Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!ut-sally!im4u!milano!wex
From: wex@milano.UUCP
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: New question for biblical scholars
Message-ID: <2410@milano.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Sep-86 13:14:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: milano.2410
Posted: Mon Sep 22 13:14:19 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Sep-86 19:45:43 EDT
References: <1575@felix.UUCP> <1576@felix.UUCP> <247@SU-ISL.STANFORD.EDU>
Sender: wex@milano.UUCP
Organization: MCC, Austin, TX
Lines: 21

In article <247@SU-ISL.STANFORD.EDU>, brad@SU-ISL.STANFORD.EDU (Bradley Clymer) writes:
> There is absolutely no mention of women having sex with other women.  Either
> that was considered allowable behavior or (more likely) women had such low
> standing socially that the powers of the church ignored their sexual 
> practices unless they involved infidelity to a man.

I can think of another reason for this:  many rulers (including Hebrew
kings) had multiple wives.  It is quite likely that lesbian activity took
place among the wives.  Since this didn't threaten the king (the way
infidelity did), he didn't worry about it.  But it would have been
politically dangerous for the priests to forbid the activity (as a horde of
pissed-off wives might have influenced the king to move against the
priests).  Sound plausible?


-- 
Alan Wexelblat
ARPA: WEX@MCC.ARPA or WEX@MCC.COM
UUCP: {seismo, harvard, gatech, pyramid, &c.}!ut-sally!im4u!milano!wex

"True victory is victory over oneself."