OT - But he shall not approach the King
nmstevens
on the latest draft of a script and I'm procrastinating) -- and I came
across the the Code of the Nesilim -- a code of laws dating from
around 1650 B.C., which places it a little more than a Century after
the Code of Hammurabi.
Here are some samples:
187. If a man have intercourse with a cow, it is a capital crime, he
shall die. They shall lead him to the king's hall. But the king may
kill him, the king may grant him his life. But he shall not approach
the king.
188. If a man have intercourse with his own mother, it is a capital
crime, he shall die. If a man have intercourse with a daughter, it is
a capital crime, he shall die. If a man have intercourse with a son,
it is a capital crime, he shall die.
190. If a man and a woman come willingly, as men and women, and have
intercourse, there shall be no punishment. And if a man have
intercourse with his stepmother, there shall be no punishment; except
if his father is living, it is a capital crime, the son shall die.
191. If a free man picks up now this woman, now that one, now in this
country, then in that country, there shall be no punishment if they
came together sexually willingly.
192. If the husband of a woman die, his wife may take her husband's
patrimony.
194. If a free man pick up female slaves, now one, now another, there
is no punishment for intercourse. If brothers sleep with a free woman,
together, or one after the other, there is no punishment. If father
and son sleep with a female slave or harlot, together, or one after
the other, there is no punishment.
195. If a man sleep with the wife of his brother, while his brother is
living, it is a capital crime, he shall die. If a man have taken a
free woman, then have intercourse also with her daughter, it is a
capital crime, he shall die. If he have taken her daughter, then have
intercourse with her mother or her sister, it is a capital crime, he
shall die.
197. If a man rape a woman in the mountain, it is the man's wrong, he
shall die. But if he rape her in the house, it is the woman's fault,
the woman shall die. If the husband find them and then kill them,
there is no punishing the husband.
199. If anyone have intercourse with a pig or a dog, he shall die. If
a man have intercourse with a horse or a mule, there is no punishment.
But he shall not approach the king, and shall not become a priest. If
an ox spring upon a man for intercourse, the ox shall die but the man
shall not die. One sheep shall be fetched as a substitute for the man,
and they shall kill it. If a pig spring upon a man for intercourse,
there is no punishment. If any man have intercourse with a foreign
woman and pick up this one, now that one, there is no punishment.
So I guess what 199 means is that you need a sheep to stand in for the
man in case an ox jumps on the man -- then the ox gets it, plus the
innocent sheep gets it -- but if a pig goes for the guy -- everybody
walks. The guy gets off, the pig gets off, and you don't even have to
kill an innocent sheep. Good deal all around.
And, as it turns out, as it was in the days of the Nesilim, so it is
today -- you pick up one foreign woman, you pick up another foreign
woman, now this one, now that one -- it's cool. Go for it.
NMS
Alan Brooks
And I like the simple array of punishments. Everything is either 1) We
thought this was worth mentioning, but you can get away with it, or 2) you
die. None of this wishy-washy
30-days-in-solitary/time-off-for-good-behavior for the Nesilimi.
Alan Brooks
---------------------------
A Schmuck with an Underwood
-- If the only
tool you
have is a
guillotine...
MWSM FAQ: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/faq.html
Filtering Trolls: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/trolls.html
Martin B
> 199. If anyone have intercourse with a pig or a dog, he shall die...
> If a pig spring upon a man for intercourse, there is no punishment.
"The pig seduced me, your honor. Look. It's wearing lipstick."
--
Martin B
Remysun
> And I like the simple array of punishments. �Everything is either 1) We
> thought this was worth mentioning, but you can get away with it, or 2) you
> die. �None of this wishy-washy
> 30-days-in-solitary/time-off-for-good-behavior for the Nesilimi.
You can kill the person, but those bragging rights live on!
Steven J. Weller
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:45:49 +0000 (UTC) nmstevens (nmstevens2000
> @yahoo.com) stepped to the mic and said...
>
> > 197. If a man rape a woman in the mountain, it is the man's wrong, he
> > shall die. But if he rape her in the house, it is the woman's fault,
> > the woman shall die. If the husband find them and then kill them,
> > there is no punishing the husband.
>
> mountains, for whatever reason, but she damned sure belongs in her own
> house and if any guy comes in and rapes her HE should die. What they're
> saying is in her own home a woman is a seductress and the man has no
> control over his impulses. WTF is wrong with these people?
...um... it was more than three thousand years ago? People were just
the tiniest bit less enlightened, shall we say, about matters of
gender equality.
> And any
> husband that comes home to find his wife being raped and kills both
> needs to be haunted for the rest of his days.
--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary
Steven
nmstevens
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:45:49 +0000 (UTC) nmstevens (nmstevens2000
> @yahoo.com) stepped to the mic and said...
>
> > shall die. But if he rape her in the house, it is the woman's fault,
> > the woman shall die. If the husband find them and then kill them,
> > there is no punishing the husband.
>
> mountains, for whatever reason, but she damned sure belongs in her own
> house and if any guy comes in and rapes her HE should die. What they're
> saying is in her own home a woman is a seductress and the man has no
> husband that comes home to find his wife being raped and kills both
> needs to be haunted for the rest of his days.
> --
> � The Peripatetic Samurai Robot
> <*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*>
What's interesting (if I may use such a dispassionate term) about this
particular law is that it is very close to a comparable one in the
laws of Moses in the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 23 to 25 essentially
says much the same -- which is that if you catch a man with a
betrothed virgin in the city, they're both put to death, but if the
same thing happens out in the field, it's considered to be rape and
she's considered to be without guilt.
That is, there are certain unspoken assumptions going on. First, if a
betrothed maiden is found not to be a virgin on her wedding night,
she's going to be condemned to death -- so if you're not a virgin
you'd better be able to account for how and why you're not and
preferably in a way that doesn't end up with you being stoned to death
any way.
That means that if you've simply gone astray, or if you're caught in
the act "in the city" -- it's just awfully easy to cry rape then. So
they won't let you do it after the fact. The idea, which is made
clearer in the Old Testament version of this law, is that if you're
attacked in the city, you're pretty much always within earshot of
somebody, so if you don't cry out for help, the implication is that
you did it willingly and so are guilty.
But if you're out in the field (or I guess up in the mountain) --
well, maybe you did it willingly or not -- but if there was no one to
hear, the woman gets the benefit of the doubt and she won't be
condemned.
And that's the same deal with the husband coming home -- if the wife
isn't crying for help, the assumption is that, well -- she isn't
crying for help.
And before we start condemning the ancient Babylonians in respect to
their laws, we should remember that exactly the same kind of "blame
the victim" tactics are still used in our own courts -- the idea that
if a victim "doesn't fight back" that it doesn't really constitute
rape and, by the way, there are still plenty of places where a husband
who finds his wife in flagrande delicto with another man and kills
them both is very likely not to get convicted of anything.
So we're talking about legal ideas that have endured, more or less, in
practice if not in principle, for a very long time.
NMS
Betterduck
> And before we start condemning the ancient Babylonians in respect to
> their laws, we should remember that exactly the same kind of "blame
> the victim" tactics are still used in our own courts -- the idea that
> if a victim "doesn't fight back" that it doesn't really constitute
> rape and, by the way, there are still plenty of places where a husband
> who finds his wife in flagrande delicto with another man and kills
> them both is very likely not to get convicted of anything.
And fighting in Hockey is tolerated and Elin Woods isnt hated like
Chris Brown. Its Barbarism. Soon everyones life experience will be
recorded and stored as video data, and its all gonna be one big PK
Dick show. Guilt is gonna be by video. So the city thing will still
probably come into play. Rural folk without uplink video feeds wont
have proof, but we will still get alot more snuff entertainment. News
has been showing Faces of Death clips for years now. Security cams,
train vs car, gas station executions. And thats just security cameras.
When everybody has lifestyle backup video, its like Bradbury and Dick
and Lucas predicted. We will watching bad people on Live TV and seeing
how they are caught and punished Live.
No Video Evidence will be the big loophole. Nothings really changed.
BD
Remysun
> I most certainly don't like this one. A woman may not belong in the
> mountains, for whatever reason, but she damned sure belongs in her own
> house and if any guy comes in and rapes her HE should die. What they're
> saying is in her own home a woman is a seductress and the man has no
> control over his impulses. WTF is wrong with these people? And any
> husband that comes home to find his wife being raped and kills both
> needs to be haunted for the rest of his days.
It's the classic date rape scenario, which leads to blaming the victim
as others have said. Short of him busting down the door, society finds
it hard to say that the man forced himself upon her, because he has to
be let inside, or she goes to his place, and that just didn't happen
in those days. So in their eyes, the girl was asking for it, and the
effects can still be seen in the continued undereporting of the crime.
Ovum
> particular law is that it is very close to a comparable one in the
> laws of Moses in the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 23 to 25 essentially
> says �much the same -- which is that if you catch a man with a
> betrothed virgin in the city, they're both put to death, but if the
> same thing happens out in the field, it's considered to be rape and
> she's considered to be without guilt.
I like the story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife.
Joseph is *the* Joseph of "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolored Coat"
fame. He was Abraham's great grandson. And he was Hot.
Joseph worked for a guy named Potiphar, who was one of Pharoah's
officials. And Mrs. Potiphar was mightily aroused by Joseph's hotness.
She tried to seduce him. Day after day, she was all, "Come to bed with
me!" Joseph kept trying to avoid her, but she was like Kim Cattrall in
heat.
Finally, she actually physically grabbed the man and tried to drag him
into bed. He escaped, but she managed to hang on to his garment.
She got the servants together and said, "Look! This punk tried to rape
me, but when I screamed he ran away. And I have proof -- he left his
garment behind." She said the same thing to her husband when he came
home. So Potiphar threw Joseph in jail.
Legally, Potiphar could have executed Joseph for rape, but he only had
him jailed. Probably because Mrs. Potiphar's story didn't wash. If she
really had screamed, the servants would have heard it; she wouldn't
have had to tell them.
To read the story yourself, go here:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+39&version=NIV
o
Ovum
>
> And fighting in Hockey is tolerated and Elin Woods isnt hated like
> Chris Brown.
Whatever you do, do not *ever,* under *any* circumstances, watch the
movie "This Christmas." It stars Regina King, Mekhi Phifer, Delroy
Lindo and Chris Brown -- back in 2007, before anyone knew he had Anger
Management Issues. The whole film is trifling and a waste of time.
Plus, there's a scene where Regina King's character confronts her
cheating husband. He's naked except for a towel, and dripping with
baby oil. She whips out a belt and beats him silly. He can't run away
because he keeps slipping in the baby oil.
The filmmakers were probably aiming for a "You go, girl!" response
from women viewers. In fact, a few scenes later, one female character
congratulates the woman for beating her husband. And they both chuckle
about it.
Now, if this had been two male characters laughing about beating a
woman, viewers would have been outraged.
I know it's the David and Goliath syndrome; that women are seen as the
underdogs and people like it when the "weak" triumph over the
"strong," but spouse abuse is still wrong, no matter who's holding the
belt.
o
nmstevens
An interesting difference that I've actually found between a number of
these ancient sets of laws and the laws of Moses -- I mean, in most
ways they are largely consonant, but there are odd differences -- and
one of them is that other legal codes, in the event that a wife is
found cheating with another man, in all sets of laws, both man and
woman are condemned -- but in most other sets of laws, the husband is
given the option to pardon or forgive his wife. Not in the Old
Testament.
That is, the sets of laws consider the wife's crime, fundamentally, to
be against the husband, and so it is up to him to condemn or forgive.
But the Old Testament considers adultery to be a crime against God and
so even if the husband is ready to give it a pass, he doesn't have any
say in the matter. The wife and her lover are condemned.
NMS
Skipper
<kata...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:45:49 +0000 (UTC) nmstevens (nmstevens2000
> @yahoo.com) stepped to the mic and said...
>
> > 197. If a man rape a woman in the mountain, it is the man's wrong, he
> > shall die. But if he rape her in the house, it is the woman's fault,
> > the woman shall die. If the husband find them and then kill them,
> > there is no punishing the husband.
> >
> >
> I most certainly don't like this one. A woman may not belong in the
> mountains, for whatever reason, but she damned sure belongs in her own
> house and if any guy comes in and rapes her HE should die. What they're
> saying is in her own home a woman is a seductress and the man has no
> control over his impulses. WTF is wrong with these people? And any
> husband that comes home to find his wife being raped and kills both
> needs to be haunted for the rest of his days.
Islam is what's wrong with them. As one popular writer wrote, the
religion has bloody borders.
Paulo Joe Jingy
> In article <hhh991$41...@reader1.panix.com>, Jeri Jo Thomas
"Code of the Nesilim -- a code of laws dating from around 1650 B.C."
Which is about 2,300 years before Islam was founded. So, unless they
were somehow channeling future reality, I don't really think "Islam"
is what was wrong with them.
Happy New Year!