On Wed, 14 May 2003 17:34:23 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 14 May 2003 10:42:09 +0100, Someone who spammed me
wrote:



paghat wrote:
In article , "Kat" wrote:


"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...

[...]


Well, they ARE banned in Leviticus.

-paghat the ratgirl


Yes - but what isn't?

Interestingly (and disgustingly) enough, I was doing some research in
a book by a British scholar named, I think, Judith Morgan (not sure)
called "Women in the Mishnah" (Mishnah = compendium of commentaries by
the Sages on the Five Books of Moses).

Sexual relations between a whole range of blood and marriage relatives
are forbidden in Leviticus, but there is no mention of *daughters*
being forbidden. Of course this doesn't mean that daughters were
routinely raped by fathers; that would have been a cardinal sin.
Anyway that's more the style of the U.S. deep Saouth and rural France
(La Jument Verte by Marcel Ayme). But I have always wondered why
daughters were not among the "thou shalt not uncover the nakedness
of.."

Also, somebody in the "Mishnah" book was quoted as opining that it's
OK to penetrate a 3-year-old, because the hymen will regrow (and then
she will presumably be saleable).

I guess it was a man's world then, and still is in some cultures.

Not going to reply in detail to Paghat's attack. Just noting that

(a) I am very familiar with Judith Wegener's book (thanks for name
correction).

(b) The quote about penetrating 3-year-old is accurate.

--

Researcher