I never cease to be appalled by some of things I read in the Old Testament. To cut right to the point, how often do women bleed when they loose their virginity? This is a serious question I have had for quite a while. I know it isn't always, but I don't know if this is the exception or the rule.

I ask because of Deuteronomy 22:13-21 (see below if you need to refresh you memory).

If a virgin didn't produce “proof” on her wedding night of her virginity she could be stoned to death on her father's doorstep. I wonder how common it was for a virgin to be falsely accused and stoned to death because of her natural anatomy (or perhaps her husband's small anatomy). Also, there are obviously ways to stretch or tear the hymen without male intercourse. I learned years ago in a college anatomy class that there is wide natural variation of the hymen from woman to woman, including complete closure (“imperforate hymen”) to the other extreme.

It is disturbing to think of young women being stoned to death the morning after their marriage for lack of a little blood. Hopefully some women were able to trick their husband by producing a blood-stained garment or bed sheet by some other means when it wasn't forthcoming.

Was this a valid test of virginity, or was it an unreliable test that likely resulted in horrific deaths?

Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration and replies.

_________________________________________

13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 
14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: 
15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: 
16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 
17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 
18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; 
19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. 
20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 
21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die:

I read that some people in the middle ages would hide a puppy or kitten in the bedroom to use as a blood donor for staining a sheet if needed.

It would work since they wouldn't be testing for human or animal blood...

Blood has been the general test for virginity in many cultures,not just the land of the OT.People back then did not have our medical knowledge. How shocking.Expecting brides to be virgins was the norm in lots of othe cultures too. Men wanted to be sure they weren't raising someone else's kid. Sure,it was unfortunate,but not a strictly Biblical thing.Ancient societies were not known for their feminist leanings or their scientific knowledge. This is hardly surprising.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2014 01:57AM by bona dea.

The difference is that we aren't told that ancient civilizations' bad archaic beliefs are the word of god.

We are constantly told that the bible is the word of god. So to say that it is okay because other ancient civilizations believed the same is irrelevant.

When the bible is looked at in the same light as other old belief systems then you might have a point.

Also, most people are taught that the excuse "Well others are doing it" is a BS excuse by their parents some time before puberty.

The fact that modern mainstream Christianity maintains this 2000 year old, ugly, repulsive, ignorant superstitions as its most holy scripture is a black eye for modern mainstream Christianity.

I didn't and I out of all my female friends I've duscussed this with, only one said she did. Interesting observation.

Uh, where did I say it was okay? I just have a problem with religion getting the blame for what was the cultural norm of the time.Let's rail against Athenian women being marries off in their teens to men
two or three times their age and then kept prisoners in the home. Or what about the societies where women had to, prostitute themselves before they could marry or bind the8rmfeetmso they xou
d barely walk?

You make my point beautifully again.

We don't revere Athenian literature as the word of god. That's why we don't talk about Athenian literature.

If the Bible is going to be held to the standard of the word of god for today, we have to judge it differently.

Uh,we dont talk about socrates ,Plato,Aristotle and so on? Really?'Get an education. YYI, info most modern Christians do not check the sheets.

Sigh!

Yes, it is fact that such disgusting practices are Canonized by the Modern Mainstream Christian Church.

Testing the sheets is HOLY SCRIPTURE to mainstream Christianity. That is simply fact as evidenced by the canonization of ALL of the Bible by mainstream Christianity.

Sigh all you want bona, it simply does not change fact.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/05/2014 12:55PM by MJ.

I f a woman knew she was expected to bleed,I suspect she would find a way. I have heard of women filling a pouch with blood andnputting it inside or cutting tthemselves. Even if the.girl was young and naive,she had a.mother who could advise her and who would be aware of female anatomy.Parents would not want their family's honor called into question so they would be motivated for their daughter to pass the test.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2014 02:28AM by bona dea.

Jews, as a culture, are hyper about blood. For example: meat has to be kashered before it is cooked, which means (mostly) soaking it in water and then discarding that water (probably more than once)...salting it with what would be to us very big-grain salt, letting the salt soak up the blood, and then washing off the salt...and on and on. Much of kosher cooking has to do with either getting rid of blood, or keeping blood away from things like dairy (which is why observant Jews have at least two complete sets of dishes and utensils, etc.).

So on a practical level, the girl/young woman being married would have been trained "in blood"---as would have her mother, grandmother, aunts, female siblings, cousins, etc. Dealing with blood was a huge part of what it meant to be a female in those times.

In OT times, there WAS normally blood around in often fairly large quantities (from butchering animals, and from fresh-butchered meat), and a small container of blood could easily be obtained by anyone in the house, but in particular, by the females of the house.

Probably every newly-married bride carried in to her bridal bed a small bottle or clay jar of fresh blood, maybe a current couple of teaspoons sort of amount of it, "just in case"---most especially so if there had been premarital sex (which there often was; Jews tend to be very sexual people, and betrothal in particular was a sort of preliminary marriage-before-the-marriage, to the extent that, if the betrothal was dissolved, a religious divorce had to be granted before the girl/young woman could be betrothed or married to someone else). And if the girl herself didn't do that, VERY probably her mother had on her person a vial of fresh blood handy "just in case"---so that the cloth which would be "proof of virginity" had blood on it when it came out of that room the next morning, regardless of whether it was the bride's hymenal blood or not.

This is a very Jewish way of dealing with a situation where religious law conflicts with common custom and common sense.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2014 02:55AM by tevai.

tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is a very Jewish way of dealing with a
> situation where religious law conflicts with
> common custom and common sense.

There are two additional points to be made here about what it says in the OT:

1) In those times and in those places, and because those geographical places had relatively large numbers of men of many different races, ethnicities, customs, and religions, all mixed together, women got raped a LOT---and it could often happen to just about any female, of any age, who went to the well for water (a "woman's job" generally, around the world)...or went to what passed for a secluded spot outside to urinate or defecate...or when she was at home, either in the city or in the country, and someone passing her abode decided that she would serve that man's current need. This is why, although Judaism is traditionally patriarchal, Jewishness is passed through the maternal line ONLY---it is (prior to DNA) often impossible to tell who the father of a child is, but that child's mother is a matter of first-hand observation by anyone who was there for the birth.(*) Because so MANY women (throughout their lifetimes) got raped, limiting marriage to actual virgins only would have greatly reduced the tribal source of new tribal members. Hence: the designation "virgin" had a practical, working, everyday meaning to everyone that often had little to do with whether that particular girl/woman had ever had a penis in her vagina.

2) If you go to a Jewish wedding today (the under-the-chuppah kind of wedding), you will not be aware of it, but TWO ceremonies are taking place---one right after the other, and they APPEAR to be a seamless whole, but according to Jewish law, they are NOT. The first is the formal betrothal...followed IMMEDIATELY, and without pause, by the Jewish marriage ceremony. Part of the reason for this is so that very young girl, according to religious law, "widows" are NOT created by an untimely death or permanent disappearance (Jews always traveled a lot, especially as traders and merchants) of the future groom between the betrothal and the wedding. By putting the two different ceremonies together as one APPARENT "wedding," it solved countless real life problems of very real people who found themselves on the wrong side of a formal betrothal with a missing or dead future groom. (This was most especially important if the future groom went on a journey and then "disappeared" because of accident or murder---which happened a LOT---because a religious divorce, according to Jewish law, can ONLY be created by the betrothed/married male.)

(*) The other reason why Jewishness, according to Jewish law, is passed ONLY through the maternal line is that when women were captured, sold, enslaved, etc. (which also happened a great deal back then), her children generally---according to the custom of just about all of the disparate peoples of those times---was that her children were raised in HER religion. This was one of the near-"universal," "agreed upon" understandings of the different peoples of that time, and so it made logical common sense that Jewishness be passed through the mother, even if the mother was taken away or enslaved. She might be added to a harem in some other ethnic/religious/racial group, but she and her children remained Jews to everyone.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2014 02:17PM by tevai.

tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jews, as a culture, are hyper about blood.


Most Jews don't give a flying fuck about some Bronze Age religion. Most Christians have a 2500 year old view of Jewish culture.

http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/09/lies-to-stop-teaching-girls/

Young prostitutes and their pimps had a scheme of "selling virginity" to the highest bidder to a john over and over by inserting a blood soaked sponge in the vaginal canal.

Makes you wonder if using animal blood to make sure there was proof resulted in some animal to human transfer of diseases.

I remember the gays always getting the blame for STDs when I was younger.

In Kabul Beauty School, a true-story book about an American hairdresser who moved to Afghanistan and opened up a beauty parlor and school, she talks about having to sneak into the bridal chamber to provide the blood for one of her clients on her wedding day. The girl was not a virgin and if her family or the groom's family found out they would have killed her. This was not that long ago - maybe 15 years.

http://www.amazon.com/Kabul-Beauty-School-American-Behind/dp/0812976738/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1415113117&sr=8-1&keywords=kabul+beauty+school

no mo lurker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In Kabul Beauty School, a true-story book about an
> American hairdresser who moved to Afghanistan and
> opened up a beauty parlor and school, she talks
> about having to sneak into the bridal chamber to
> provide the blood for one of her clients on her
> wedding day. The girl was not a virgin and if her
> family or the groom's family found out they would
> have killed her. This was not that long ago -
> maybe 15 years.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Kabul-Beauty-School-American
> -Behind/dp/0812976738/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=14151
> 13117&sr=8-1&keywords=kabul+beauty+school

The insertion of a fake hymen is the most common operation performed on women in much of the Muslim world **today** in countries such as Egypt. I wish I could recall the name of it, but there is a documentary about virginity (women's virginity) in the Muslim world I showed to my students a few years ago. Maybe I can find a link on YouTube to post later.

There is also a recent UK TV documentary called "The Perfect Vagina" which, in one segment, profiles a young Muslim woman who has lost her virginity and because of that now fears for her life...living in London. (She is interviewed anonymously with her face not shown on camera, of course.) What was most disturbing was that after watching it, a very nice student who was an immigrant from Afghanistan (a guy) informed the class that if the young woman were to end up murdered, she would deserve it "because she committed sin and brought shame on her family." The rest of the class was aghast, to say the least.

It's called a hymenoplasty. With the exception that a lack of one could get you killed, I don't understand why any other woman would have it done.

anon4now Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Was this a valid test of virginity, or was it an
> unreliable test that likely resulted in horrific
> deaths?


It was ignorant superstition fueled by a patriarchal culture who didn't actually care about "morals," but cared a great deal about inheritance and "bloodline." Which is why they demanded that women only ever have sex with one male, so that male could insure that any children that woman had were "his" bloodline, and were eligible for his inheritance. Notice there was no test for male "virginity..."

And no, it's not a valid test.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> anon4now Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Was this a valid test of virginity, or was it
> an
> > unreliable test that likely resulted in
> horrific
> > deaths?
>
>
> It was ignorant superstition fueled by a
> patriarchal culture who didn't actually care about
> "morals," but cared a great deal about inheritance
> and "bloodline." Which is why they demanded that
> women only ever have sex with one male, so that
> male could insure that any children that woman had
> were "his" bloodline, and were eligible for his
> inheritance. Notice there was no test for male
> "virginity..."
>

It is also canonized scripture included in the most holy book of modern mainstream Christianity.

These kinds of things make it clear to me that the bible is definitely NOT the unvarnished word of god. Why would the creator of women, who would know the anatomy and variations thereof, be the creator of this drivel?

Even in my TBM days I believed much of the bible is simply a compilation of fables, experience, lessons learned and the plain old musings of men about what they thought was "right." I'm still trying to figure what to believe about Jesus, but I don't see how any thinking person could say the bible is the word of god and you should live by it like that is what it is. Certainly, one can find "truth" in some places or good advise that helps them, but definitely not the word of a creator.

Isn't amazing how all religions are so hung up on sex?

You'd think there were better things to worry about like war, poverty, hunger, illness, disease......

It is much more about bloodlines and males being sure they were not supporting another man's child than about religion per se

But why is it in the most holy scriptures of modern mainstream Christianity?

And no, Mainstream Christianity is not treating this as shepherd stories meant to teach lessons, they are canonizing it as holy scripture on par with the story of Jesus as evidenced in it being the first half of modern Christiany's HOLY Bible, the bible that is central to modern mainstream Christian belief.

virginity is highly over rated.

And this is canonized scripture included in the most holy book of mainstream Christianity.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And this is canonized scripture included in the
> most holy book of mainstream Christianity.


One of the more common errors made by critics of the scriptures is the failure to allow them to speak from their specific intention and context.

Parts of the Old Testament were written as a manual for a theocratic society providing rules and laws for governing a people. Much of it is archaic, and much is offensive to our modern sensibilities, but fair minded people need to weigh its intent and antiquity.

The New Testament was an entirely different setting and never intended to serve as a governing manual for a society.

You don't need to believe in the veracity of any of it, nor its claim to inspiration. But it is helpful to recognize laws implemented thousands of years ago for ruling a primitive society may have an entirely different set of challenges and implementation than those we have today. It would be unthinkable if it were otherwise.

The pervasiveness of Judaism and the unbroken chain of their culture is a unique story. No other culture has ever been subjected to repeated attempts at extermination yet survived as a culture-producing group. Many cite the effectiveness of their laws with creating an unrivaled cohesion for their culture.

I recommend an old book that approaches the Jews from a purely secular POV and examines the amazing persistence of their culture: "Jews, God, and History" by Max Dimont.

By modern religion, not as some stories to be judged by the past, they are canonized as Holy in the context of MODERN religion, as the word of God.

If Modern Christianity wants me to treat them as stories from the past, de-canoize them.

The new and the old testament are NOT treated as itended to be treated separately or they would NOT have been put into a single book called the bible. Putting them in the same book means they are to be treated the first and the last half of the most holy scriptures, as the holy world of God.

I do not believe the CLAIM BY MODERN DAY CHRISTIANS that these books are the word of GOd, I am critical of that claim.

And I do notice that you do not address the specific OT reference and explain why it deserves to be canonized as holy scripture in a MODERN religion.
Nothing you said actually addressed the point that I made.

The OT and all its vile, hate, violence, rape and incest is in modern day context canonized as the word of God by modern day Christianity, and THAT is what I am critical of.

Why do Christian apologists (and no, one does not need to be Christian to be a Christian apologist) always seem to ignore the FACT (no error by me) that in the MODERN context of the OT, it is considered the word of God by MODERN mainstream Christianity? As bad as FAIR these Christian apologists.

Now, if you want to discuss my point, come back with points about the morality of MODERN DAY MAINSTREAM CHRISTIANITY maintain 2000 year old stories about rape, incest, murder, genocide, etc., as CANONIZED SCRIPTURE that is considered CENTRAL to MODERN DAY MAINSTREAM CHRISTIANITY. Sorry, Lot offering his daughters up for rape has no place in Canonized Scripture. Again, if Christianity wants me to treat them as historical texts, they can take them out of the bible DE-canonize them and publish them as historical tails and myths.

Until then, I will treat those stories as if they do come from what the Christians say their God is and judge their God as evil and Christianity as evil worship.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/05/2014 08:32AM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By modern religion, not as some stories to be
> judged by the past, they are canonized as Holy in
> the context of MODERN religion, as the word of
> God.

I wasn't looking for a discussion with you or intending to wage a specific defense of anything. I just noted that _fair minded_ people recognize practices established to preserve a primitive society thousands of years ago will necessarily bear little resemblance to those we have today. History testifies that those practices worked, and the Jews persist to this day despite repeated efforts to exterminate them. That is nothing short of a miracle.

OTOH those differences make easy fodder for amen choirs to rant about today. I was not addressing those choirs, though you are certainly free to sing as loud as you wish.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MJ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > By modern religion, not as some stories to be
> > judged by the past, they are canonized as Holy
> in
> > the context of MODERN religion, as the word of
> > God.
>
> I wasn't looking for a discussion with you or
> intending to wage a specific defense of anything.

Ah, so you were only looking to lecture me as if you were right and I should listen to you, bow my head and say yes as if the thinking were done. BULL SHIT to that. Then you go on to lecture some more. I have always thought you arrogant, but you have removed all doubt.

Fair minded people recognize that the OT descriptive a hateful, bigoted, rape oriented, genocidal society. Fair minded people know that this is the context of the OT, (yes, I do know the context, that is why I oppose the OT as canonized scripture). HATE, MURDER, RAPE and GENOCIDE all elevated to the stature of HOLY SCRIPTURE central to the belief of Mainstream Christianity. Fair and JUST minded people know that such hate has no place and no business as the central teachings (that is why it is canonized scripture after all) of a modern day chruch.

"I just noted that _fair minded_ people recognize practices established to preserve a primitive society thousands of years ago" Have no business as part of the teachings of a modern day religion. Yeah, that stuff happens thousands of years ago, so why is it been taught as holy scripture TODAY? What are your going to do next, validate the teachings of the racist KKK because slavery once existed in the USA? Or, will you join the fair minded people that have come to believe that such hate has no place in modern society and should only be looked at in a historical perspective, not validated by canonizing the hate?

Why is it that you avoid the issue of TODAY and hide in the past as if it justified anything being done and taught in today's word? Fair minded people want to know why the dodge?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/05/2014 12:10PM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
> Ah, so you were only looking to lecture me as if
> you were right and I should listen to you, bow my
> head and say yes as if the thinking were done.

I've engaged in enough discussions with you to realize that you are never wrong, so that was not my intent.

I was saying there are significantly different ways to view the data. You choose to cite practices used to govern a primitive people thousands of years ago and argue they somehow reflect on the veracity of that system today. The practices that so offend you are entirely absent from any judeo/christian community today. But you seem to find them relevant. Have at it.

I imagine you are probably somewhat selective in your outrage at the history of groups. Ask any Democrat voter today if they endorse the agenda of the KKK. You'll be hard pressed to find a single one. But the KKK was birthed in Democratic politics. I guess we can expect you to commence voting with the party of Lincoln in all future elections, right?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/05/2014 01:46PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Well at least the Jews only mutilate the genitals of the male half their believership.

of keeping the blood-stained sheets around, in case they need to be hauled out at some time in the future, to prove that the poor dear really had been a virgin on her wedding night.

I remember reading in any number of novels about "I'll fish those sheets out as proof, if I need to!" WHAT??? Many people didn't have enough money to maintain multiple sets of sheets, so it must have been something of tremendous importance - and possibly protection for the wife, in case there is ever a question - to put that special sheet away and not just wash it and re-use it.

catnip Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> of keeping the blood-stained sheets around, in
> case they need to be hauled out at some time in
> the future, to prove that the poor dear really had
> been a virgin on her wedding night.
>
> I remember reading in any number of novels about
> "I'll fish those sheets out as proof, if I need
> to!" WHAT??? Many people didn't have enough
> money to maintain multiple sets of sheets, so it
> must have been something of tremendous importance
> - and possibly protection for the wife, in case
> there is ever a question - to put that special
> sheet away and not just wash it and re-use it.

If Italian films are to be believed for their accuracy, blood-stained sheets are a big cultural deal in modern-ish European times, complete with cheers of the populace when they are ceremoniously presented to said populace and are seen to be properly blood-stained...but I doubt very much that sheets existed in OT times.

Most peoples, at that time, slept on sleeping mats on the floor (as is true today in many areas of Africa, Asia, and the Indian subcontinent)--and that floor is often nothing more than pounded dirt. If there was any "sheet" at all, it was someone's cloak that was spread, as much as would be possible, across the sleeping mat.

On the other hand, because of the Jewish laws of niddah (which have to do with menstrual periods and the days directly after the menstrual flow has ceased), pieces of clean, white cloth are normal and expected for women to possess in order to count their "clean" days (and their subsequent mikvah visit, which will start off the sexual month for that observant Jewish couple). Girls are specifically taught how to stick a piece of clean white cloth over their finger, then insert that cloth-covered finger into their vaginas, pull it out, and then examine it to see if there are any traces of blood on it.

I have always just assumed that the cloth which needed blood on it in OT times was just another of the usual pieces of cloth which observant Jewish females of menstruating age routinely use to count their "clean" days.

In the case of a new bride, you would WANT blood on the cloth (but we're talking about a small piece of cloth here---MUCH smaller than a contemporary washcloth...just big enough to drape over that girl/woman's index finger).

So...back in OT times...a mother might well carry an ALREADY blood-smeared cloth into her daughter and new son-in-law's "bedroom" (they actually did not have bedrooms back then, needless to say) in case that the daughter (for any reason) had not bled after intercourse.

I really don't think actual sheets had anything to do with any of this. I don't think they had been invented then, and if so, they were in the pharaoh's or the emperor's bedrooms...not in the sleeping areas of ordinary people.