Editorial: Missing "to" in "Trump sees his eager willingness to do things other people won't scruple to do as a sign of his superiority to them.".
Comment:
Oh, you sweet summer children. He did it to a married woman.
I was recently reminded that Adultery has historically been classed as a crime of theft.
From Wikipedia: Adultery involving a married woman and a man other than her husband was considered a very serious crime; in 1707, English Lord Chief Justice John Holt stated that a man having sexual relations with another man's wife was "the highest invasion of property" and claimed, in regard to the aggrieved husband, that "a man cannot receive a higher provocation" (in a case of murder or manslaughter).[24]
The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d'Alembert, Vol. 1 (1751), also equated adultery to theft writing that "adultery is, after homicide, the most punishable of all crimes, because it is the most cruel of all thefts, and an outrage capable of inciting murders and the most deplorable excesses."[25]
I swear, I had a footnote on adultery, and cut it for being a digression!
My point in a nutshell: the very word "adultery" means contamination, q.v. "adulterate", q.v. Latin "adulterium". The "adultery" which the Ten Commandments forbids is the contamination of another man's woman, whether by a man, or (if one construes the Ten Commandments as being addressed to women and therefore applying to them) by the woman being complicit in her own adulteration.
And in English law since 1351, when adultery involves “the King's companion, or the King's eldest daughter unmarried, or the wife of the King's eldest son and heir”, then it’s not just theft but high treason-because the royal bloodline itself is being contaminated.
I've found it horrible and fascinating how much effort Trump is putting into portraying Hillary Clinton as a "cuck"--trying to shame her because her man slept around and she didn't/couldn't/wouldn't stop him. That insult doesn't work on women, but he has no idea how to deal with a female opponent so he's trying to treat her like a man.
This puts the political position of "abortion is allowed only in the cases of rape or incest" in a completely new light for me.
While I had always seen it as a way to take away agency from women, I had never thought of it in terms "well, abortion is okay if you're rolling back a transaction on misappropriated property."
Great call. Boy, it is rare that a post on LJ totally rearranges my brain but this one did a NUMBER. I am understanding so many things in new lights right now.
RE: Re: Comment Catcher: Trump's Sexual Inkblot
anonymous
October 10 2016, 14:17:59 UTC
Thank you for writing this. I could tell SOMETHING was off with Trump bragging about not 'bagging' the woman in the tape, because I operated on the basic thought process that men would boast about only successful 'conquests'.
This clears it up for me and puts it in perspective.
Comments 38
Reply
Comment:
Oh, you sweet summer children. He did it to a married woman.
I was recently reminded that Adultery has historically been classed as a crime of theft.
From Wikipedia:
Adultery involving a married woman and a man other than her husband was considered a very serious crime; in 1707, English Lord Chief Justice John Holt stated that a man having sexual relations with another man's wife was "the highest invasion of property" and claimed, in regard to the aggrieved husband, that "a man cannot receive a higher provocation" (in a case of murder or manslaughter).[24]
The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d'Alembert, Vol. 1 (1751), also equated adultery to theft writing that "adultery is, after homicide, the most punishable of all crimes, because it is the most cruel of all thefts, and an outrage capable of inciting murders and the most deplorable excesses."[25]
Reply
My point in a nutshell: the very word "adultery" means contamination, q.v. "adulterate", q.v. Latin "adulterium". The "adultery" which the Ten Commandments forbids is the contamination of another man's woman, whether by a man, or (if one construes the Ten Commandments as being addressed to women and therefore applying to them) by the woman being complicit in her own adulteration.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
While I had always seen it as a way to take away agency from women, I had never thought of it in terms "well, abortion is okay if you're rolling back a transaction on misappropriated property."
Thank you. I had never put that together, before.
Reply
Reply
Reply
This clears it up for me and puts it in perspective.
Reply
Leave a comment