6 ms·

> severed the procreative element of the sexual act So by that reading it was only wrong because the understood purpose is the whole arrangement was to give Ta

> severed the procreative element of the sexual act So by that reading it was only wrong because the understood purpose is the whole arrangement was to give Tamar a chance to have a child, which she was entitled to expect when Onan married her? It therefore has no bearing on what consensual activities couples may engaged in where no such commitment has been made?

ajkjk 3y ago
Well yes it's from literally biblical times. The social norms were rather different.
- btilly 3y ago
  To be fair, historically it is our social norms that are more of an aberration. Allowing a couple to get divorced simply because both want to didn't become universal in the USA until about a decade ago. Laws treating the rape of a wife as a crime against her husband were common in the 1960s. Laws prohibiting doctors from helping married couples have access to birth control lasted into the 1960s. All of these were based on the idea that marriage was an institution ensuring the continuity of future generations to the family and society. Because the broader family and society had a vested interest in the results of the marriage, the people involved had a responsibility to those around them. This was a widely accepted social norm just a few decades ago.
  - ajkjk 3y ago
    Sure, what's your point? We like our new norms better (with some qualifications -- a lot of things are still changing and being figured out).
  - Spivak 3y ago
    I don't know why you're being downvoted, our current norms are without question far far better but they are the outlier for human history. Massive technological advancement came with massive social advancements in a really short timespan all things considered. I'm glad that making lots of babies is no longer something that's necessary for the survival of society and the norms that pressure (force) everyone healthy enough to have children to do so have fallen by the wayside as a result.
    - nradov 3y ago
      Expect to see some of those social advancements reverse as declining birth rates threaten the survival of some societies. I'm not saying this is a good thing, just that it will happen. We're already seeing that in places like Russia where the government is pressuring women to have more children.
      - tomrod 3y ago
        I'm with Kurzgesaget on the interpretation here. Declining birth rates will be a problem, but it's not insurmountable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBudghsdByQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBudghsdByQ
    - btilly 3y ago
      I think that I was being downvoted because people found what I said unpleasant. A certain fraction of people assume that the reason for saying something unpleasant is that you must support that. Which makes it easy to incorrectly jump from my saying that history is full of a specific set of attitudes, to believing that I must support that set of attitudes. For example, consider reading a biography of a scientist who studies links between IQ and racism. If the scientist finds weak links, most people will judge the scientist not racist. If the scientist finds strong links, most people will say that the scientist is racist. I encountered this example in https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691190808/the-genetic-lottery https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691190808/th.... HN tends to be better about this error than most communities. But it is still not immune. Come to a conclusion that people don't like, and people tend to jump on you.
  - Aloha 3y ago
    I see 'no fault' divorce as an extension of islamic divorce law - in practical terms its not an aberration though - we'd been employing various legal fictions in divorce cases to grant pseudo no-fault divorce as far back as the 1840's - where yes 'fault' was meaningless in the context of the granting of divorce - it just had to exist.
    - btilly 3y ago
      Islamic divorce law allows for no fault, but is also highly asymmetric in how easy it makes it for men and women. A man can initiate a no fault divorce at any time. A woman can ask for a no fault divorce, but it is up to the husband whether to grant it. Islam is not the only no fault divorce in history. For example ancient Rome allowed for no fault divorces, on more even terms than Islam later would. It's terms were closer to modern US no fault divorces than Islam's terms are. Modern US laws are reasonably equal between men and women, and do not come from either of those sources. US law comes from the fact that in some frontier states, the uneven ratio between men and women meant that people saw no reason for an unhappy couple to remain married. If they don't want to be married, let them divorce. And let some other guy have a shot at the wife. This specifically became an issue with Nevada, because Nevada only required a 6 month residency in the state before you could get a divorce. As travel became easier, people from other states routinely took advantage of this as the easiest way to get divorced. That lasted until changing attitudes during the Sexual Revolution caused other states to start adopting similar laws. See https://renodivorcehistory.org/themes/law-of-the-land/ https://renodivorcehistory.org/themes/law-of-the-land/ for more on this.

ajkjk 3y ago

Well yes it's from literally biblical times. The social norms were rather different.

btilly 3y ago
To be fair, historically it is our social norms that are more of an aberration. Allowing a couple to get divorced simply because both want to didn't become universal in the USA until about a decade ago. Laws treating the rape of a wife as a crime against her husband were common in the 1960s. Laws prohibiting doctors from helping married couples have access to birth control lasted into the 1960s. All of these were based on the idea that marriage was an institution ensuring the continuity of future generations to the family and society. Because the broader family and society had a vested interest in the results of the marriage, the people involved had a responsibility to those around them. This was a widely accepted social norm just a few decades ago.
- ajkjk 3y ago
  Sure, what's your point? We like our new norms better (with some qualifications -- a lot of things are still changing and being figured out).
- Spivak 3y ago
  I don't know why you're being downvoted, our current norms are without question far far better but they are the outlier for human history. Massive technological advancement came with massive social advancements in a really short timespan all things considered. I'm glad that making lots of babies is no longer something that's necessary for the survival of society and the norms that pressure (force) everyone healthy enough to have children to do so have fallen by the wayside as a result.
  - nradov 3y ago
    Expect to see some of those social advancements reverse as declining birth rates threaten the survival of some societies. I'm not saying this is a good thing, just that it will happen. We're already seeing that in places like Russia where the government is pressuring women to have more children.
    - tomrod 3y ago
      I'm with Kurzgesaget on the interpretation here. Declining birth rates will be a problem, but it's not insurmountable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBudghsdByQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBudghsdByQ
  - btilly 3y ago
    I think that I was being downvoted because people found what I said unpleasant. A certain fraction of people assume that the reason for saying something unpleasant is that you must support that. Which makes it easy to incorrectly jump from my saying that history is full of a specific set of attitudes, to believing that I must support that set of attitudes. For example, consider reading a biography of a scientist who studies links between IQ and racism. If the scientist finds weak links, most people will judge the scientist not racist. If the scientist finds strong links, most people will say that the scientist is racist. I encountered this example in https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691190808/the-genetic-lottery https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691190808/th.... HN tends to be better about this error than most communities. But it is still not immune. Come to a conclusion that people don't like, and people tend to jump on you.
- Aloha 3y ago
  I see 'no fault' divorce as an extension of islamic divorce law - in practical terms its not an aberration though - we'd been employing various legal fictions in divorce cases to grant pseudo no-fault divorce as far back as the 1840's - where yes 'fault' was meaningless in the context of the granting of divorce - it just had to exist.
  - btilly 3y ago
    Islamic divorce law allows for no fault, but is also highly asymmetric in how easy it makes it for men and women. A man can initiate a no fault divorce at any time. A woman can ask for a no fault divorce, but it is up to the husband whether to grant it. Islam is not the only no fault divorce in history. For example ancient Rome allowed for no fault divorces, on more even terms than Islam later would. It's terms were closer to modern US no fault divorces than Islam's terms are. Modern US laws are reasonably equal between men and women, and do not come from either of those sources. US law comes from the fact that in some frontier states, the uneven ratio between men and women meant that people saw no reason for an unhappy couple to remain married. If they don't want to be married, let them divorce. And let some other guy have a shot at the wife. This specifically became an issue with Nevada, because Nevada only required a 6 month residency in the state before you could get a divorce. As travel became easier, people from other states routinely took advantage of this as the easiest way to get divorced. That lasted until changing attitudes during the Sexual Revolution caused other states to start adopting similar laws. See https://renodivorcehistory.org/themes/law-of-the-land/ https://renodivorcehistory.org/themes/law-of-the-land/ for more on this.