|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:27 pm
Cheshire Bitten ... in that era and area of the world being a 'virgin' did not mean did not ever have sex. It ment a woman that did not marry and recognized no male authority over her. Keeping in mind that in much of the world arranged marriages were somewhat common and that women in most places had few rights and were usually considered the property of their closest male relative. So to be a 'virgin' was to be an independent woman in a time and place where that was not common. Could you please give a source for this tidbit? I'm not trying to be a b***h but I tend to be the skeptical sort so I like a source when I come across unfamiliar or dubious information. I'm by no means an expert but I've studied ancient Greek culture at least a little and never heard of anything like this. In fact, considering what I do know about that culture, I actually find it really unlikely. A woman was basically the property of her father (or closest male relative) until marriage and then she was her husband's property. I'd like to know how such a status could be maintained in such a society and why it would be related to "virginity" in the context you claim. Know I know the Vestal Virgins had a great deal of social and political power but they were supposed to be actual physical virgins to maintain their place. If they were proven to be other then sexually untouched, they were killed. And if you were strongly enough suspected of it either you were also screwed. The accused could be buried alive under the theory that if she were innocent the Gods would save her. And all that's leaving aside the fact that the Vestals were Roman rather then Greek.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 2:05 am
CalledTheRaven Could you please give a source for this tidbit? I'm not trying to be a b***h but I tend to be the skeptical sort so I like a source when I come across unfamiliar or dubious information. I'm by no means an expert but I've studied ancient Greek culture at least a little and never heard of anything like this. In fact, considering what I do know about that culture, I actually find it really unlikely. A woman was basically the property of her father (or closest male relative) until marriage and then she was her husband's property. I'd like to know how such a status could be maintained in such a society and why it would be related to "virginity" in the context you claim. Know I know the Vestal Virgins had a great deal of social and political power but they were supposed to be actual physical virgins to maintain their place. If they were proven to be other then sexually untouched, they were killed. And if you were strongly enough suspected of it either you were also screwed. The accused could be buried alive under the theory that if she were innocent the Gods would save her. And all that's leaving aside the fact that the Vestals were Roman rather then Greek. Wish I still had the source. Had to do with women's studies and cultural anthropology; the evolution of women's domestic roles, values, attitudes towards them, their role cultural, political, and religious affairs as well as reading similar things in books regarding how woman's sexual roles, attitudes and activities have changed through out history. Can't for the life of me remember the names of the books or the authors. Such circumstances were unusual, unless the woman was affiliated with religious stuff. I believe the rules for some of the priestesses, depending on deity served, were different than those of typical women. But for most women it would be unusual, such as deaths of the family patriarch, no other living males in family, passing beyond marriageable age under such circumstances. If memory serves me right greek women did have the right to property and inheritance, thus making such independence possible. And well etomology of language can be a tricky thing. Often times there is no direct translation of a particular word from one language to another, so they make an educated guess and pick the word that seems closest to their understanding of the original idea, which may or may not be accurate. Not to mention changes in dialect as well as the equivalent of ancient slang and the differences of connotation and denotation of any given word. Language does have its limits. So based on that alone it is possible that our modern idea of 'virgin' is different then the original meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:33 am
Cheshire Bitten ...snip...And well etomology of language can be a tricky thing. Often times there is no direct translation of a particular word from one language to another, so they make an educated guess and pick the word that seems closest to their understanding of the original idea, which may or may not be accurate. Not to mention changes in dialect as well as the equivalent of ancient slang and the differences of connotation and denotation of any given word. Language does have its limits. So based on that alone it is possible that our modern idea of 'virgin' is different then the original meaning. Drat. I always like to look at new information. As to this etymology bit, for the specific word...perhaps (though I can't really say I don't know the etymology of the word), but I was more referring to the concept of a virgin rather then specifically the word we use today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:53 am
Cheshire Bitten Such circumstances were unusual, unless the woman was affiliated with religious stuff. I believe the rules for some of the priestesses, depending on deity served, were different than those of typical women. But for most women it would be unusual, such as deaths of the family patriarch, no other living males in family, passing beyond marriageable age under such circumstances. If memory serves me right greek women did have the right to property and inheritance, thus making such independence possible. I'd have to disagree unless a source can be found. If Greek women were actually able to own property, I've read college text books that specifically mention Greek women being lesser than men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:13 pm
X-Yami-no-Ko-X Cheshire Bitten Such circumstances were unusual, unless the woman was affiliated with religious stuff. I believe the rules for some of the priestesses, depending on deity served, were different than those of typical women. But for most women it would be unusual, such as deaths of the family patriarch, no other living males in family, passing beyond marriageable age under such circumstances. If memory serves me right greek women did have the right to property and inheritance, thus making such independence possible. I'd have to disagree unless a source can be found. If Greek women were actually able to own property, I've read college text books that specifically mention Greek women being lesser than men. Well it would also depends on which era of Greece we're looking at and which region. A woman from Athens didn't have the same rights as a woman from Sparta. Both women lived in the same country, but they both had different rules and statuses from one another. To look at them as a whole would be rather unfair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:42 am
I got nothing other than I agree totally. Working with the higher powers is the best way to experience them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:02 pm
broken_bleeding_angel X-Yami-no-Ko-X Cheshire Bitten Such circumstances were unusual, unless the woman was affiliated with religious stuff. I believe the rules for some of the priestesses, depending on deity served, were different than those of typical women. But for most women it would be unusual, such as deaths of the family patriarch, no other living males in family, passing beyond marriageable age under such circumstances. If memory serves me right greek women did have the right to property and inheritance, thus making such independence possible. I'd have to disagree unless a source can be found. If Greek women were actually able to own property, I've read college text books that specifically mention Greek women being lesser than men. Well it would also depends on which era of Greece we're looking at and which region. A woman from Athens didn't have the same rights as a woman from Sparta. Both women lived in the same country, but they both had different rules and statuses from one another. To look at them as a whole would be rather unfair. I am going to want to see sources like I said before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:32 pm
X-Yami-no-Ko-X broken_bleeding_angel X-Yami-no-Ko-X Cheshire Bitten Such circumstances were unusual, unless the woman was affiliated with religious stuff. I believe the rules for some of the priestesses, depending on deity served, were different than those of typical women. But for most women it would be unusual, such as deaths of the family patriarch, no other living males in family, passing beyond marriageable age under such circumstances. If memory serves me right greek women did have the right to property and inheritance, thus making such independence possible. I'd have to disagree unless a source can be found. If Greek women were actually able to own property, I've read college text books that specifically mention Greek women being lesser than men. Well it would also depends on which era of Greece we're looking at and which region. A woman from Athens didn't have the same rights as a woman from Sparta. Both women lived in the same country, but they both had different rules and statuses from one another. To look at them as a whole would be rather unfair. I am going to want to see sources like I said before. Just as you, yourself, should be supplying sources when trying to disprove someone. It goes both ways my dear. http://suite101.com/article/the-divergent-lives-of-athenian-and-spartan-women-a307442 http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=sparta_versus_athenshttp://hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw04AthensSparta32120902.htmhttp://www.rozanehmagazine.com/SeptOct.03/wattenwomen.htmlhttp://elysiumgates.com/~helena/Marriage.html Keep in mind, I'm proving that women from Ancient Greece weren't all treated the same everywhere, but that in different cities and regions there were some differences, not specifically pertaining to what Chesire was talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 3:54 pm
broken_bleeding_angel X-Yami-no-Ko-X broken_bleeding_angel X-Yami-no-Ko-X Cheshire Bitten Such circumstances were unusual, unless the woman was affiliated with religious stuff. I believe the rules for some of the priestesses, depending on deity served, were different than those of typical women. But for most women it would be unusual, such as deaths of the family patriarch, no other living males in family, passing beyond marriageable age under such circumstances. If memory serves me right greek women did have the right to property and inheritance, thus making such independence possible. I'd have to disagree unless a source can be found. If Greek women were actually able to own property, I've read college text books that specifically mention Greek women being lesser than men. Well it would also depends on which era of Greece we're looking at and which region. A woman from Athens didn't have the same rights as a woman from Sparta. Both women lived in the same country, but they both had different rules and statuses from one another. To look at them as a whole would be rather unfair. I am going to want to see sources like I said before. Just as you, yourself, should be supplying sources when trying to disprove someone. It goes both ways my dear. http://suite101.com/article/the-divergent-lives-of-athenian-and-spartan-women-a307442 http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=sparta_versus_athenshttp://hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw04AthensSparta32120902.htmhttp://www.rozanehmagazine.com/SeptOct.03/wattenwomen.htmlhttp://elysiumgates.com/~helena/Marriage.html Keep in mind, I'm proving that women from Ancient Greece weren't all treated the same everywhere, but that in different cities and regions there were some differences, not specifically pertaining to what Chesire was talking about. Do realize that no one had asked me specifically for mine and I had been asking for sources since I read something that contradicted what Cheshire had said. That women had the right to property. And while that your intent was sourcing a different topic your first source did end up proving my source wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 4:16 pm
X-Yami-no-Ko-X broken_bleeding_angel X-Yami-no-Ko-X broken_bleeding_angel X-Yami-no-Ko-X Cheshire Bitten Such circumstances were unusual, unless the woman was affiliated with religious stuff. I believe the rules for some of the priestesses, depending on deity served, were different than those of typical women. But for most women it would be unusual, such as deaths of the family patriarch, no other living males in family, passing beyond marriageable age under such circumstances. If memory serves me right greek women did have the right to property and inheritance, thus making such independence possible. I'd have to disagree unless a source can be found. If Greek women were actually able to own property, I've read college text books that specifically mention Greek women being lesser than men. Well it would also depends on which era of Greece we're looking at and which region. A woman from Athens didn't have the same rights as a woman from Sparta. Both women lived in the same country, but they both had different rules and statuses from one another. To look at them as a whole would be rather unfair. I am going to want to see sources like I said before. Just as you, yourself, should be supplying sources when trying to disprove someone. It goes both ways my dear. http://suite101.com/article/the-divergent-lives-of-athenian-and-spartan-women-a307442 http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=sparta_versus_athenshttp://hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw04AthensSparta32120902.htmhttp://www.rozanehmagazine.com/SeptOct.03/wattenwomen.htmlhttp://elysiumgates.com/~helena/Marriage.html Keep in mind, I'm proving that women from Ancient Greece weren't all treated the same everywhere, but that in different cities and regions there were some differences, not specifically pertaining to what Chesire was talking about. Do realize that no one had asked me specifically for mine and I had been asking for sources since I read something that contradicted what Cheshire had said. That women had the right to property. And while that your intent was sourcing a different topic your first source did end up proving my source wrong. So basically you were challenging something that she had read, with something you had read? That's quite silly. Unless you had the same book she had read, and vice versa, how would either of you been to fully able to verify each others claims? Lol. I like your spirit. ♥
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:46 pm
broken_bleeding_angel So basically you were challenging something that she had read, with something you had read? That's quite silly. But that happens all the time. That also why people ask where others get information. Person A could have read in a book and started claiming that people in ancient times offered Djehuty bbq sauce while Person B could have read that bbq sauce was first made in the 15th century so they would challenge it and ask for sources. Quote: Unless you had the same book she had read, and vice versa, how would either of you been to fully able to verify each others claims? That's why you ask for sources.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:51 pm
X-Yami-no-Ko-X broken_bleeding_angel So basically you were challenging something that she had read, with something you had read? That's quite silly. But that happens all the time. That also why people ask where others get information. Person A could have read in a book and started claiming that people in ancient times offered Djehuty bbq sauce while Person B could have read that bbq sauce was first made in the 15th century so they would challenge it and ask for sources. Quote: Unless you had the same book she had read, and vice versa, how would either of you been to fully able to verify each others claims? That's why you ask for sources. Golly gee. I never knew that! I guess that's something that I didn't read in my college text books.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:13 pm
broken_bleeding_angel X-Yami-no-Ko-X broken_bleeding_angel So basically you were challenging something that she had read, with something you had read? That's quite silly. But that happens all the time. That also why people ask where others get information. Person A could have read in a book and started claiming that people in ancient times offered Djehuty bbq sauce while Person B could have read that bbq sauce was first made in the 15th century so they would challenge it and ask for sources. Quote: Unless you had the same book she had read, and vice versa, how would either of you been to fully able to verify each others claims? That's why you ask for sources. Golly gee. I never knew that! I guess that's something that I didn't read in my college text books. Is that supposed to be sarcastic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:17 pm
X-Yami-no-Ko-X broken_bleeding_angel X-Yami-no-Ko-X broken_bleeding_angel So basically you were challenging something that she had read, with something you had read? That's quite silly. But that happens all the time. That also why people ask where others get information. Person A could have read in a book and started claiming that people in ancient times offered Djehuty bbq sauce while Person B could have read that bbq sauce was first made in the 15th century so they would challenge it and ask for sources. Quote: Unless you had the same book she had read, and vice versa, how would either of you been to fully able to verify each others claims? That's why you ask for sources. Golly gee. I never knew that! I guess that's something that I didn't read in my college text books. Is that supposed to be sarcastic? Slightly. I never actually went to college. c: BAZINGA! OK I am buzzed and tired, you have an awesome night.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:50 pm
X-Yami-no-Ko-X broken_bleeding_angel So basically you were challenging something that she had read, with something you had read? That's quite silly. But that happens all the time. That also why people ask where others get information. Person A could have read in a book and started claiming that people in ancient times offered Djehuty bbq sauce while Person B could have read that bbq sauce was first made in the 15th century so they would challenge it and ask for sources. Quote: Unless you had the same book she had read, and vice versa, how would either of you been to fully able to verify each others claims? That's why you ask for sources. Now this is just my personal opinion about research in general, this is a forum not a term paper. Not everyone is going to have their sources readily available or easy to cite. If they do and can give them, great. If not, it doesn't necessarily mean the information is incorrect, simply that it may need verification. When internet research is involved this can be difficult as said sources usual are pulling from numerous other resources, many of which are other websites doing the same thing. So finding the actual source of the info, aka the original books and research can be quite difficult at times. And then finding that hard copy and reading it and correlating it with other books on the subject. Ultimately the 'verification' issue tends to be cyclical regardless of source and the more specialized the information the more of a problem it tends to become. The short version: if you are that curious do your own research instead of effectively asking someone else to do it for you. Though a quick link to provide a starting point is useful and appreciated. After all, Life doesn't give you 'sources' but it does give the tools you need to find them yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
