Chick-fil-A Biblical Family of the Day

Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy: “We support biblical families.”

Today’s Chick-fil-A Biblical Family Rule of the Day: Seducing a virgin (Exodus 22:16-17).

When a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married, and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. But if her father refuses to give her to him, he shall pay an amount equal to the bride-price for virgins.

  • aunursa

    Pep: Hey partner. I tried to call you up till midnight. I didn’t know the Christian Science reading rooms stayed open so late.
    Joe: Not that it’s any of your business, but I spend the evening in the company of Connie Swail. Then I paid her father the bride-price and made her my wife.
    Pep: Wait a minute.  Don’t you mean “the Virgin Connie Swail”?  Didn’t you pay her father the bride-price for virgins?

    [Friday glances at Streebeck, raises his eyebrow; "Dragnet" theme begins]

  • OriginalExtraCrispy

    If the father refused to marry his daughter to the man who took her virginity, would she still be able to get married?

    Also, what is it with people’s obsession with virgins? I’ve been a virgin. The sex was pretty lousy back then.

  • Fusina

     My two guesses are 1, in the period pre DNA testing ability, virginity was the only way to prove paternity… 2, STDs have been around for a while, and in order to make sure you didn’t get one from your wife… course, giving her one was a whole nother case. I suspect that 1 was the main reason.

    Tradition is the current problem. Cue the Fiddler on the Roof soundtrak…

  • CoolHandLNC

    What’s the going rate for virgins these days? I want to buy my son one for Christmas. Can you get one on Amazon?

  • aunursa

    $17.09. Surprisingly you can get a new virgin for as low as $14.88. But it’s $31.40 for a used virgin, which, I suppose, defeats the purpose — depending upon your purpose, of course.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    Paternity mostly. Not having anything but the most general understanding of how reproduction worked, if you married a woman who was not a virgin, you could never be entirely certain if any resultant children were really yours. See, for instance, Onan.

  • http://nelc.livejournal.com/ NelC

    Hang on, I’m not getting something here. What’s the difference between the bride-price and the virgin bride-price? Shouldn’t they be the same? Shouldn’t your bride be a virgin anyway (according to the mores of the time)?

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     Presumably they were pragmatic enough to acknowlege that there would be a lucrative market for gently-used and certified pre-owned aftermarket brides.

    (But seriously, for quite a long time now, I’ve assumed that the whole “Brides must be virgins” thing historically has been a thing for the ruling class, with the hoi polloi being expected to make due with whatever they can get.)

  • ohiolibrarian

    About Onan. Really good father. He didn’t want to disinherit existing sons in favor of sons with his brother’s wife. But they would all have been his kids, righr? Or was his brother supposed to magically impregnate her through him?

  • EllieMurasaki

    Tamar was Onan’s first wife; all Onan’s biological children with her would have been legally the children of Tamar’s first husband, Onan’s older brother, whatever his name was.

    …come to think, were Tamar’s children by Judah legally Judah’s children or (because Tamar had been Judah’s first son’s wife) Judah’s grandchildren?

  • Elizabeth

    The whole “being married off to your rapist makes it OK” thing turned my stomach the first time I read it, and still does.

  • Amaryllis

      “he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife.”

    He shall give the bride-price to her father. But what shall anyone give to her mother, I wonder?

    The Chick-fil-A Poem of the Day:
     
    “For a Daughter Who Leaves”

    More than gems in my comb box shaped by the God of the Sea, I prize you, my daughter. . .
    Lady Otomo, 8th century, Japan

    A woman weaves
    her daughter’s wedding
    slippers that will carry
    her steps into a new life.
    The mother weeps alone
    into her jeweled sewing box
    slips red thread
    around its spool,
    the same she used to stitch
    her daughter’s first silk jacket
    embroidered with turtles
    that would bring luck, long life.
    She remembers all the steps
    taken by her daughter’s
    unbound quick feet:
    dancing on the stones
    of the yard among yellow
    butterflies and white breasted sparrows.
    And she grew, legs strong
    body long, mind
    independent.
    Now she captures all eyes
    with her hair combed smooth
    and her hips gently
    swaying like bamboo.
    The woman
    spins her thread
    from the spool of her heart,
    knotted to her daughter’s
    departing
    wedding slippers.- Janice Mirikitani

     

  • P J Evans

    all Onan’s biological children with her would have been legally the children of Tamar’s first husband

    I thought it was just the first child, preferably a son (not that they’d have had a choice).

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     

    About Onan. Really good father. He didn’t want to disinherit existing
    sons in favor of sons with his brother’s wife. But they would all have
    been his kids, righr? Or was his brother supposed to magically
    impregnate her through him?

    Pretty much. The ancients had no flipping idea how genetics worked, nor how gametes worked, nor that gametes even existed. They more or less understood that a fair percentage of the time, children would have similar physical traits to their parents, but not always.

    So there was a general understanding that the first man to inseminate a woman “programmed” her uterus, and afterward, any child she bore to another man would be of some kind of strange multi-paternity. (This was how they made sense of recessive traits showing up in the offspring of non-expressing carriers).

    This is where the Greeks got all those heroes with two daddies (I imagine it may also be how Gilgamesh ended up being two-thirds god).

    (This notion remained part of the science of animal husbandry until the nineteenth century. And if you look it up today, you will find mostly racists mocking other racists for believing in it.)

  • banancat

    During this time period, people died pretty frequently.  Young widows were still valuable in the marriage market.  Divorce was actually somewhat common too, dependent on era and location.  It sort of went in and out of style and probably had more to do with a man being no longer able to support his extra wives/concubines than anything about compatibility.

  • Jackalope

     Hmm. Do you have any support for that? I’ve never heard that the ancients believed that a woman’s uterus was preprogrammed by the first man she had sex with and that this affected the rest of her children. My understanding of that rule has always been that the first child has the name of the woman’s first husband and is considered his, not genetically but as the one to carry on the family name, property, etc. The law about this specifies that the man only has to marry his brother’s widow if the brother died childless, and that only the firstborn carries the deceased man’s name.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     I know the idea is attributed to Aristotle, though I haven’t been able to find the actual passage in aristotle that it comes from (Just lots and lots of people saying “this idea comes from aristotle and was not discredited until the ninteenth century”).

    There is a passage in the gnostic Gospel of Philip which says that if a woman thinks about her lover while having sex with her husband, the child will have the lover’s features.

    Surprisingly, the Russian Orthodox church put out a book claiming exactly what I said, that the first man in “programmed” the uterus and was the bioloical father of all future children — with a big scary warning about the Real True Cases of good white women having black babies as the result of a youthful indiscretion decades earlier.

    They put this book out in 2004.

    Of course, you can also go to the story of Jacob and Laban’s sheep to see a different example of how the ancient israelites thought heredity worked.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X