The Sex, the Violence, the Hideous Crimes in the Holy Bible: Lot’s Story

[Imwashingmypirate]

I think giving the daughters to the mob doesn't necessarily imply they are beneath human because clearly there is the thought that they would be preferred over the angels. (I haven't read the story so just responding to the article). Meaning they are better than the angels.

When women live together, their cycles tend to sync up. And before contraception and other hormone altering things, cycles tended to follow the moon. There are times when my cycle falls into sync with the moon. There are also ways to tell if you are ovulating (as long as you aren't altering your hormones). Women (pre contraception) were probably more likely to listen to their body and use natural fertility tracking as a contraceptive.
So there is a possibility that if they intended to get pregnant they may have aligned it precisely. Also women often get hornier when ovulating.

Another thing you could consider is that if this happened once and they had no issue with it then they probably did it multiple times. If a man wrote the story then it's probably written to make Lot innocent given that he is probably being portrayed as righteous and God worthy.

I personally disagree with this view, but I respect your opinion.

I don't know how it is related to women's sync cycle. And I hope you're not implying the daughters should be given to the mob because they might be horny. Being gang raped by 50 aggressive men (100/2) who might kill you (see the next story I'll share next week) probably isn't every woman's idea of a vacation.

Just my personal view.

WTF? How the hell did you interpret my post that way.

I was implying that they may have got their dad drunk and slept with him because they were horny because they were probably ovulating resulting in pregnancies. I'm mind blown. None of it is my idea of a vacation. It's all horrific. I was only talking about a possible reason for them both becoming pregnant in that part of my post.

When I spoke about the daughters being valued more than the angels I was referring to Lot thinking the mob would prefer them over the angels meaning perhaps he thought the mob would think they were more valuable, irrelevant of what they would do. It's all sounding quite sick.

[Imwashingmypirate]

But I personally wouldn't encourage children to read it. There are children's Bibles that have the main stories that are nice.

Most people don't imagine the stories in the Bible that are a bit grim. They tend to think of the main ones that have purpose. I doubt there is much purpose to sharing the story of incest in my understanding of the purpose of the Bible.

I find it odd that many stories have been removed from the Bible but some that should be removed haven't. They should have left it fully intact in my opinion.

Imwashingmypirate, I remember the idea that there is Jewish tradition of not letting children read Genesis until they reach a certain age. I do not know how common such a tradition is but there is a certain sense to it.

The Bible is a collection of stories so it is most likely that there were stories that were considered for inclusion but were not. I may think it could have been better to skip the Lot's daughters story but it is not up to me. I am puzzled by your concern about removed stories. What sort of stories are you thinking of and why would you think of them as removed? Are you thinking of the Apocrypha? You can purchase Bibles which include that material.

Not massively concerned. I just feel that if the Bible is a work of God and is supposed to be a holy book then humans picking and choosing what is in it doesn't feel right. Purely from a spiritual perspective. But in saying that clearly there are some stories that have no place in a book that is supposed to be holy. And perhaps they should have stayed as someone's journal. No need to be puzzled. I'm not worried. I have read books talking of other scripture. I'm not really a massive Bible reader. I did read the Bible multiple times as a kid and it was as if my brain just fuzzed over the stuff that stands out as being a bit crazy now.

[Imwashingmypirate]

I think giving the daughters to the mob doesn't necessarily imply they are beneath human because clearly there is the thought that they would be preferred over the angels. (I haven't read the story so just responding to the article). Meaning they are better than the angels.

When women live together, their cycles tend to sync up. And before contraception and other hormone altering things, cycles tended to follow the moon. There are times when my cycle falls into sync with the moon. There are also ways to tell if you are ovulating (as long as you aren't altering your hormones). Women (pre contraception) were probably more likely to listen to their body and use natural fertility tracking as a contraceptive.
So there is a possibility that if they intended to get pregnant they may have aligned it precisely. Also women often get hornier when ovulating.

Another thing you could consider is that if this happened once and they had no issue with it then they probably did it multiple times. If a man wrote the story then it's probably written to make Lot innocent given that he is probably being portrayed as righteous and God worthy.

I personally disagree with this view, but I respect your opinion.

I don't know how it is related to women's sync cycle. And I hope you're not implying the daughters should be given to the mob because they might be horny. Being gang raped by 50 aggressive men (100/2) who might kill you (see the next story I'll share next week) probably isn't every woman's idea of a vacation.

Just my personal view.

Just going to reply to this again to try to explain what I was saying...

So, nothing to do with the angels or the mob or rapes...

Purely discussing the evening the women got their dad drunk and became pregnant. Take everything else out of the picture for a moment so I can explain my point...

When women live together, their periods adjust and their cycle matches up (unless they are taking contraceptive medicine). Some people dispute this and don't think there is enough evidence but if we did a poll, I'm sure there would be a fair amount of women who have experienced it (maybe not a poll on this board because there don't seem to be many people here anymore). So when I lived with other females at university, our cycles changed and we had our periods at the same time. One house mate told me I influenced her because she was always 28 days and she became 23 days. Which means we would ovulate at the same time. So Lot's daughters may well have had their periods and ovulation at the same time meaning that if they both had sex during their fertile period then they both could have a high chance of falling pregnant and given that they did apparently fall pregnant, we can say they probably didn't have fertility issues.

Ovulation falls at the same time as hormones that make you want a baby somehow happen (not for all women). I don't want another baby but I know when I'm ovulating because I get very broody for 2 days along with other symptoms. There is a symptom that happens that makes it very clear you are ovulating. I know a lot of women don't recognise it and it's kinda gross. But when you know what it is, you know it's because you are ovulating.

There is a good chance that the daughters would have felt that they were fertile and would have felt the need to do that. They must have been fertile to fall pregnant. So they would have both been in the window of conception.

So the probability of them falling pregnant at the same time in a one-off event is actually higher than you stated.

The other explanation is that this happened multiple times.

[markc]

Markc, I do not think you are entirely wrong here but I have difficulty relating to your post. In general I do not support book banning but can imagine some books as not appropriate for children. I am not aware of any large scale book banning movement but there are local ones in various places concerned with school or public libraries. I can imagine some books such as actual porn as not appropriate for school libraries but that is not where disagreement arises. There are books intended to be educational which some people object to not because the mention sex but that the books promote views about sexuality which some people view as unhealthy and dangerous. I do not think you will change those people's minds by observing that the Bible has some stories not appropriate for children.

I would be more hopeful that the realization that ideas parents do not like cannot be hidden from teenagers can protect libraries. If a parent wishes to disagree with the views of some book in the library it is better for the parent to explain why to their children than to hope to keep different views hidden.

Thanks, appreciate it. I feel that at least in quite a few cases, letting parents decide what is "appropriate" for their kids can be questionable, just like letting parents decide whether they want their kids to receive vaccines is problematic. But indeed it's a controversial topic. I'm just frustrated by the book banning in Florida and other far-right movements. Thanks for the comment.

[markc]

Just going to reply to this again to try to explain what I was saying...

So, nothing to do with the angels or the mob or rapes...

Purely discussing the evening the women got their dad drunk and became pregnant. Take everything else out of the picture for a moment so I can explain my point...

When women live together, their periods adjust and their cycle matches up (unless they are taking contraceptive medicine). Some people dispute this and don't think there is enough evidence but if we did a poll, I'm sure there would be a fair amount of women who have experienced it (maybe not a poll on this board because there don't seem to be many people here anymore). So when I lived with other females at university, our cycles changed and we had our periods at the same time. One house mate told me I influenced her because she was always 28 days and she became 23 days. Which means we would ovulate at the same time. So Lot's daughters may well have had their periods and ovulation at the same time meaning that if they both had sex during their fertile period then they both could have a high chance of falling pregnant and given that they did apparently fall pregnant, we can say they probably didn't have fertility issues.

Ovulation falls at the same time as hormones that make you want a baby somehow happen (not for all women). I don't want another baby but I know when I'm ovulating because I get very broody for 2 days along with other symptoms. There is a symptom that happens that makes it very clear you are ovulating. I know a lot of women don't recognise it and it's kinda gross. But when you know what it is, you know it's because you are ovulating.

There is a good chance that the daughters would have felt that they were fertile and would have felt the need to do that. They must have been fertile to fall pregnant. So they would have both been in the window of conception.

So the probability of them falling pregnant at the same time in a one off event is actually higher than you stated.

The other explanation is that this happened multiple times.

Got it, I think I misunderstood your intention, my apologies.

And about women living together syncing their cycles, I indeed have heard about that, then maybe again read it somewhere that it might not be true. I don't know. Though I think if it's a true phenomenon I won't be surprised; it makes sense, at least to me.

On a totally unrelated topic, I've read that some believe that Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is NOT real, that it's just women's self-fulfilling prophecy, but then some valid sources insist that it's a real thing. When I said to my wife that it might not be real, she was so upset she wanted to punch me in the face. As a woman, what do you think about it?

[Imwashingmypirate]

Just going to reply to this again to try to explain what I was saying...

So, nothing to do with the angels or the mob or rapes...

Purely discussing the evening the women got their dad drunk and became pregnant. Take everything else out of the picture for a moment so I can explain my point...

When women live together, their periods adjust and their cycle matches up (unless they are taking contraceptive medicine). Some people dispute this and don't think there is enough evidence but if we did a poll, I'm sure there would be a fair amount of women who have experienced it (maybe not a poll on this board because there don't seem to be many people here anymore). So when I lived with other females at university, our cycles changed and we had our periods at the same time. One house mate told me I influenced her because she was always 28 days and she became 23 days. Which means we would ovulate at the same time. So Lot's daughters may well have had their periods and ovulation at the same time meaning that if they both had sex during their fertile period then they both could have a high chance of falling pregnant and given that they did apparently fall pregnant, we can say they probably didn't have fertility issues.

Ovulation falls at the same time as hormones that make you want a baby somehow happen (not for all women). I don't want another baby but I know when I'm ovulating because I get very broody for 2 days along with other symptoms. There is a symptom that happens that makes it very clear you are ovulating. I know a lot of women don't recognise it and it's kinda gross. But when you know what it is, you know it's because you are ovulating.

There is a good chance that the daughters would have felt that they were fertile and would have felt the need to do that. They must have been fertile to fall pregnant. So they would have both been in the window of conception.

So the probability of them falling pregnant at the same time in a one off event is actually higher than you stated.

The other explanation is that this happened multiple times.

Got it, I think I misunderstood your intention, my apologies.

And about women living together syncing their cycles, I indeed have heard about that, then maybe again read it somewhere that it might not be true. I don't know. Though I think if it's a true phenomenon I won't be surprised; it makes sense, at least to me.

On a totally unrelated topic, I've read that some believe that Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is NOT real, that it's just women's self-fulfilling prophecy, but then some valid sources insist that it's a real thing. When I said to my wife that it might not be real, she was so upset she wanted to punch me in the face. As a woman, what do you think about it?

I think it is real. Although I don't get it in the way it is advertised and I do suspect some people experience it but use it as an excuse to justify their behaviour. If someone is being violent or abusive because of PMS, then they need to consider looking into how to deal with that so other people aren't being abused. I think it would be like how some people use ADHD as an excuse to throw things about and be aggressive. I think that aggression is in there and the PMS or other difficulties can enhance it but it's a part of the person. Like when you are drunk, you can be a happy drunk, a sleepy drunk, an aggressive drunk. It's all in the perspective. But, I do think women get it. Some contraceptives cause it. I had a contraceptive pill that made me a psychopath (not literally). But I realised it and I stopped them.

I get cranky for a day. And then I realise I'm being cranky and realise that I take things more personally. But I don't get crazy or anything, more emotional.

The thing is, hormones are very powerful and women's hormones fluctuate. Some good some not so good.

I don't think self fulfilling prophecy has anything to do with it. I think it's either genuinely difficult and the woman fights it and it bothers her and she feels bad and wants to resolve it or it's there but being used as an excuse to allow some people not to take accountability for their behaviour. And maybe some women don't realise it is happening but if a woman says oh it's my PMS and then doesn't want to work on those behaviours then they aren't bothered about how they make others feel.

Not everyone experiences it though.

I personally get more emotional and low and then a few days later I get an energy burst where I start decorating or deep cleaning and then the next day my period comes.

It's a very personal thing and each woman would probably have a different opinion. This is just how I view it and I realise I might be wrong in thinking people use it an an excuse. I know I feel out of control of my emotions but I'll take myself off and take some space so others don't feel like they need to fix it or feel it. But I don't like others thinking about me or experiencing anything about me.

Long winded. I'm probably wrong in my perspective.

But to answer. Yes. I believe it is real.

[Imwashingmypirate]

Thanks, appreciate it. I feel that at least in quite a few cases, letting parents decide what is "appropriate" for their kids can be questionable, just like letting parents decide whether they want their kids to receive vaccines is problematic. But indeed it's a controversial topic. I'm just frustrated by the book banning in Florida and other far-right movements. Thanks for the comment.

I think that's where CPS and social services come in though right?

I noticed something. There was a questionnaire from school that talked about safeguarding the other day and it had questions like are you aware that respective authorities have to be notified of any concerns with or without parental knowledge. But the way a few questions were worded it made me feel like our children aren't our children. Like, we are basically just doing a job to raise humans that aren't "ours". Which made me think about the word parents.

I do agree children should be protected and it is terribly sad that some children experience some horrific things and I agree, yes some children are better off away from their family. But there is a sort of sense of fear and stigma related to it all.

I get what you are saying but parents should be allowed to decide how they want to raise their children and where the line is drawn between acceptable and unacceptable is blurred. If authorities become extreme to say children can't read books and can't know things, eventually there comes a point where parents have no say. And if authorities want to "protect" children then they should do a better job at it because there are plenty of questionable things kids are being exposed to in kids' TV programs.

So these decisions they are making, I doubt they are for the kids' benefit. There will be a reason relevant to them and how they want to narrate things.

ETA: I don't agree with forcing vaccines. My kids are vaccinated but begrudgingly so. There have been enough vaccine damage cases that it is terrifying to ask a parent to do that. And yes, the science makes sense. But the side effects don't. It's not a decision that can be forced. And forcing it will cause people to think something is wrong.

My daughter's vaccines were delayed because she had meningitis and she couldn't have one because she missed it and they don't do it after a certain age which I found odd. Think it was a pneumonia one. Anyway, she got the vaccines but because they were delayed by several months, I had time to get to know her and when she had the vaccines one side of her face changed that day and for a long time had taken her to appointments and in the end they told me she had muscle weakness and one side of her face is less mature than the other. It is less noticeable now and I expect she will grow out of it and she isn't even aware of it but that wasn't going on before the vaccines. Even with the meningitis that didn't happen. So that freaked me out. But I kept going with the delayed vaccine schedule because you know, horrific deadly diseases are worse than some muscle weakness.

So vaccines can be scary for some people and I think we need to respect that and teach. A bit of reassurance goes a long way.

[markc]

I think it is real. Although I don't get it in the way it is advertised and I do suspect some people experience it but use it as an excuse to justify their behaviour. If someone is being violent or abusive because of PMS, then they need to consider looking into how to deal with that so other people aren't being abused. I think it would be like how some people use ADHD as an excuse to throw things about and be aggressive. I think that aggression is in there and the PMS or other difficulties can enhance it but it's a part of the person. Like when you are drunk, you can be a happy drunk, a sleepy drunk, an aggressive drunk. It's all in the perspective. But, I do think women get it. Some contraceptives cause it. I had a contraceptive pill that made me a psychopath (not literally). But I realised it and I stopped them.

I get cranky for a day. And then I realise I'm being cranky and realise that I take things more personally. But I don't get crazy or anything, more emotional.

The thing is, hormones are very powerful and women's hormones fluctuate. Some good some not so good.

I don't think self fulfilling prophecy has anything to do with it. I think it's either genuinely difficult and the woman fights it and it bothers her and she feels bad and wants to resolve it or it's there but being used as an excuse to allow some people not to take accountability for their behaviour. And maybe some women don't realise it is happening but if a woman says oh it's my PMS and then doesn't want to work on those behaviours then they aren't bothered about how they make others feel.

Not everyone experiences it though.

I personally get more emotional and low and then a few days later I get an energy burst where I start decorating or deep cleaning and then the next day my period comes.

It's a very personal thing and each woman would probably have a different opinion. This is just how I view it and I realise I might be wrong in thinking people use it an an excuse. I know I feel out of control of my emotions but I'll take myself off and take some space so others don't feel like they need to fix it or feel it. But I don't like others thinking about me or experiencing anything about me.

Long winded. I'm probably wrong in my perspective.

But to answer. Yes. I believe it is real.

When I was in college, a few of my female classmates were asked, "What experience of women do you want men to experience?" One answered, "I'd like men to experience period."

I of course can't understand how troubling it is, but I imagine if I had to deal with the cramps (I've seen many women around me experience that), discomfort, and inconvenience a few days every month, when the time is near I'd be cranky too!

[markc]

I think that's where CPS and social services come in though right?

I noticed something. There was a questionnaire from school that talked about safeguarding the other day and it had questions like are you aware that respective authorities have to be notified of any concerns with or without parental knowledge. But the way a few questions were worded it made me feel like our children aren't our children. Like, we are basically just doing a job to raise humans that aren't "ours". Which made me think about the word parents.

I do agree children should be protected and it is terribly sad that some children experience some horrific things and I agree, yes some children are better off away from their family. But there is a sort of sense of fear and stigma related to it all.

I get what you are saying but parents should be allowed to decide how they want to raise their children and where the line is drawn between acceptable and unacceptable is blurred. If authorities become extreme to say children can't read books and can't know things, eventually there comes a point where parents have no say. And if authorities want to "protect" children then they should do a better job at it because there are plenty of questionable things kids are being exposed to in kids' TV programs.

So these decisions they are making, I doubt they are for the kids' benefit. There will be a reason relevant to them and how they want to narrate things.

ETA: I don't agree with forcing vaccines. My kids are vaccinated but begrudgingly so. There have been enough vaccine damage cases that it is terrifying to ask a parent to do that. And yes, the science makes sense. But the side effects don't. It's not a decision that can be forced. And forcing it will cause people to think something is wrong.

My daughter's vaccines were delayed because she had meningitis and she couldn't have one because she missed it and they don't do it after a certain age which I found odd. Think it was a pneumonia one. Anyway, she got the vaccines but because they were delayed by several months, I had time to get to know her and when she had the vaccines one side of her face changed that day and for a long time had taken her to appointments and in the end they told me she had muscle weakness and one side of her face is less mature than the other. It is less noticeable now and I expect she will grow out of it and she isn't even aware of it but that wasn't going on before the vaccines. Even with the meningitis that didn't happen. So that freaked me out. But I kept going with the delayed vaccine schedule because you know, horrific deadly diseases are worse than some muscle weakness.

So vaccines can be scary for some people and I think we need to respect that and teach. A bit of reassurance goes a long way.

Goodness, meningitis!? Muscle weakness? Poor kid, she's doing ok now, right? My sincere best wishes to her and your family. I believe vaccines should be mandatory, but also consider some special cases and manage and adjust to help everybody.

The line sometimes can be blurry indeed; personally, I think what children should learn should be decided by educators and experts. But right now here in the US many have a deep distrust of science and professionals. It's very troubling. When I was young I saw a funny comic strip: a kid says to his teacher, "I don't want to learn; you're violating my right to be stupid!" or words to that effect. It was supposed to be funny, but now it's very real. In my generation, the flat-earth idea was a joke referring to crazy looney tunes. Now you'll be surprised how many people really believe in it.

[Imwashingmypirate]

Goodness, meningitis!? Muscle weakness? Poor kid, she's doing ok now, right? My sincere best wishes to her and your family. I believe vaccines should be mandatory, but also consider some special cases and manage and adjust to help everybody.

The line sometimes can be blurry indeed; personally, I think what children should learn should be decided by educators and experts. But right now here in the US many have a deep distrust of science and professionals. It's very troubling. When I was young I saw a funny comic strip: a kid says to his teacher, "I don't want to learn; you're violating my right to be stupid!" or words to that effect. It was supposed to be funny, but now it's very real. In my generation, the flat-earth idea was a joke referring to crazy looney tunes. Now you'll be surprised how many people really believe in it.

She's amazing. Thanks.

The problem is that people teach other people what they are taught. Doctors for example, treat patients based on how they have been told to. I once asked my doctor a question and he said, "I don't know, I don't know anything." And basically told me that I know myself and how things work with me. It was quite humbling for someone we see in high esteem to show that human side that doesn't know everything. I know what you mean. Some things just seem bonkers.