imperative to live within tradition's walls? I mean, my support for gay marriage is based out of an acknowledgment of human nature with respect to partnership; this compares favorably, I think, to his argument against, which reduces to 'I'm afraid to think for myself, and this is the way we've always done it.'
14
It is becoming increasingly evident that Klinghoffer believes women are a) a homogenous mass without individual attributes and, alternately, either b) saintlike, monogamy-craving paragons of virtue who, if pressed, will exclaim 'bother!' rather than emit a curse, or c) psychotic foulmouthed crazy whores who nonetheless are entirely a product of (gay) male influence.
Does this guy have a wife?
Does this guy have a wife?
15
Yes he has a wife - and five children under the age of seven. I'm surprised she hasn't murdered him by now ....
16
It's an interesting bit of text. It simultaneously illustrates two key aspects of the society that produced it: (1) the very high value placed on the protection of guests, (2) the relatively low value placed on females. Both of these features are still strong in some societies (e.g., Afghan and Packastani) today.
It's also an interesting little moral dilema. Given a choice between sacrificing a member of your family and a guest to whom you have sworn to protect, which is the moraly right choice? (No cop-outs like "call the cops" or "pull a weapon"; that's what makes it a dilema.)
It's also an interesting little moral dilema. Given a choice between sacrificing a member of your family and a guest to whom you have sworn to protect, which is the moraly right choice? (No cop-outs like "call the cops" or "pull a weapon"; that's what makes it a dilema.)
17
And Lymerae, he has never answered his opponents' arguments to my knowledge. (I couIdn't stand to read all his posts so who knows, though.) Indeed, I think he deleted a comment that mentioned that he avoided discussing issues with anyone who had a thoughtful argument. Evasion is very classy - especially when combined with a lack of knowledge and abundant sexism.
18
In my experience, there are a number of reasons why someone believes in silly things (I'm talking about my previous self, and my family):
1. A healthy dose of cognitive dissonance.
2. Selfrighteousness that's exacerbated by feeling persecuted (most easily identifiable lately: so-called War on Christmas).
3. Just enough science (I was brought up with Adam and Eve as real, but not creationism) to make the ideas sound reasonable and frankly, possible in a scientific world.
4. Encouragement to be skeptical, which I think is our nature, but skeptical about the wrong things.
5. Family culture. It's hard to leave it behind, even if you spent your youth praying that your parents would break the news to you that you were adopted.
1. A healthy dose of cognitive dissonance.
2. Selfrighteousness that's exacerbated by feeling persecuted (most easily identifiable lately: so-called War on Christmas).
3. Just enough science (I was brought up with Adam and Eve as real, but not creationism) to make the ideas sound reasonable and frankly, possible in a scientific world.
4. Encouragement to be skeptical, which I think is our nature, but skeptical about the wrong things.
5. Family culture. It's hard to leave it behind, even if you spent your youth praying that your parents would break the news to you that you were adopted.
20
Keep reading, Dan. In 19:30-36, his daughters get him drunk and have sex with him without his knowledge or consent.
Yes, Lot's daughters raped him and had his children.
Yes, Lot's daughters raped him and had his children.
21
He's probably attached himself to all this chastity shit to rationalize the fact that he'll never please a woman, either due to incompetence or due to a mistake during one of his creepy self-circumcisions.
Can't give a woman an orgasm? No problem! The LORD says that it's against a woman's nature to enjoy sex anyway, so that's the reason! Nothing to do with you being a pathetic manchild, no siree! Now you go out there and rid the world of all those evil gays trying to fill your poor wife's pretty little head with their wicked ideas about sex for pleasure.
Can't give a woman an orgasm? No problem! The LORD says that it's against a woman's nature to enjoy sex anyway, so that's the reason! Nothing to do with you being a pathetic manchild, no siree! Now you go out there and rid the world of all those evil gays trying to fill your poor wife's pretty little head with their wicked ideas about sex for pleasure.
22
Of course he hates women. Every time he looks at his wife he's reminded of the miserable confines of his closet. The mere existence of women is a constant salt-in-the-wound, inflaming the painful internal conflict between his sexual nature vs. the oppressive moral code he desperately clings to, hoping it will give him strength. For Klinghoffer, pussy is a burden, not a pleasure.
23
Asserting that any nasty character would have to come from gays (read: men) further implies women are incapable of being nasty because of their own free will. I guess I'm being a radical feminist by suggesting women are capable enough to make up their own minds about how nasty to be whether they live in Castro or Salt Lake.
If he's going to suggest women are being immoral, then he has to at least concede that they are free agents, and responsible for their own actions. They're not incorrectly trained horses.
Chicago is especially appropriate given how tired an idea it is that society is falling apart at the seams. I thought it was supposed to end back when Victorian novels went out of style?
If he's going to suggest women are being immoral, then he has to at least concede that they are free agents, and responsible for their own actions. They're not incorrectly trained horses.
Chicago is especially appropriate given how tired an idea it is that society is falling apart at the seams. I thought it was supposed to end back when Victorian novels went out of style?
26
DAN. I adore you, but I am begging you, for Christ's sake, PLEASE STOP POSTING ABOUT THIS CLICHE DOUCHENOZZLE. We all get it: He is a loathsome sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, Christian nationalist freakazoid right-wing nutjob. Everyone who reads this blog who matters as a human being agrees. Ranting about this on Slog is like trying to convince the Pope that Catholicism is nifty.
It's not giving up. Choosing to never post about him again is the blogging equivalent of rolling your eyes and ignoring a twelve-year-old who goes, "I know you are, but what am *I*?" Stop letting this assmunch get under your (far superior) skin, and stop preaching to the choir. It's tiresome, and you are too smart to engage.
It's not giving up. Choosing to never post about him again is the blogging equivalent of rolling your eyes and ignoring a twelve-year-old who goes, "I know you are, but what am *I*?" Stop letting this assmunch get under your (far superior) skin, and stop preaching to the choir. It's tiresome, and you are too smart to engage.
27
this week on stereotype swap:
See how it's because of the Lesbians that straight men want to swill copious amount herbal tea, spend evenings cuddling with cats, go to home depot to hook up and then have way too much drama followed by bed death and sad, sad u-haul rentals.
See how it's because of the Lesbians that straight men want to swill copious amount herbal tea, spend evenings cuddling with cats, go to home depot to hook up and then have way too much drama followed by bed death and sad, sad u-haul rentals.
28
Re: R. Crumb @6, when the king of mommy issue-driven misogyny thinks something is patriarchal propaganda, maybe it's time to revisit devotion to its tenets.
29
@26
I totally disagree. I think it's fun that he posts this stuff. Quite interesting getting a dose of the other side so close up. Great for discussion too. Plus, it's fun to see Dan dust off his old biblical knowledge and bust it out in an argument against gay Christian dude. Much more interesting than the repetitive 20 posts a day about how Obama is officially de-friended, etc
Keep it up, Dan. Good times.
I totally disagree. I think it's fun that he posts this stuff. Quite interesting getting a dose of the other side so close up. Great for discussion too. Plus, it's fun to see Dan dust off his old biblical knowledge and bust it out in an argument against gay Christian dude. Much more interesting than the repetitive 20 posts a day about how Obama is officially de-friended, etc
Keep it up, Dan. Good times.
32
Klinghoffer's assumption that the contemporaries of the city of Sodom (if there were an actually existant historic analogue) associated it with specific sex acts is unsubstantied by actual Hebrew scripure he clains to be recovering. The first tellers of the S&G story probably meant to emphazise the Sodomites' lack of hospitality to travelers, self indulgence, and, very broadly, sexual liscence. A specific indictment of gay sex is largely dependent on coloring engendered by the reader's hangups. The tenuous link between "Sodom" and "sodomy" wasn't made until the 11th century. I'm borrowing liberally from Andrew Sullivan, 2003:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?i…
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?i…
34
Okay, I'll admit that I was one of "Slog monkeys" who addressed questions to him. I wrote my questions without using vulgar words, without insults, with support of Israelite culture, scripture, and ancient Hebrew vocabulary. He elected not to answer any of my questions. Seeing as I refrained from vulgar words and insults, then I am not a pig. All my questions were modestly written, without reference to either his or my sexuality (although I did suggest to him that he was naive if he didn't know that swingers clubs existed), so I'm not a whore either. That only leaves me with his quote, "I suppose it's possible that women's nature is more malleable than I assumed and that, under the influence of publicly conducted indecency from men, many women will cheerfully assimilate.", thus, I must be too malleable to think for myself. How dare I have a brain. I think I'd rather he thought I was both a pig and a whore, than a malleable brainless dolt in need of his protection.
Anyhoo ... I'm done with him, he can find someone else to increase his site hits.
Dan, I suggest you ignore him and stop providing him revenue through site hits. Why not, invite him to Slog Happy and engage him there?
Anyhoo ... I'm done with him, he can find someone else to increase his site hits.
Dan, I suggest you ignore him and stop providing him revenue through site hits. Why not, invite him to Slog Happy and engage him there?
37
@6: Robert Heinlein occasionally mentioned the Bible's difficult bits. Jon Stewart brushed over them too in the recent Daily Show episode that included an Oliver Sacks interview. I can't recommend "Skeptic Magazine" enough.
@21: Women have orgasms?! (stolen from Paul Ford, ftrain.com)
@21: Women have orgasms?! (stolen from Paul Ford, ftrain.com)
38
D.S.: personally I cringe when Americans mention "class" and when English mention "pathetic." Somehow it cuts too close to the bone.
39
best song ever on this topic:
http://www.boomkat.com/item.cfm?id=12741…
track 2: 'The Lesson of Sodom (according to Lot)' by Momus
http://www.boomkat.com/item.cfm?id=12741…
track 2: 'The Lesson of Sodom (according to Lot)' by Momus
40
@32
Thank you!! I'm a gay-rights supporting Lutheran, and I am sick to death of people misunderstanding the Bible, and especially the story of Sodom! In many cultures around the world, hospitality to one's guests was seen as the highest priority, set up even above your family, and if you allowed your guests to be violated in any way, it was one of the worst dishonors imaginable (see: Oedipus.) Was Sodom sexually corrupted? Yes, but that isn't really the point of the story, they were corrupted in ALL ways, which is why they were demanding Lot to introduce them to his guests. They were so corrupt they stepped over the boundaries of hospitality.
So, here this you fing crazy fellow Christians: get thee to a decent Bible Study, or leave the thinkin to those of us whom God gave a BRAIN.
Thank you!! I'm a gay-rights supporting Lutheran, and I am sick to death of people misunderstanding the Bible, and especially the story of Sodom! In many cultures around the world, hospitality to one's guests was seen as the highest priority, set up even above your family, and if you allowed your guests to be violated in any way, it was one of the worst dishonors imaginable (see: Oedipus.) Was Sodom sexually corrupted? Yes, but that isn't really the point of the story, they were corrupted in ALL ways, which is why they were demanding Lot to introduce them to his guests. They were so corrupt they stepped over the boundaries of hospitality.
So, here this you fing crazy fellow Christians: get thee to a decent Bible Study, or leave the thinkin to those of us whom God gave a BRAIN.
42
Lot offers his daughters to the rape mob, and Lot is considered righteous. God allows him to escape the city before the destruction. Lot's wife glances back as they escape to see the destruction, and God turns her into a pillar of salt. Rubbernecking is an offense publishable by death.
You have to remember that in the Bible, women are considered chattel. They can be bought and sold, and raped at will. (Although to follow Biblical law, a virgin rape victim must marry her rapist...Of course that is after the rapist pays the victim's father 50 shekels.) A father controls who marries his daughter. She gets no choice. If a husband is not pleased with his wife, he can simply dismiss her. So, offering up your virgin daughters to protect men was considered the righteous thing to do.
You have to remember that in the Bible, women are considered chattel. They can be bought and sold, and raped at will. (Although to follow Biblical law, a virgin rape victim must marry her rapist...Of course that is after the rapist pays the victim's father 50 shekels.) A father controls who marries his daughter. She gets no choice. If a husband is not pleased with his wife, he can simply dismiss her. So, offering up your virgin daughters to protect men was considered the righteous thing to do.
43
@40,
This is the correct interpretation of the story you should see through the eyes of the people at that period where hospitality was above any consideration, being of middle eastern descent i am clearly on Lot's side, but one must agree that incest at the end was the vilest and the most sinful thing to happen
This is the correct interpretation of the story you should see through the eyes of the people at that period where hospitality was above any consideration, being of middle eastern descent i am clearly on Lot's side, but one must agree that incest at the end was the vilest and the most sinful thing to happen
44
@43:
And yet, strangely, God seemed to have no opinion on that point whatsoever; in fact, since there's no mention of the incest being condemned in any way, one would be forced to draw the conclusion that God at least tacitly approved of the act.
And yet, strangely, God seemed to have no opinion on that point whatsoever; in fact, since there's no mention of the incest being condemned in any way, one would be forced to draw the conclusion that God at least tacitly approved of the act.
45
@44... well, that's not a fair conclusion. any culture's stories contain good acts, bad acts, and questionable acts. as a part of the hebrew tradition, these stories were to teach about the values of that culture, and to pass them on. many stories contain acts that gd nor anyone else offers an opinion on, but are clearly wrong.
we can take from the story that in the past women were not treated as equals to men. we can easily see what's wrong with this view, and hold that against whatever bible blogger we are railing against this week.
but we are not forced to assume that god - or anyone who believes in "that" god - approve of incest even at the time. in fact, i think you get quite the opposite impression.
now, of what value is your approach? that this blogger should defend incest like he (wrongly) defends treating women like it's four thousand years ago? but the blogger doesn't say that, and no one who values the text is likely to come to the conclusion that incest is tacitly approved. as such, you compromise a decent argument (that's not how we should treat women today) with a poor argument/insult (your god approves of incest).
we can take from the story that in the past women were not treated as equals to men. we can easily see what's wrong with this view, and hold that against whatever bible blogger we are railing against this week.
but we are not forced to assume that god - or anyone who believes in "that" god - approve of incest even at the time. in fact, i think you get quite the opposite impression.
now, of what value is your approach? that this blogger should defend incest like he (wrongly) defends treating women like it's four thousand years ago? but the blogger doesn't say that, and no one who values the text is likely to come to the conclusion that incest is tacitly approved. as such, you compromise a decent argument (that's not how we should treat women today) with a poor argument/insult (your god approves of incest).
47
@40
Are you with ELCA? I'm a nonbeliever, but a friend of mine--one of the most intellecutally rigorous and decent Christians I've ever encountered, and a devoted feminist and GLBT ally--is of that synod...if that's the correct term.
Are you with ELCA? I'm a nonbeliever, but a friend of mine--one of the most intellecutally rigorous and decent Christians I've ever encountered, and a devoted feminist and GLBT ally--is of that synod...if that's the correct term.
48
Yeah, the story of Lot makes about as much sense as a crackhead's alibi, but it's certainly not indicative of Lot assimilating with the Sodomites. Even the Christians are reaching with their interpretation of scripture.
49
In German, three out of four English translations for "sodomy" = bestiality. Apparently it doesn't matter which sexual sin it signifies.
50
yeah, so......has David never met a woman before? Growing up in an extremely transgendered closet, I gravitated naturally toward those with whom I most identified. And I can tell you, David, flat out, and with absolute certainty that girls are gross. Gross gross gross. My little sister can belch the alphabet, and frequently does. The girls in my 52-person-Pentacostal-Uniform-School graduating class would sneak up on each other in the hallways during class breaks and punch each other in the tit, BECAUSE IT HURT.(now that I'm sprouting tits, I can tell you, that really, really hurts. worse than the balls???? ehh.) Interesting to note here, however, is that when I was still trapped in that head-space, I had the same ideas about women that Mr. Klinghoffer seems to hold: back in the day, you had a hard time convincing me that girls even went to the bathroom--so pure, so lovely.
So. Damn. Gross.
Ever been in the shared bathroom of two or more women? gross. My sister has her own at my parent's place, and I won't even go near it. Girls poo, and fart, and belch, and pick their nose. BECAUSE THEY'RE PEOPLE.
So. Damn. Gross.
Ever been in the shared bathroom of two or more women? gross. My sister has her own at my parent's place, and I won't even go near it. Girls poo, and fart, and belch, and pick their nose. BECAUSE THEY'RE PEOPLE.
51
"It's also an interesting little moral dilema. Given a choice between sacrificing a member of your family and a guest to whom you have sworn to protect, which is the moraly right choice? (No cop-outs like "call the cops" or "pull a weapon"; that's what makes it a dilema.)"
How 'bout offering up your own damned ass for sacrifice? Cop-out? Who cares.
As for the discussion about women being chattel at that time in that place, I have to ask: So, what? It's still vile. I am not an ethical relativist. In every time period, there have been people willing to stand up against evil practices that the majority considered desirable. Slavery may have been acceptable to the majority of whites in the U.S. during the first 100 years of the country's existence, but it was still a vile practice and its supporters are morally reprehensible. Those who had the courage to fight against it are to be praised. Those who supported it are to be condemned--no excuses, no "get out of jail free" card. The same with the hateful misogyny of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious doctrines. I don't care when it was, the people who supported this behavior are sick pieces of trash.
How 'bout offering up your own damned ass for sacrifice? Cop-out? Who cares.
As for the discussion about women being chattel at that time in that place, I have to ask: So, what? It's still vile. I am not an ethical relativist. In every time period, there have been people willing to stand up against evil practices that the majority considered desirable. Slavery may have been acceptable to the majority of whites in the U.S. during the first 100 years of the country's existence, but it was still a vile practice and its supporters are morally reprehensible. Those who had the courage to fight against it are to be praised. Those who supported it are to be condemned--no excuses, no "get out of jail free" card. The same with the hateful misogyny of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious doctrines. I don't care when it was, the people who supported this behavior are sick pieces of trash.
52
P.S. I forgot to note just how much more disgusting the Lot story gets. The crowd agrees to forego the virgin girls. Instead, they take the concubine (sexual slave) of the visitor. The gang rape her and murder her, leaving her body on the doorstep. The men go to sleep in safety, while the woman is tortured for their sakes. When the visitor awakes, he finds her laying there. He orders her to get up. When he notices that she is dead, he throws her body on his mule. When he gets home, he hacks her body into pieces, sending a piece to each tribe as proof of how badly HE was treated. But Christianity is all about the love.
53
@52, that's another harsh story, but that is not the story we are talking about here, nor is it about lot.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Slog Somehow Overlooked... by Dan Savage
-
VivaVulva Viagra! by Dan Savage -
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
"Let his days be few... Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow." by Dan Savage
-
Feeling Sorry for Carrie Prejean by Dan Savage
-
Last Night's Colbert Report by Dan Savage
-
$2,600,000,000 by Dan Savage
-
All The Best Men Are Taken by Dan Savage
-
I Hate You, Garrison Keillor by Jen Graves
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (53) RSS