Why did poor Onan have to die?

[A-1 (imported)]

...Likewise I am guilty of digression...

As YM covertly suggests I should go to Bible study more...

But I am curious...if Bathsheba was not black and David was not black, then how did Soloman get black? Just curious...

AND... Hillary ain't so bad, we could do worse.

So back to the thread...

Let's see, how's about a group of teenage girls...

Yup! that'll get you warm and in jail at the same time.

Maybe a bunch of 20 Y.O. college sweeties...

What an old pervert am I....

A-1

[Mac (imported)]

... surplus in the Treasury.

YM

Transfer to New Thread (http://www.eunuch.org/vbulletin/showthr ... oto=postid)

[yankee masha (imported)]

I don't know where you read that he was black. There are no statues, images or descriptions of him. he is so steeped in fact, myth and legend that there is very little we actually are sure of about him.

He is a much more important hero among the Muslims than among Jews or Christians. The fables about his magical powers in Arabian mythology have turned him into as much a mythic hero as a historical king. We do know he was legendary in his own time. Arabs don't care much about King David, but they are vitally interested in Soloman.

He may not have had that many wives and concubines, but it's more likely that he did. Whatever the fact, he did institute the idea of great sultans having vast hareems of wives and women. He also is credited with ruling over demons (not the evil little devils of our lore, but the magical creatures who lived in lamps and such). A lot of Arabian tales stem directly from the legends that grew up around him

He is supposed to have had vast stores of gold, but nothing has been found historically to prove that. We do know that he used tremendous amounts of gold in the temple he built. Where he got it is the mystery.

However his affair with Sheba (Queen of Ethiopia -- the black lady you referred to) has been pretty well documented in that country's history. It seems she did have at least one child by him, a son who succeeded her to the throne. It appears she did travel to meet him and lived with him for several years as his mistress, perhaps wife.

Solomon was not limited to worship of the God of Israel, but recognized and worshipped several other gods with no punishment inflicted.

The point of bringing him in at this point is good because it shows how certain factual people in the Bible, such as Onan, appear, and cause a puzzlement, and then speculations that lead to myths.

The more they search the more historical support comes about for people and stories there that we thought were myths. And at the same time, seemingly mundane stories turn out to have no historical basis.

Like all great men, Biblical figures such as Solomon and Moses have had stories attached to them that existed way before their time and becasue no one was sure, they were recorded in scriptures eons later.

To read the Bible as history, without the divine vengeance hitting evey couple of pages, is fascinating.

And the story of Onan is one of the most puzzling because it is a fragment, about a man who had no connection to Judaic history. It was a tale that was part of the Jewish folklore and was put in the bible. It is placed so early in the history of humankind that one wonders where it came from. It is as mystifying as the single statement, "There were giants in the earth then." Why it should have been considered sinful that he spilled his seed into the ground is the puzzle. Perhaps because he was so early in human history that the need to populate the earth was necessary to the survival of humans? It was mandatory in ancient times for every man and woman to reproduce children. It was more important than anything at that time. More important than loyalty to a spouse, more important than morality. It would be a great thing to have the puzzle of Onan solved, but it never can be without some other ancient texts showing up about him.

How does this relate to eunuchism? It is interesting to the people who are interested in the denial of sexuality, even on that oblique level. It was in a way, Onan rejecting sex as a reproductive potency and using it as a simple pleasure.

ym

[A-1 (imported)]

...I am black, but comely, oh ye daughters of Jerusalem...

That is the scritpure. If Solomon was black it could be only because his mother, Bathsheba, was black.

Of course, Solomon may have well been the only hetreosexual in history who could have possibly been as sexually active as the average Gay man in the Gay culture of a quarter of a century ago. Eunuchs were employed to guard the harem, and I imagine that a man as powerful as Solomon must have employed a few in that capacity, although you cannot prove it biblically. This is because if the Harem was not restricted to only its master, then sexually transmitted disease would have most likely been the result, and in those days before anti-biotics it would have been fatal...

I also have a theory that Alexander the Great died of a sexually transmitted disease, but that is not a discussion that would be appropriate here, either.

Prosmicuity and sexual activity relates to Eunuchdom because Eunuchdom is a reaction to the concept of sexual prosmiscuity, in my point of view.

Of course, I believe that we are seeing today the emergence of the concept of Eunuchdom as a reaction to the sexual promiscuity of the Gay culture of the early '80's late '70's, in my opinion.

It is a hallmark of maturity in Gay culture as a social movement and a mark of social responsibility that was always there, but is now expressing itself as an over-reaction to promiscuity.

It seemed to be the prevalent Gay culture attitude in the past that went something like "...you tell me that i cannot be Gay?...that I cannot have sex?...Well, I CAN be Gay and I CAN have as much sex as I please...and I will prove it to you" So, if they caught something, it was to the doctor, take your pills and get well and go right back out to the same thing that made you sick in the first place.

Gay culture has never been saddled with the same old stereotypical disrespect for sexual partners that Str8 men display toward the women who really have a strong sexual drive who are their primary sexual partners. And diseases like Chalmydia (sp) do not have as detrimental affect on a man as it does on a woman. (i.e., it cannot or does not usually make them sterile.) Gays never as a matter of custom worried much about procreation, for obvious reasons...

So despite sexually transmitted disease we saw places like Fire Island, Key West, Castro Street in SanFrancisco, just to name a few. Those diseases stressing the immune system made some Gay men of that era die very, very quickly once they acquired HIV. It was a shame and a national tragedy, in my opinion.

Now we see a more mature and responsible Gay culture, and this Eunuchdom is being expressed here and elsewhere as an expression of that responsibility.

It is my opinion, and I may be wrong, but the concept is fascinating.

It is not new, either. Eunuchdom has always been an undercurrent in straight culture, but what has seemingly been an antithesis to prevalent Gay philosophy, i.e., loss of sexuality, is now emerging as a sub-cultural movement in the Gay sub-culture and it is very, very interesting societal reaction from a sociological standpoint.

Just my opinion...

What do you say?

A-1

[yankee masha (imported)]

re: solomon's black skin, semitic people at that time were very dark or light but they were still Caucasian. i remember reading that when I was still in high school. Just having black skin does not make one a member of the black race. I have relatives who are very dark skinned (we are Italian) and I mean dark. But a true black has a body type, hair and bone structure as well as other distinctive features that class him anthropologically as a negroid ( sorry that word has become politically incorrect, but anthorpologically it is the calssification).

Our European culture tends to portray ancient Hebrews as blond haired and white, but really they had dark skin. Because of the long sojourn in Egypt prior to Moses, they would have certainly married with Egyptians, who were mostly true blacks. But it was a mixed society and many body types that were dominant then are not now, like the Hittites.

The quote you made could have been referring to someone besides Solomon, as it was the custom then to speak for the character one was singing about, but i am not saying I am right about that. Just suggesting. Solomon could have been black and so could Bathsheba. When the Hebrews went into Canaan, they did intermarry with them and the Canaanites were probably white skinned.

I disagree with your assessment of gays being more responsible now. They are less promiscuous, but that is because of HIV. We did not invent AIDS, we were infected by it more predominantly. I have lost about 25 friends to the disease and cared for many, and it was devastating and I was never promiscuouis ( much to my regret at first) and never was infected.

What I dislike now is that gays are imitating heterosexual behavior, adopting kids, wanting to get married. We had a better culture based on being gay and now it is all boiled down to gfamily life. I don't like it.

Butr chacun a son gout.

I believe eunuchism is more a phenomenon of overpopulation than reating to promiscuity. Also the growing tolerance of homosexuals openly is due to that as well, I feel. But there is nothing wrong with promiscuity. It is again the christian stuff saying sex is a sin when it isn't. your whoel idea of sexual diseases applied to other things is applying our socioetal stuff back on history. There was a very interesting study made in England that showed how subtle the incentives for sexual behavior are.

Just as an unrelated example, did you know that if women live together they quickly find they are menstruating at the same times each month? And if a man's wife cheats on him -- even if he does not consciously know it -- a cuckolded husband produces less sperm and becomes less potent?

Also did you know that men who turn to regular man to man sex in prisons continue the practice aftrer release?

Your whole posting is great to read and very much food for thought. I disagree with a good part of it, but that is my opinion, not a put down. I will read it again later as I found it intriguing. I don't know at this point what the anthropology of the ancient Hebrews was. nor why they are now mostly (or visibly) European white folks but it would be interesting to learn.

ym

[A-1 (imported)]

Not to belabor a point but there was much mixing of the races in Biblical days also, just like today.

I believe that much of what has been said about Solomon being dark skinned because of tending vinyards a bunch of hogwash.

I feel this way because I cannot picture a king having to tend his own vinyards and it does not make sense to me that he should be out in the sun a lot, what with 550 women in his Harem, wives and concubines to attend to.

There is a sect of Judiasm in Ethopia. They ARE black, YM. As a matter of fact is has been suggested that the Arc of the Covenant is in a shrine in Ethopia. Nobody knows for sure because it is guarded night and day by members of the sect which is a sect of Judiasm.

A very interesting discussion, right.

As for promiscuity, I am not in favor of anything but serial monogamy. Sex is not wrong, sex with everybody is. Generally, people can pass a lot of diseases sexually, and while some are fairly harmless, others are dangerous, especially if left untreated. It ain't healthy, condom or no...

As far as sexual preference goes, I am not too concerned about the prison scene. I think that some people will screw any hole that will hold still long enough. Myself, I like women, and I have not really been attracted to men sexually. Some women do not light my fire, either.

However, back to the subject, I am not anthing like that Onan guy unless the woman was really nasty, I would have impregnated her for general purposes, if that was what was required of me. Personally, I think that Onan was a Bible story made to teach obedience, not to forbid masturbation.

Forbidding people to have sex screws with people's heads. Just look what is happening to the Catholic Priesthood. Many Gay Catholic men entered into the Priesthood thinking that it would save their souls and help them to remain chaste and celebate. They did this because they were told that they could not be Gay.

But their Gayness only grew stronger and it ended up screwing up thir lives. OF course, there are those who claim that Gayness is a genetic trait and others that claim that it is a learned behavior. Which does the Prison example that you gave me support?

By the way, have you all seen the latest news about Susan Smith?

Check it out here...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/0 ... index.html

Write a prisoner where she ran the add is here...

http://writeaprisoner.com/

Back to Onan...

The problem being that Onan may have indeed preferred men to women. Or, perhaps even young boys to women. The Bible gives no examples of rampant homosexuality or even bisexuality except perhaps Sodom and Gomorrah. And we all know that the group or mob turned down Lot's virgin daughters for what they believed were young men but in fact were Angels.

OF course, one can argue all that they want about the sexuality of an Angel, but the idea was that they would have raped anything, and turning down Lot's daughters may not have been the point. I cannot feature any cherubic angel looking better than a teen age virgin girl....TO me it would been like turning down a young Brooke Shields for a young Gary Coleman. Sorry, fellows, I just cannot see it...

The story of Onan makes no mention of the beauty of the woman he was supposed to impregnate. She may have been ugly, and that may have been the reason.

I do not know.

I do not think that Homosexuality is an issue in the story of Onan, or else it would have been mentioned and defined in a more concise way. If masturbation were the issue, why wasn't the story more specific?

A-1

[yankee masha (imported)]

I know abot the Ethiopian Jews. And Haile Selassie claimed his lineage back to Adam, including a Biblical trail. there are Jewish enclaves all over the world, Asia, Ireland, etc, who don't know that they are praacticing Judaism. there was an interesting documentary on them on Discovery Or onme of =those channels, made by someone who was looking for the Lost Tribes and claimed to have found them. Made a good case too.

It would be no surprise if Solokon were dark skinned, and more interesting if he were a true black man. In which case his mother could have been also. We don't haved any background on her. She could have married Uriah outside of Israel since he was an important soldier and tehy got around diplomaticaly a lot.

The idea that a King of Solomon's stature would have been tgending grapevines is absurd. Israel was an important coutnry and Solomon a famous and busy ruler. The discussion however has run out of points here. Present day religious folks can't handle it if their prejudices are not in place and thhe retroactive stuff tghey do to make themselves better than other people is boring. It is like the old book title, "God is an Englishman."

But I am not religious myself and worship at no altar, so my interest in the Bible is that it carries history not recorded elsewhere, or at least not easily available. If their god chose them to carry the truth then they have done it very well.

Anyone can speculate on Onan and his sin. He may be an allegory, he may have been a real prince somewhere. Why he let his seed spill on the ground, and why it was such a crime against god.

As to homosexuality, I still feel you are off the mark in all yhour speculations. The Catholic Church is hypocritical about it. Most of the preists and cardinals are homosexual. Most of them are really pederastic, which is not the same thing. Most gay men are revolted by the idea of molesting kids. It is the Christians who have coupled us with pederasty. Actually straight men are the overwhelming child molesters. They just get awya with it more because of the male chauvinism that is soft on the idea of adult men raping young girls.

For myself the idea of molesting any child is something I feel should be punished by life terms or capital punishment because of the way it ruins lives. Same with rape of anyone.

Prison rape is first about domination. Later in long term sentences it becomes the only outlet. And becasue men need sex and even intimacy prison affairs often continue after release. It has nothing to do with being gay. But when there is only one sexual outlet, it becomes acceptable.

I don't at all agree with your idea that sex with everyone is wrong. But I won't argue it becasue it is our opinion and interesting to hear. The idea of disease being the automatic outcome of sex is recent -- the past 23 yehars since AIDS changed the terrain. But biologically there is nothing wrong with it.

If you find anything more on Solomon it wold be fascinating to read. he was such a famous and well known king yet there is so much myth and legend surrounding him that it is hard to separate the fadct from fiction. Certainly the facts are as awesome as the obvious myths.

But in reading the Bible always bear in mind that it was never actually written down as a continual narrative until very late in Jewish history. And Judaism as a religion did not come about till much later too. Originally and for the greater part of Israel'

s history each man's (and woman's) relationship with Jehovah was considered personal. the other laws andd regulations about diet etc, were actually done as man's law. Moses borrowed heagvilyu from Egyptian legal codes in compiling the laws for Hebrews to live under.

ym

[A-1 (imported)]

You say...

As to homosexuality, I still feel you are off the mark in all yhour speculations. The Catholic Church is hypocritical about it. Most of the preists and cardinals are homosexual. Most of them are really pederastic, which is not the same thing. Most gay men are revolted by the idea of molesting kids. It is the Christians who have coupled us with pederasty. Actually straight men are the overwhelming child molesters. They just get awya with it more because of the male chauvinism that is soft on the idea of adult men raping young girls.

I know of a Catholic Priest who has taken a junket or or probably many junkets to a Caribbean island with a Parishoner, and at the present it is much easier for a Priest to have a heterosexual affair than it is to have a homosexual encounter or affair. Probably he has taken more than one, but one is all that I now of for sure. I am not sure about the sexual encounter, but neither would tell the truth about it anyway, so why ask?

You are correct in statement about chid molesters. Since the tie-in with child molesters and homosexuality is primarily one of fantasy and misconception, I can agree with you on the concept of the injustice of that connection. However, I believe that if the truth were known, most first-time sexual encounters are of the homosexual nature not because everybody is homosexual, but because that is usually the first opportunity for sexuality to express itself.

The problem comes in when a boys formative sexual encounter is not with another boy, but with a grown man. It does not have to be the first ecnounter, but it is the most significant. The encounter or series of encounters is so traumatizing, that it has the effect of making the person what I would term sexually unbalanced. This can manifest itself as Pederasty, in much the same way that any abuse mechanism is perpetuated from one generation to the next.

Of course, sex is the common denominator for all of us. If a young girl's fiorst significant sexual encounter is with an adult male, it will unbalance her to a great extent unless she rationalizes it properly. If it is with a young woman, again, she will have no adversion to lesbian encounters.

However, if it is with another young girl, then it is as harmless as a homosexual encounter between two young boys. However, it will make her less regimented against same sex encounters later in life and it could have the possibility of making her prefer women to men.

The possibility of a sexual encounter between young males and young females is one that is probably the most preferrable if such formative sexual encounters are to occur at all. That will generate a familiarity and a comfortableness with the opposite sex that can be achieved by no other experience. Of course, the two involved should like each other and respect all people of it can get ugly.

But this last circumstance is what society guards against most fervently, then in the typical hypocritical human manner society attempts to condemn homosexuality when their own social structures encourage it in young people.

They make same sex bunk together, play together, go to the bathroom together, shower together and the list goes on and on...Then, when men start to have feelings of affection for one another, or even women for that matter, they have a catniption fit about it and get all irrational and go off the deep end, because it dredges up their own homosexual feelings from their youth that they must keep hidden at all costs.

SO, was the Onan story in the Bible made up or recorded to try to impress upon us that we should have sexual encounters that are of the procreative type when circumstances thrust them upon us regardless of our preferred sexualt outlet? I don't know. Maybe Onan's preferred sexual outlet was masturbation.

Of course, that is one thing that I need your input about. What do you think? Is a man who exclusively masturbates as a sexual outlet homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual or none of the three?

Is the practice that draws its name, Onanism, from the biblical story a fourth,... a hidden sexuality? Can females be Onanistic also?

I am not sure of the connontations of all of this, and Vi is waiting to go to breakfast, so I am going to leave you with these thoughts to ponder, as well as all others who read this post.

What do YOU think? Post something, if you have an opinion. Let us hash this about a bit...

A-1

[yankee masha (imported)]

Well, I spent a half hour typing out an answer and the damn message board did it again -- it disappeared with the whole thing. So I'm sorry, I will try to do it again at a later time but right now, I don't have the energy. Man! Must be a tiem limit on posts.

YM

[A-1 (imported)]

ym,

Try doing a highlight and copy before you attempt your next post. That way, if you have been logged off with a time out for typing too long you will still be able to log back in and post what you have typed.

There is some kind of stinking key that I just hit that erases your whole post, too, so be careful. Why is it that I can play the piano but I am such a lousy typist?

Krister,

You say that..

This is such a misconceived concept it is laughable. It smacks of the notion that one's first sexual encounter determines one's orientation. A much disproven theory. It reaches deep to find nothing valid for the formation of a pederastic inclination. Research has repeatedly demonstrated, again and again, that pederasty most frequently is formed as a result of stagnant and stunted social development, that is then sexualized and distorted as normal. These individuals are essentially "playing" with their social/psychological age mates. They perceive it as normal, that there is nothing wrong. That ius why it is so difficult to treat. But then, this is a long way from Onan, think you?

I defer to you counselling experience and psychology credentials.

Please answer a few questions for me, however to help me to understand what it is that you say.

If it is true that a great deal of abusers were abused themselves as children then wouldn't that mean that pederasty could be perpetuated by grown men abusing little boys?

If these is a genetic component to this problem, (as I believe that there is to most every human problem), then in your opinion could a pattern of abuse be enough to trigger it? Just asking...

Of course, there is that nagging problem about grown men molesting little girls and grown women molesting little boys. How might that affect an adult who had that experience?

I imagine that heterosexuals grow up to be heterosexuals and homosexuals grow up to be homosexuals, but are we all predestined to be one or the other? Or, is there just a genetic predisposition that is shaped by environment.

It is true that this could be argued in perpetuity, but in the end you believe what you want to believe.

It is my opinion that in many instances "stunted" development that you refer to is a result of a Freudian-like process of fixation caused by a traumatic incident or series of incidents of a grown male forcing anal sex on a young boy. It is obvious that that would be very, very traumatic, and if it is not addressed through counselling and is covered up the results could very well be disasterous and lead to the perpetuation of the abuse by the victim. In such a scenerio the victim would become the preditor.

Of course, there can also be other mechanisms, but do you think that this chain of events is impossible?

I did not mean to say that sexual preference is determined by sexual encounter. Perhaps, it is reinforced by sexual encounter. According to nature there are some people who will turn out to have a Gay preference despite of their experiences. Conversely, there are some people who will be heterosexual despite of their experiences.

It is all such a difficult area, indeed much conflicting viewpoints abound.

Just keep posting, this is giving me much-needed insights.

BTW, Krister, Onan had some sort of sexual preference...he had to, because he was human. That could be a factor in his decision not to fuck his sister-in-law, no?

Thanks to one and all...

A-1