And in Afghanistan....

[LordOfShadows]

For the record, the Bible only says women are unclean for seven days after they menstruate.  The rest of the time you can do whatever you want with them.

Correction: you can't do what you want. Under the original biblical law, the rights of sexual relations lie with the wife. In other words if she says no, it ain't allowed to happen. In fact if she demands it and the man can't get it up, she can demand a divorce, and monetary penalties.

 

[Tralfaz]

For the record, the Bible only says women are unclean for seven days after they menstruate.  The rest of the time you can do whatever you want with them.

Correction: you can't do what you want. Under the original biblical law, the rights of sexual relations lie with the wife. In other words if she says no, it ain't allowed to happen. In fact if she demands it and the man can't get it up, she can demand a divorce, and monetary penalties.

Just like we have today.

 

[LordOfShadows]

For the record, the Bible only says women are unclean for seven days after they menstruate.  The rest of the time you can do whatever you want with them.

Correction: you can't do what you want. Under the original biblical law, the rights of sexual relations lie with the wife. In other words if she says no, it ain't allowed to happen. In fact if she demands it and the man can't get it up, she can demand a divorce, and monetary penalties.

Just like we have today.

Truly astonishing in a society based on Judeo-Christian law. /sarcasm.

 

[DameGreyWulf]

Valid reasons? You sure about that, LordOS?

Seems to me there's no valid reason for burning women alive for having sex, or forcing abortions on them if the husband feels that she cheated on him, or female children making women twice as unclean as male children, or attempting to kill her if you don't like her in bed, or making her marry her rapist if she's a virgin, etc.

For the record, the Bible only says women are unclean for seven days after they menstruate.  The rest of the time you can do whatever you want with them.

Correction: you can't do what you want. Under the original biblical law, the rights of sexual relations lie with the wife. In other words if she says no, it ain't allowed to happen. In fact if she demands it and the man can't get it up, she can demand a divorce, and monetary penalties.

Where?
Here?
1 Corinthians 7:3-5 "The husband must fulfill his (sexual) duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another (of sex)."
Certainly doesn't sound like her being allowed to me. Seems like she must give in if he says go. Likewise, the same goes for him, but that isn't what you said, now, is it? They're both in control of each other, they both must do it if the other says to.

And, divorce is wholly wrong by the Bible: http://www.religioustolerance.org/div_bibl.htm (except perhaps in adultery?)
I don't see anywhere "permitted to divorce if he can't get it up."

Men however are allowed to kick out women for many reasons, in the OT at least. Also you could just have concubines, but only if you were a dude. And I'm sure enslaved/kidnapped women don't have any say in sex (ie: their consent means nothing). Especially considering the passage above is from the NT.
Unless there's something saying otherwise in other Hebrew texts?

 

[LordOfShadows]

Just to get something out of the way, you're quoting Corinthians, which is New Testament. To me the New Testament has no relevance.

When I say valid reasons, they are not necessarily reasons you will like. They will give you a smoothly functioning society, even if not a society that you or I would want to live in.

Let me give you an example.

Bah, I tried to write it all up and can't get the words right. Have this, plagiarized from another forum. It is from the middle of a longer post, so I hope it makes sense and gets across to you the point I want to make.

There is the Agressor and the Receiver. In these societies, the Agressor is not regarded as "homosexual" because he is in the male role.
In Athens, the adult male citizen who was a receiver was considered a degenerate and stripped of land and citizenship. Likewise, it looks like in the ME (at least as far as I could tell when Iraqi prison practices were in the news) the torturer who assaults the prisoner does nothing "wrong" but the victim who is put in the "receiver" position is fundamentaly disgraced.

When this was in the news, it realy made me rethink my understanding of the old testament prohibition "do not lie with a man as you would with a woman" -- rather than a puritanical injunction against homosexuality, it seems to be a condemnation of this common practice of "power sexuality" in the neighbor societies -- in contrast to the rest - it specificaly forbids the action of the man in the power position.

Since I saw this, I have been thinking through many of the commandments and prohibitions in the bible, trying to think like th guy who wrote that. In a month or so, after I present my arguments to a friend who's a rabbi and we have argued them to the end point I hope to have a clearer idea of the basis beyond "god said so".

 

[DameGreyWulf]

Just to get something out of the way, you're quoting Corinthians, which is New Testament. To me the New Testament has no relevance.

I didn't find any passage alike to it except that one. Care to clarify? 'Cause it seems to me rape is pretty rampant in the OT.

When I say valid reasons, they are not necessarily reasons you will like. They will give you a smoothly functioning society, even if not a society that you or I would want to live in.

So, if the society functions, that means it's laws are valid and good. You know how many ****ed up societies that condones, past and present?
How do you justify rape and murder by any means? That's just stupid and disgusting. There's nothing wrong with a woman on her period, there's nothing wrong with a man for having wet dreams, there's nothing wrong with people having sex, there's no need for idiotic rituals and exile to cleanse for any of these things, there's no need to keep people in fear of themselves and God's wrath 24/7 for the "sake of society." It's just oppression and exploitation. We evolved from that line of thinking for a reason.

Let me give you an example.

Bah, I tried to write it all up and can't get the words right. Have this, plagiarized from another forum. It is from the middle of a longer post, so I hope it makes sense and gets across to you the point I want to make.

There is the Agressor and the Receiver. In these societies, the Agressor is not regarded as "homosexual" because he is in the male role.
In Athens, the adult male citizen who was a receiver was considered a degenerate and stripped of land and citizenship. Likewise, it looks like in the ME (at least as far as I could tell when Iraqi prison practices were in the news) the torturer who assaults the prisoner does nothing "wrong" but the victim who is put in the "receiver" position is fundamentaly disgraced.

When this was in the news, it realy made me rethink my understanding of the old testament prohibition "do not lie with a man as you would with a woman" -- rather than a puritanical injunction against homosexuality, it seems to be a condemnation of this common practice of "power sexuality" in the neighbor societies -- in contrast to the rest - it specificaly forbids the action of the man in the power position.

Since I saw this, I have been thinking through many of the commandments and prohibitions in the bible, trying to think like th guy who wrote that. In a month or so, after I present my arguments to a friend who's a rabbi and we have argued them to the end point I hope to have a clearer idea of the basis beyond "god said so".

What does that have to do with anything?

But I'll bite.
No **** sherlock. Likening a man to a woman was an abomination, because women are inferior and yadda yadda. That's pretty damned obvious to me. Except the part where both guys get killed, and the disregard of whether the receiver wanted to do it or not (you seem to be under the assumption this only holds true if it's male rape), so it's not specifically forbidding one man from doing it, but both (Leviticus 20:13).
In the same vein, what you/the person you quoted is speaking basically is that women can't be tops or in control sexually, either. No female domination. That likens men to women, and women to men, which is an abomination. I suppose you guys don't like dominatrixes, huh?

 

[LordOfShadows]

Screw it. I just spent a good long while replying bit by bit. Have a fairly dimple explanation of a couple of things.

1. I am not arguing for or against anything here. I am simply putting up different things that I have heard or read. I simply want you to consider them and then make up your own damn mind, and if you decide you don't like what I have put up for consideration, more power to you.

2. I mentioned the fact that I don't consider the new testament authoritative because the part you quoted is one of the areas where christianity broke from judaism, not because of some high-falutin' sense of moral superiority.

3.  Re the post three back, I suggest you check your facts about the biblical laws on divorce.

4. Women are in no way abominations, or lesser beings or any of the crap you were spouting.

5. About your thing on "no dommes" what goes on the bedroom is no concern of anybodies, beside the people doing it.

 

[DameGreyWulf]

Screw it. I just spent a good long while replying bit by bit. Have a fairly dimple explanation of a couple of things.

1. I am not arguing for or against anything here. I am simply putting up different things that I have heard or read. I simply want you to consider them and then make up your own damn mind, and if you decide you don't like what I have put up for consideration, more power to you.

What makes you think I never made up my own mind or considered context, etc? I've allowed context and times to swing, but there are things I can never find excusable.

2. I mentioned the fact that I don't consider the new testament authoritative because the part you quoted is one of the areas where christianity broke from judaism, not because of some high-falutin' sense of moral superiority.

I didn't say that?

3.  Re the post three back, I suggest you check your facts about the biblical laws on divorce.

I have, I could quote a couple.
There's a fun bit where if a guy doesn't like his wife in bed, he could say she wasn't a virgin and try to get her killed. There's also the part where if her virginity is proven, then she must stay with the man who tried to kill her forever. Same goes for any man who rapes a virgin woman; he pays the father for damaging property, then the girl is forced to marry her abuser. Neither of these situations allow for divorce.
Why aren't YOU giving me your citations? I asked for them, you know.

4. Women are in no way abominations, or lesser beings or any of the crap you were spouting.

No, they aren't, but the Bible seems to think they are, which was what I was talking about.
I can give you quite a few quotes that enforce this idea. One of them being that women are filthy for childbirth and must give a sin offering for it, and they are twice as filthy if they give birth to a female child than they are for a male. There's also the part where people are measured in monetary worth, and women are worth significantly less than men. And, female animals are sacrificed for minor things or by commoners, whereas male animals are for great things or by rulers. Then we have the multiple cases in which the Bible demands women be in servitude to men. Not inferior...?

5. About your thing on "no dommes" what goes on the bedroom is no concern of anybodies, beside the people doing it.

No duh.

 

[LordOfShadows]

Why aren't YOU giving me your citations? I asked for them, you know.

It's difficult to cite from three years of learning in a rabbinical school. I would have to go find them in a library bigger than what I have in my house, and frankly, I can't be bothered.

 

[DameGreyWulf]

One day we will have electronic books that will allow us to CTRL+F.

 

[silencekyo]

One day we will have electronic books that will allow us to CTRL+F.

Err....Wikipedia?

 

[DameGreyWulf]

One day we will have electronic books that will allow us to CTRL+F.

Err....Wikipedia?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which summarizes, rather than being an entire text.

 

[silencekyo]

Ah. My mistake.

 

[Tralfaz]

One day we will have electronic books that will allow us to CTRL+F.

Considering most of the talk has been about sex of some kind, I was thinking of a different type of CTRL-F. 

 

[LordOfShadows]

One day we will have electronic books that will allow us to CTRL+F.

Err....Wikipedia?

In addition to what DameGreyWulf said, many of the books that I would need to reference I very much doubt would have an entry in wikipedia.

 

[CountArtha]

No **** sherlock. Likening a man to a woman was an abomination, because women are inferior different and yadda yadda.

Fixed.

3.  Re the post three back, I suggest you check your facts about the biblical laws on divorce.

I have, I could quote a couple.
There's a fun bit where if a guy doesn't like his wife in bed, he could say she wasn't a virgin and try to get her killed. There's also the part where if her virginity is proven, then she must stay with the man who tried to kill her forever. Same goes for any man who rapes a virgin woman; he pays the father for damaging property, then the girl is forced to marry her abuser. Neither of these situations allow for divorce.
Why aren't YOU giving me your citations? I asked for them, you know.

Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."
- Corinthians 6:16

There is a blanket prohibition on fornication in the Law of Moses because sexual congress was spiritual as well as physical.  If a man had sex with a woman, then he had to marry her - "you break it, you buy it," basically.  It doesn't say they have to live together as a married couple, though.

You might know this already, but the proof of a woman's virginity was the blood on her husband's bedsheet.  After their first night, a married couple would turn the sheet over to the girl's parents as proof that she had been a virgin.  And yes, divorce was out of the question because they had slept together.

If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.  But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.  But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter.  For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her.
- Deuteronomy 22:23-7

Feminists love this one.  "How incredibly sexist.  If a woman gets raped and 'doesn't scream loud enough,' they treat it like consensual sex."
They're willfully misreading the passage.  If a woman is "raped" within earshot of people who can help her but she goes along with it anyway, then she's basically consented and bears some of the responsibility.  If she really does have no choice, then she is not held to blame and it becomes rape.  So basically, it's what we do today except without a rape shield.

4. Women are in no way abominations, or lesser beings or any of the crap you were spouting.

No, they aren't, but the Bible seems to think they are, which was what I was talking about.
I can give you quite a few quotes that enforce this idea. One of them being that women are filthy for childbirth and must give a sin offering for it, and they are twice as filthy if they give birth to a female child than they are for a male.

That's because females weren't circumcised.  You only had to wait seven days for a boy because he was made clean on the eighth day.  With a girl you had to wait the full two weeks.

There's also the part where people are measured in monetary worth, and women are worth significantly less than men.  And, female animals are sacrificed for minor things or by commoners, whereas male animals are for great things or by rulers.

There would probably have been at least ten female animals for every male, so the males were a more valuable sacrifice.

Then we have the multiple cases in which the Bible demands women be in servitude to men. Not inferior...?

It says that they are to submit.

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.  For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.  Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.  Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.  So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself."
- Ephesians 5:22-8

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.  Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them." 
- Colossians 3:18-9

So basically, the arrangement is reciprocal.  The woman owes something to her husband and the man owes something to his wife.  Neither is superior to the other; they just have different roles to play.

 

[DameGreyWulf]

No **** sherlock. Likening a man to a woman was an abomination, because women are inferior different and yadda yadda.

Fixed.

Tink so?
Leviticus
27:3  And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.
27:4  And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.
27:5 And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels.
27:6 And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.
27:7 And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels.

Women are worth less than men.

12:1-6
Female children make you twice as filthy as male.
7-8
You must make a sin offering for having children.

You SURE that's not inferiority?

Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."
- Corinthians 6:16

There is a blanket prohibition on fornication in the Law of Moses because sexual congress was spiritual as well as physical.  If a man had sex with a woman, then he had to marry her - "you break it, you buy it," basically.  It doesn't say they have to live together as a married couple, though.

LOL and why wouldn't they? You make excuses to justify forcing people to stay with abusers?

You might know this already, but the proof of a woman's virginity was the blood on her husband's bedsheet.  After their first night, a married couple would turn the sheet over to the girl's parents as proof that she had been a virgin.  And yes, divorce was out of the question because they had slept together.

NORLY?
The problem is, if this sheet gets lost, or if she does not bleed, guess who gets to be stoned?

If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.  But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.  But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter.  For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her.
- Deuteronomy 22:23-7

Feminists love this one.  "How incredibly sexist.  If a woman gets raped and 'doesn't scream loud enough,' they treat it like consensual sex."
They're willfully misreading the passage.  If a woman is "raped" within earshot of people who can help her but she goes along with it anyway, then she's basically consented and bears some of the responsibility.  If she really does have no choice, then she is not held to blame and it becomes rape.  So basically, it's what we do today except without a rape shield.

Er, so if she doesn't say a word, she consents? Damn you're sick.
And once again, you're making excuses that aren't there. No where does it say that there are exceptions if she was made silent or was out of ear shot. If she isn't heard, she isn't believed to have called for help. Or do you really think a woman in Biblical times would have had enough power to accuse someone of rape, that he kept her from yelling, and be believed?

That's because females weren't circumcised.  You only had to wait seven days for a boy because he was made clean on the eighth day.  With a girl you had to wait the full two weeks.

Lolwut? Okay man. Makes total sense.
He was still clean before she was. Circumcision comes after he's clean. There's nothing there about the usual being two weeks, no, it's just for girls.

There would probably have been at least ten female animals for every male, so the males were a more valuable sacrifice.

Then we have the multiple cases in which the Bible demands women be in servitude to men. Not inferior...?

It says that they are to submit.

Submission is servitude. How is it not?

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.  For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.  Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.  Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.  So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself."
- Ephesians 5:22-8

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.  Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them." 
- Colossians 3:18-9

So basically, the arrangement is reciprocal.  The woman owes something to her husband and the man owes something to his wife.  Neither is superior to the other; they just have different roles to play.

Er. Submission = love? Balanced? Er, uh, no, not quite. And if you think that, your head is screwed.
Also, men are the bosses of women, end of story. You don't see that? "Men rule over thee" and all that jazz, right there? Subjection to men? Subordination to men? That's not servitude?

Separate but equal! Now I know where we get it from.

Also, you forgot a bit.
Ephesians 5:33  Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
He loves. She respects. No love from her matters? Oh, okay. Equal.

Here, let's have some more fun about women in servitude, and being less.
Matthew 24:19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
The context is speaking about the End of Days.  How come pregnant and nursing women have woe? Life gonna be especially tough on them?

Mark 10:29  And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
10:30  But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

Abandon your wives and children, they're useless, for we will be your wives and children, and we will give you SO MUCH MORE!
(See also: Jesus's continued insults to his mother and family by blowing them off saying "LOLWUT? Nah my disciples are my family!")

Luke 2:23  (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord
Male children are holy. No mention of females.

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Don't touch me, a woman will depreciate my holiness.

Romans 1:27  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 
The natural use of a woman is sex.

1 Corinthians 7:1  Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
7:2  Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Lol. Just lol.

1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
Bad news for about every chick in church these days. Also, remember that women having long hair was honourable.

Corinthians 11:7  For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
Men are glorious of God. Women of men. Therefore, men must not cover their heads, but women must.
11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Women belong to men.
11:10  For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
Power over her head. That doesn't sound like servitude at all, mm?
11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
11:12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
Wait back up, wasn't it just said only men are of God? Okay so now they both are. But woman is still for men. And they are useless without each other.
Hear that, singlefolk? If you don't marry straightaway, you're worthless.

1 Corinthians 14:34  Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
Commanded to be under obedience. Not servitude?
Can not speak. Not inferior?
14:35  And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Shame for them to speak in church. Not inferior....?

1 Timothy 2:9  In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
Women must dress and present themselves modestly.
Where's the bit about men doing the same? Oh wait, they don't have to.

1 Timothy 2:11  Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
Don't speak out. Just be subject.
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Men have authority over women, and they can not teach.
2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
Adam > Eve.
2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Adam > Eve.
Men are superior to women because Adam was made first, then sinned second.
2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
It's okay, women will be forgiven when they have children, if they are still faithful and charitable and don't drink. Otherwise, women are inherently more sinful than men.

1 Timothy 5:5  Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.
5:6 But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.
If you are a widow, you must be sorrowful and pray extra hard. Otherwise, you're walking dead.

1 Timothy 9-15
Rules for helping widows. Which widows you can help and which you can not.
She must be over 60 years old,
She has to have had only one husband,
She has to have had raised children,
She has to have had lodged strangers,
She has to have had "washed the saints feet," 
She has to have had relieved the afflicted, and
She has to have had "diligently followed very good work."
Younger widows you must refuse because they are inherently sinful, and will dare marry again, stop being a Christian, gossip, tell on people, be idle, etc. Hey, even young wives are like this already!

2 Timothy 3:6  For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
3:7  Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Wut.
I think they just said lesbians and gays will lead away women and, gasp, teach them things!

2 Timothy 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
2:5  To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
Obedient to husbands. If you don't do as your husbands say, you're being blasphemous. Also if you don't stay at home and keep quiet. Hey no wonder women's rights were so hard to fight for.

3:1  Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
Subjection and obedience again.
3:2  While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
Withheld conversation out of fear. Cool.
3:3  Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
3:4  But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
No fancy dresses or jewelry or hair styles. Your adornment is your husband. In your heart. Man of the heart. Not woman. Man's not corruptible. Meekness and quietness is favoured (though not just of women, of course).
3:5  For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
This is what holy women did before; using their bondage as their jewelry.
3:6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
In fact, you should call your husband your lord, since he is one.
3:7  Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
Women are a weaker vessel. You have to get your honour from your husband, because you're weaker.

2 Peter 2:8 (For that righteous man  dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds
Lot is referred to as a righteous soul. Lot offered his daughters to rapists, then got them pregnant.

Then 1 John, John writes only to fathers.

Then there's Revelation, with all that fun stuff about Jezebel being the one who poisoned the world and whatnot.

We could have fun in the OT as well, but I've a feeling you wouldn't pay that any mind.

 

[Ebin]

Thank you Dame. However these facts are going to be dismissed. Quite similar to someone holding there hands over their ears going "A LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA". [sarcasm]So what if this is all true, the bible is very old. I mean, you get to pick and choose what you want to believe! [/sarcasm]

 

[Tralfaz]

All the back and forth between those two, its like watching them have sex.  But nowhere near as fun.

 

[DameGreyWulf]

Well, the Bible DOES say sex is filthy and requires cleansing.

Thank you Dame. However these facts are going to be dismissed. Quite similar to someone holding there hands over their ears going "A LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA". [sarcasm]So what if this is all true, the bible is very old. I mean, you get to pick and choose what you want to believe! [/sarcasm]

Or conjure up ways to excuse, like applying today facts to back then, as if they would have considered such things. Or saying "Well, Eve was a *****!"