Archaeologica.org

Well, actually, I think the account in Numbers is the opposite of capturing women for wives or slaves.
The Jews were to kill not only the men but also the women because the men had used their women as bait to cause the Jews to sin.
They were to spare only the virgins, since they had not been part of the sin.
You have to read the whole story to get the context of most of these accounts.

True of the City of Babylon, Min.
But there was a lot of countryside to the Nation of Babylon.

So, Cyrus was a gentle conqueror in the city but ravished the countryside to get his jollies?

Doesn't make a great deal of sense. Besides, like the Tyre prophecy, which also didn't happen...it specified Babylon itself.

kbs2244 wrote:Well, actually, I think the account in Numbers is the opposite of capturing women for wives or slaves.
The Jews were to kill not only the men but also the women because the men had used their women as bait to cause the Jews to sin.
They were to spare only the virgins, since they had not been part of the sin.
You have to read the whole story to get the context of most of these accounts.

Oh that's all right then.

And there was me thinking God was being horrible.

They were to spare only the virgins, since they had not been part of the sin.

I still think virgins are overrated.


Would you prefer an experienced brain surgeon or a rookie?

I've always felt that men who insist on a virgin wife are making sure that the wife can't compare him unfavourably. A massive inferiority complex seems to be in action.
And where the men seem to think they themselves shouldn't be virgins infers a wonderful double standard!
Hypocrisy rules!

And where the men seem to think they themselves shouldn't be virgins infers a wonderful double standard!

The golden rule - He who has the gold makes the rules.

Well, I guess I would have to say that history shows us there are levels of physical damage done during a invasion.
Even if the city of Babylon was not burned down during a prolonged assault, I can imagine there was some “ravishing” going on during the night of the overtaking of the city.

Does this discussion mean that virginity for women is overrated? Not according to high school boys back in the '50s.

While by the same token, IMO, male virgins are, nothing beats experience even if it's only a little.

See Digit's comment above, Leona.

A massive inferiority complex seems to be in action.

Since the fifties Leona here in the UK English people's attitudes have changed.
When I became engaged a workmate asked me if my future bride was a virgin.
I told him that I didn't know.
He said, 'haven't you asked her?'
I told him that I didn't believe that it was any more my business than his, and he was astonished.

Being married as a virgin made the wedding night a painful and embarrassing ordeal for a woman. I'm glad the practice is dying out.

Bill Maher noted that in ancient times "........ men sacrificed the virgins but no one sacrificed the sluts!"

The thing that most puzzles me Ish is that in some societies the biggest supporter of bridal virginity is women!
Usually the mother in law it seems.

Minimalist wrote:Bill Maher noted that in ancient times "........ men sacrificed the virgins but no one sacrificed the sluts!"

Exactly ... that's why I've always been a fully paid up slut!