|
kavanaugh
Oct 23, 2018 7:33:56 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by matisse on Oct 23, 2018 7:33:56 GMT -5
Mine was more of a rhetorical question. Of course there would have been ways back then for a girl's or woman's hymen to be torn or stretched without ever having sexual contact. Stop trying to mansplain it otherwise. Did you know that it is also possible, depending on the shape and elasticity of the hymen, for some girls/women to be sexually active and retain an intact hymen? The point is, sometimes the hymen is torn or stretched in a virgin, and sometimes the hymen remains intact despite a woman no longer being a virgin. The hymen is not a reliable indicator of virginity. your really trying to explain away something by modern terms again i repeat these were not modern women..nice try though... Some @sses talk, you type. My points are valid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2018 7:56:10 GMT -5
your really trying to explain away something by modern terms again i repeat these were not modern women..nice try though... Some @sses talk, you type. My points are valid. as they say it takes one to know one....and no there not
|
|
|
kavanaugh
Oct 23, 2018 8:53:36 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by matisse on Oct 23, 2018 8:53:36 GMT -5
Some @sses talk, you type. My points are valid. as they say it takes one to know one....and no there not en.m.Wikipedia.org/wiki/hymenRead up. One would expect that an all-knowing creator-god would have known better than to allow his people to make decisions about whether a person would live or die based on such an inadequate and unjust test.
|
|
|
kavanaugh
Oct 23, 2018 10:34:16 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Lee on Oct 23, 2018 10:34:16 GMT -5
It sounds like humans doing the best they could do given their knowledge at the time.
|
|
|
kavanaugh
Oct 23, 2018 10:36:55 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Lee on Oct 23, 2018 10:36:55 GMT -5
If I were to hazard a guess I would say you have been in some strange relationships. To be valued as a possession of someone or something, is the basis of slavery. [/quoet] Yes, -Lee who was it that owned you as a slave? Or do you own another person?Will you and rational argue there is no assumption of possession in love, or one of mutually held property, in the legal status of marriage?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2018 11:27:56 GMT -5
as they say it takes one to know one....and no there not en.m.Wikipedia.org/wiki/hymenRead up. One would expect that an all-knowing creator-god would have known better than to allow his people to make decisions about whether a person would live or die based on such an inadequate and unjust test. again modern activities do not apply to these women.... and after listing those activities it says "although the true prevalence of trauma as a result of these activities is unclear.[6][28][29]" and under reference 29 it says "Contrary to the popular belief that transections of the hymen are associated with gymnastics, horseback riding, and other vigorous sports, we found no relation between sports or gymnastics and hymenal changes. There was also no relation to prior gynecologic examination." you should have read more of your own link.... and again if the method i suggested were not adequate to determine virginity neither would snow's raping them to find out if they were either....
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 23, 2018 16:00:37 GMT -5
Mine was more of a rhetorical question. Of course there would have been ways back then for a girl's or woman's hymen to be torn or stretched without ever having sexual contact. Stop trying to mansplain it otherwise. Did you know that it is also possible, depending on the shape and elasticity of the hymen, for some girls/women to be sexually active and retain an intact hymen? The point is, sometimes the hymen is torn or stretched in a virgin, and sometimes the hymen remains intact despite a woman no longer being a virgin. The hymen is not a reliable indicator of virginity. your really trying to explain away something by modern terms again i repeat these were not modern women..nice try though... A young married woman came to our doctor for her first prenatal visit and on examination it was found that her hymen appeared intact.
There would have had to have been a least a pinhole somewhere for her to have become pregnant.
But other than being pregnant she could have easily passed a virginity test.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2018 16:19:02 GMT -5
your really trying to explain away something by modern terms again i repeat these were not modern women..nice try though... A young married woman came to our doctor for her first prenatal visit and on examination it was found that her hymen appeared intact.
There would have had to have been a least a pinhole somewhere for her to have become pregnant.
But other than being pregnant she could have easily passed a virginity test.why is my BS detector going off right now? there had to be an opening of some sort for the seed to get in....
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 23, 2018 17:10:26 GMT -5
Will you and rational argue there is no assumption of possession in love, or one of mutually held property, in the legal status of marriage? NO! There in NOT any "assumption of possession" of one person OWNING the other!
That is where some men think that they OWN their wives & therefore treat them as "property!"
Mutually held property is a totally different ball game.
If you don't see the difference between those two concepts perhaps that had a part in in your unsuccessful marriage that you keep talking about!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 23, 2018 17:29:15 GMT -5
Mine was more of a rhetorical question. Of course there would have been ways back then for a girl's or woman's hymen to be torn or stretched without ever having sexual contact. Stop trying to mansplain it otherwise. Did you know that it is also possible, depending on the shape and elasticity of the hymen, for some girls/women to be sexually active and retain an intact hymen? The point is, sometimes the hymen is torn or stretched in a virgin, and sometimes the hymen remains intact despite a woman no longer being a virgin. The hymen is not a reliable indicator of virginity. your really trying to explain away something by modern terms again i repeat these were not modern women..nice try though... Are you contending that from an evolutionary standpoint that the women were not as evolved? The hymen is hardly a modern term since the tearing of the hymen was (incorrectly) used to 'prove' virginity. I am guessing that the prudent bride of yesteryear went to the marriage bed for the first time with a vial of blood. Perhaps you could offer an explanation of how the women of 5,000 years ago differed anatomically from women today?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 23, 2018 17:37:02 GMT -5
Will you and rational argue there is no assumption of possession in love, or one of mutually held property, in the legal status of marriage? I will not argue that you equate love with possession. Or that love is the result of mutually held property. And I will not argue that you seem to equate love with marriage and that is is all but a requirement for love. I love my grandchildren even though I would not count them among my possessions, we do not own mutual property, and still not married.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 23, 2018 17:39:45 GMT -5
A young married woman came to our doctor for her first prenatal visit and on examination it was found that her hymen appeared intact.
There would have had to have been a least a pinhole somewhere for her to have become pregnant.
But other than being pregnant she could have easily passed a virginity test. why is my BS detector going off right now? there had to be an opening of some sort for the seed to get in.... Just guessing but perhaps your BS dector is going off due to your lack of familiarity with the subject matter being discussed. You need to take a refresher course on female anatomy.
|
|
|
kavanaugh
Oct 23, 2018 18:16:39 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Lee on Oct 23, 2018 18:16:39 GMT -5
Will you and rational argue there is no assumption of possession in love, or one of mutually held property, in the legal status of marriage? NO! There in NOT any "assumption of possession" of one person OWNING the other!
That is where some men think that they OWN their wives & therefore treat them as "property!"
Mutually held property is a totally different ball game.
If you don't see the difference perhaps those two perhaps that had a part in in your unsuccessful marriage that you keep talking about!It surely did. I had a depressive disorder in my youth and married, believing that work could substitute for love. Where did I learn that? From the 2x2? Could be. Back to the point. I really object to the disinformation that women were regarded as cattle in Jewish society. It's a conventient myth by which to hate men or hate our larger society today. Read up on blandies recent posts. He's an astute historian, Jewish enthusiast, and critical thinker.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 23, 2018 18:51:31 GMT -5
A young married woman came to our doctor for her first prenatal visit and on examination it was found that her hymen appeared intact.
There would have had to have been a least a pinhole somewhere for her to have become pregnant.
But other than being pregnant she could have easily passed a virginity test. why is my BS detector going off right now? there had to be an opening of some sort for the seed to get in.... Well, -just shut off your "BS detector" Lee
Because isn't that exactly what I said?
"There would have had to have been a least a pinhole somewhere for her to have become pregnant."
Never-the-less, -by just looking at the young woman, she would have passed the "virginity" test.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 23, 2018 18:54:55 GMT -5
NO! There in NOT any "assumption of possession" of one person OWNING the other!
That is where some men think that they OWN their wives & therefore treat them as "property!"
Mutually held property is a totally different ball game.
If you don't see the difference perhaps those two perhaps that had a part in in your unsuccessful marriage that you keep talking about! It surely did. I had a depressive disorder in my youth and married, believing that work could substitute for love. Where did I learn that? From the 2x2? Could be. Back to the point. I really object to the disinformation that women were regarded as cattle in Jewish society. It's a conventient myth by which to hate men or hate our larger society today. Read up on blandies recent posts. He's an astute historian, Jewish enthusiast, and critical thinker. Blandie?
An "astute historian and critical thinker?"
I haven't found that to be true.
|
|
|
kavanaugh
Oct 23, 2018 19:09:43 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Lee on Oct 23, 2018 19:09:43 GMT -5
I understand. The most efficient way to destabilize and redirect our culture is to present false narratives of it's origins.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 23, 2018 19:32:33 GMT -5
I understand. The most efficient way to destabilize and redirect our culture is to present false narratives of it's origins. Lee, you -as well as Blandi , -have attempted to make yourselves believe history according to what you wish it were.
But an unbiased reading of the past would show you just how false your versions really are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2018 19:36:17 GMT -5
your really trying to explain away something by modern terms again i repeat these were not modern women..nice try though... Are you contending that from an evolutionary standpoint that the women were not as evolved? The hymen is hardly a modern term since the tearing of the hymen was (incorrectly) used to 'prove' virginity. I am guessing that the prudent bride of yesteryear went to the marriage bed for the first time with a vial of blood. Perhaps you could offer an explanation of how the women of 5,000 years ago differed anatomically from women today? they were not in anyway involved with the activities of the women of today to damage or alter their bodies as happens now...but i do stand corrected that maybe the excuses we've heard are not all that valid for the women of today per matisses link...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2018 19:37:44 GMT -5
why is my BS detector going off right now? there had to be an opening of some sort for the seed to get in.... Just guessing but perhaps your BS dector is going off due to your lack of familiarity with the subject matter being discussed. You need to take a refresher course on female anatomy. hardly....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2018 19:42:11 GMT -5
why is my BS detector going off right now? there had to be an opening of some sort for the seed to get in.... Well, -just shut off your "BS detector" Lee
Because isn't that exactly what I said?
"There would have had to have been a least a pinhole somewhere for her to have become pregnant."
Never-the-less, -by just looking at the young woman, she would have passed the "virginity" test.
i'm not lee.... the way you stated that led me to believe there was a question as to whether or not there was an opening...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 23, 2018 19:57:46 GMT -5
I understand. The most efficient way to destabilize and redirect our culture is to present false narratives of it's origins. For an honest answer you and blandi both need to read this:
Read what Rational just said on this thread: WOMEN SHOULD KEEP SILENT IN CHURCH; MIXED MESSAGES FROM PAUL
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 23, 2018 20:08:52 GMT -5
Well, -just shut off your "BS detector" Lee
Because isn't that exactly what I said?
"There would have had to have been a least a pinhole somewhere for her to have become pregnant."
Never-the-less, -by just looking at the young woman, she would have passed the "virginity" test.
i'm not lee.... the way you stated that led me to believe there was a question as to whether or not there was an opening... Sorry, -I get you two mixed up at times..You seem to agree a lot. But surely you know by now that I don't believe in Jesus being born of a virgin, so I surely wouldn't have believed it of anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Oct 24, 2018 2:45:37 GMT -5
en.m.Wikipedia.org/wiki/hymenRead up. One would expect that an all-knowing creator-god would have known better than to allow his people to make decisions about whether a person would live or die based on such an inadequate and unjust test. again modern activities do not apply to these women.... and after listing those activities it says "although the true prevalence of trauma as a result of these activities is unclear.[6][28][29]" and under reference 29 it says "Contrary to the popular belief that transections of the hymen are associated with gymnastics, horseback riding, and other vigorous sports, we found no relation between sports or gymnastics and hymenal changes. There was also no relation to prior gynecologic examination." Yup. The results of studies are mixed, which is why the article states "although the true prevalence of trauma as a result of these activities is unclear.[6][28][29.]" You simply cherry picked the "result" you liked. I read the link. It supports the validity of statements I made earlier in the thread. There is no "if". Neither approach gives an adequate test of virginity.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Oct 24, 2018 2:58:29 GMT -5
Are you contending that from an evolutionary standpoint that the women were not as evolved? The hymen is hardly a modern term since the tearing of the hymen was (incorrectly) used to 'prove' virginity. I am guessing that the prudent bride of yesteryear went to the marriage bed for the first time with a vial of blood. Perhaps you could offer an explanation of how the women of 5,000 years ago differed anatomically from women today? they were not in anyway involved with the activities of the women of today to damage or alter their bodies as happens now... I question your knowledge of this subject. Woman/girl with a damaged hymen: may be a virgin, may be sexually active with vaginal penetration, may be a rape survivor Woman/girl with an intact hymen: may be a virgin, may be sexually active with vaginal penetration, may be a rape survivor
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 24, 2018 9:04:58 GMT -5
Are you contending that from an evolutionary standpoint that the women were not as evolved? The hymen is hardly a modern term since the tearing of the hymen was (incorrectly) used to 'prove' virginity. I am guessing that the prudent bride of yesteryear went to the marriage bed for the first time with a vial of blood. Perhaps you could offer an explanation of how the women of 5,000 years ago differed anatomically from women today? they were not in anyway involved with the activities of the women of today to damage or alter their bodies as happens now...but i do stand corrected that maybe the excuses we've heard are not all that valid for the women of today per matisses link... At one time these 'women' (usually in the 12-14 year range) were children and did he things children do. Climb, run, ride animals, penetrative masturbation, being born without a hymen, being struck in the vaginal area, etc. The list is long @wally.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 24, 2018 9:08:28 GMT -5
Just guessing but perhaps your BS dector is going off due to your lack of familiarity with the subject matter being discussed. You need to take a refresher course on female anatomy. hardly.... The contents of your posts paints a different picture. Sorry if I missed some of the relevant bits.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2018 11:10:44 GMT -5
again modern activities do not apply to these women.... and after listing those activities it says "although the true prevalence of trauma as a result of these activities is unclear.[6][28][29]" and under reference 29 it says "Contrary to the popular belief that transections of the hymen are associated with gymnastics, horseback riding, and other vigorous sports, we found no relation between sports or gymnastics and hymenal changes. There was also no relation to prior gynecologic examination." Yup. The results of studies are mixed, which is why the article states "although the true prevalence of trauma as a result of these activities is unclear.[6][28][29.]" You simply cherry picked the "result" you liked. I read the link. It supports the validity of statements I made earlier in the thread. There is no "if". Neither approach gives an adequate test of virginity. you either own the whole article and its references you posted or you don't...i suspect the latter ... so then your finally in agreement with me, snows raping them to find out wouldn't have worked either....good to know...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2018 11:12:06 GMT -5
they were not in anyway involved with the activities of the women of today to damage or alter their bodies as happens now...but i do stand corrected that maybe the excuses we've heard are not all that valid for the women of today per matisses link... At one time these 'women' (usually in the 12-14 year range) were children and did he things children do. Climb, run, ride animals, penetrative masturbation, being born without a hymen, being struck in the vaginal area, etc. The list is long @wally . apparently not from matisses link...go read it and the references...
|
|