Expecting Rain

Go to main page
It is currently Mon November 20th, 2017, 17:18 GMT

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 113 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon October 26th, 2009, 21:56 GMT 

Joined: Wed April 11th, 2007, 04:15 GMT
Posts: 1490
Location: City of Angels
It fits in with that term "common and traditional readings'. The song has been interpreted as such because the song is closely analyzed, picked apart, misunderstood, & taken out of context to the point that this becomes an issue. Growiing up in a Christian faith, I always understood that there were unnatural sexual acts that occurred in Sodom & Gomorrah as did everyone else I knew in church.
And really that's all that matters to most Christians and they won't hear anything else. It seems to me that Bob wouldn't feel the same way exactly in 1983. Infidels ,and Jokerman especially, is again for me a new hybrid of expressing and incorporating all of his experiences and introspection to that point in his life.
From the Rolling Stone with Kurt Loder:

Since you've spent a lot of time in the Caribbean, you must be familiar with Rastafarianism.
BD:Not really. I know a lot of Rastas. I know they're Bible-believing people, and it's very easy for me to relate to any Bible-believing person.

Well, what if someone is born in a place where there are no Bibles — the Tibetan mountains, say. Could they still be saved?
BD:I don't know. I really don't. Allen Ginsberg is a Tibetan — a Buddhist, or something like that. I'm just not familiar enough with that to say anything about it.

Speaking of Allen Ginsberg, doesn't the Bible say that homosexuality is an abomination?
BD:Yeah, it does. It says that.

And yet Ginsberg's a good guy, right?
BD:Yeah, well, but that's no reason for me to condemn somebody, because they drink or they're corrupt in orthodox ways or they wear their shirt inside out. I mean, that's their scene. It certainly doesn't matter to me. I've got no ax to grind with any of that.

Further, one should look at least to the context of the verse to understand the line itself:

You're a man of the mountains, you can walk on the clouds,
Manipulator of crowds, you're a dream twister.
You're going to Sodom and Gomorrah,
But what do you care? Ain't nobody there would want to marry your sister.
Friend to the martyr, a friend to the woman of shame,
You look into the fiery furnace, see the rich man without any name.

The song is sung to and about the Jokerman who moves untouched through the world, a Christ whose compassion is for everyone, martyr & sinner alike, yet who himself stands alienated & untouched by everything. It's a Christ story sung to Christ himself. I've always felt that line was in part a joke told by a layman in an ancient time. But in contrast to the overall nature & symbol of the Jokerman, the listener also realizes that he has compassion for everyone. He feels for all that have been saints and sinners alike.That self-reflexiveness the listener is cued into is played upon the listener as they hear that line with feelings contradicting what they feel about the joke the line is telling & their overall impression of the song's message.
That's my interpretation really, but I just don't believe the song is homophobic really and if anything's embarrassing it's the re-written verse in 03 which signifies nothing at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon October 26th, 2009, 22:02 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat October 27th, 2007, 12:44 GMT
Posts: 16756
Location: Workin' as a postal clerk
marker wrote:
Growiing up in a Christian faith, I always understood that there were unnatural sexual acts that occurred in Sodom & Gomorrah as did everyone else I knew in church.
And really that's all that matters to most Christians and they won't hear anything else.


I'm not at all sure that the songs "about" Christ, but as far the "sister" line I have to say this is right on. It never occured to me until this thread that the line had anything to do with homosexuality, and I'm not convinced it does now. I always thought it was just a bad line, and assumed it's badness was the reason for the rewrite.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon October 26th, 2009, 22:05 GMT 

Joined: Wed April 11th, 2007, 04:15 GMT
Posts: 1490
Location: City of Angels
Ah Smoke i said it's about Christs, not Christ per se, but Christ-like symbolism, here called Jokerman...
But yeah I'd say it's referencing homosexuality.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon October 26th, 2009, 22:05 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri June 27th, 2008, 20:28 GMT
Posts: 17309
Location: Maybe it isn't a tour, maybe he's just lost.
The Mighty Monkey Of Mim wrote:
Long Johnny wrote:
Readings of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah that interpret homosexuality as a cause of their destruction are relatively recent and highly political. The most common and traditional readings describe the sins of the cities as a lack of compassion and numerous acts of savagery and cruelty. Indeed, almost all of the Bible's supposed condemnations of same sex relations actually disappear when examined closely.

In the larger picture this may be true. I mean, in terms of geologic time, the whole human species is a "relatively recent" development. But "relatively recently" in this case is since at least the 13th century or so (when the word sodomy came into use specifically to describe what were perceived as sexually deviant acts) and so I'm not sure what you mean by the "common and traditional readings." Surely it's only within the 20th century that an increased cultural awareness and acceptance of homosexuality has led to revisitation and revision of such interpretations, undoubtedly met with resistance from fundamentalists. I'm not advocating for any point of view on the subject, really, just speculating on how it might fit into the context of the song and its writing.


No. I mean that readings that interpret the biblical story as primary anti-same sex relations are contemporary and in the minority. The story in the Bible condemns rape and sexual violence, whether it's heterosexual or homosexual never matters. It condemns bestiality, cruelty, torture and murder. WHERE in the actual scripture verses in the stry of Sodom & Gomorrah is there an explicit condemnation of same sex relations?

In fact, this digitization of sexual preference "straight? gay? hury up and pick one!" is historically pretty recent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon October 26th, 2009, 22:07 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Fri September 1st, 2006, 06:19 GMT
Posts: 3604
Location: Sub specie aeternitatis
marker wrote:
if anything's embarrassing it's the re-written verse in 03 which signifies nothing at all.


A very interesting post, marker!
And thanking you for pointing out that indeed the '03 rewrite is ridiculous.

I'm not entirely sure if 'manipulator of crowds' is a concept a Christian would link to Christ.
Especially if you keep in mind that in the videoclip to this song it's the picture of one Adolf Hitler that's being shown when this phrase is sung.

But some very interesting stuff to think on nonetheless!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon October 26th, 2009, 22:15 GMT 

Joined: Wed April 11th, 2007, 04:15 GMT
Posts: 1490
Location: City of Angels
I completely agree with you Long John, but can't you also see that Christianity abhors homosexuality in any form and that when thinking about the city of Sodom & its sins, most will think about some gay dudes getting down? So the reality of a Biblical story means jack when put inside a house of God to be interpreted any way they like.
Christ obviously wasn't born on Christmas yet no one really gives a shit come December 25th...

Furthermore andy, Bob himself didn't put together that video and was not happy with it at all apparently.
And again I would never call Bob your average Christian, being Jewish for most of his life. No most Christians would not call Christ a manipulator of crowds, but many others would and that plays into the perspective of the song which speaks of idolatry and its power over the masses...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon October 26th, 2009, 23:06 GMT 

Joined: Thu August 30th, 2007, 22:44 GMT
Posts: 3974
Long Johnny wrote:
I mean that readings that interpret the biblical story as primary anti-same sex relations are contemporary and in the minority. The story in the Bible condemns rape and sexual violence, whether it's heterosexual or homosexual never matters. It condemns bestiality, cruelty, torture and murder. WHERE in the actual scripture verses in the stry of Sodom & Gomorrah is there an explicit condemnation of same sex relations?

This is a perfectly good way to interpret things from the standpoint of the here and now, and from said standpoint I would agree with you. However, this is not the way it has been traditionally and commonly interpreted, and it is false to imply such. Explicit condemnation or not, the notion that a typical reader of the Bible in historical times would have no different a reaction to homosexual rape and sexual violence than to heterosexual rape and sexual violence is spurious. As I said originally, homosexuality is not the only sin ascribed to the Sodomites, but it is dubious to posit that it wasn't regarded as one at the time of the story's writing and it is outright denial to suggest that it hasn't been commonly and traditionally ascribed to them after the fact.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon October 26th, 2009, 23:15 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri June 27th, 2008, 20:28 GMT
Posts: 17309
Location: Maybe it isn't a tour, maybe he's just lost.
marker wrote:
I completely agree with you Long John, but can't you also see that Christianity abhors homosexuality in any form and that when thinking about the city of Sodom & its sins, most will think about some gay dudes getting down? So the reality of a Biblical story means jack when put inside a house of God to be interpreted any way they like.
Christ obviously wasn't born on Christmas yet no one really gives a shit come December 25th...

Furthermore andy, Bob himself didn't put together that video and was not happy with it at all apparently.
And again I would never call Bob your average Christian, being Jewish for most of his life. No most Christians would not call Christ a manipulator of crowds, but many others would and that plays into the perspective of the song which speaks of idolatry and its power over the masses...


Using the term "Christians" as if it applies to a homogeneous (no pun intended) group is like using the word "Country" as if it includes Hank Sr. and... oh, who's that twit? You know......

But it doesn't. Back in 1972 I remember hearing representatives of three different churches speak to how Christianity does not specifically and explicitly denounce same sex relations. When I was a kid and learned the story of S&G in a religion class (Catholic) there was never any mention of or reference to homosexuality, none (this was the late 50s early 60s).

Some Christian churches have performed same sex "commitment services" for decades and now perform marriages where the laws allow.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon October 26th, 2009, 23:26 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri June 27th, 2008, 20:28 GMT
Posts: 17309
Location: Maybe it isn't a tour, maybe he's just lost.
The Mighty Monkey Of Mim wrote:
Explicit condemnation or not, the notion that a typical reader of the Bible in historical times would have no different a reaction to homosexual rape and sexual violence than to heterosexual rape and sexual violence is spurious.


What does that mean???? :shock:

Does it mean the "typical reader of the Bible in historical times" would condemn homosexual rape and NOT condemn heterosexual rape? Or the opposite? That's absurd. So, what do you mean?

Do you mean that "the typical reader of the Bible in historical times" would have been offended by the idea of heterosexual rape but REALLY REALLY offended by the idea of homosexual rape?

Equally ridiculous.

And just who the heck is "the typical reader of the Bible in historical times."

One thing that gets really downplayed to day that was a HUGE deal 40 and more years ago is the issue of ADULTERY. In historical traditional readings of the S&G story* adultery is one of the BIG reason God destroys the cities.

When I was 9 years old Billy Wilder released his film "Kiss Me, Stupid" that starred Kim Novak and Dean Martin. The only movie rating system then was the Archdioceses that rated films G (general audiences) and A (adult content - which could also mean the issues it dealt with were adult issues).

Every once in a very blue moon a film would get rated "Condemned." A C rating meant that if you were a Catholic and you went to see this film you were no longer allowed to receive the sacraments until you went to confession. :shock: "Kiss Me, Stupid" - a film that has a G rating today from the MPAA, was given a C because it contains scenes of adultery as the basis for comic situations.

S&G is a story of people being punished for, among other things, engaging in casual sex, sex outside of marriage and adulterous sex.


[* you know, how Paul & Artie grew up together and were called "Tom & Jerry" until "Sounds of Silence" became a hot....]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon October 26th, 2009, 23:46 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Tue January 6th, 2009, 14:45 GMT
Posts: 1103
For me, its another bad pun, in a song made of bad puns. It is a kind of put down, but I think it comes from the position of someone searching for ways to fit in words references and meaning, rather than anything serious. Coming from the context of his early 80s christian period, the line feels like a position that was probably neither thought about much by bob, nor heavily challenged by society at the time. Clearly in a modern context, where homosexuality is more 'out-there' people are forced to confront their views by society, and gradually acceptance hopefully spreads, which explains the cute rewrite quoted earlier. Both versions of the line are a product of their time as well as representative of the 'place' of the writer.

Like everything else anyone ever did wrong, I put it down to the 80s (and religion).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon October 26th, 2009, 23:48 GMT 

Joined: Thu August 30th, 2007, 22:44 GMT
Posts: 3974
Long Johnny wrote:
Do you mean that "the typical reader of the Bible in historical times" would have been offended by the idea of heterosexual rape but REALLY REALLY offended by the idea of homosexual rape?

Yes. An act of rape would be seen as sinful in itself, but an act of rape combined with an act of homosexuality would be seen as doubly sinful.

Quote:
And just who the heck is "the typical reader of the Bible in historical times."

Up to a certain point, a Catholic priest; later, an individual living in a society heavily influenced by Catholic priests.

Quote:
One thing that gets really downplayed to day that was a HUGE deal 40 and more years ago is the issue of ADULTERY. In historical traditional readings of the S&G story* adultery is one of the BIG reason God destroys the cities.

Absolutely. I don't see where anything I've said contradicts that. But homosexuality is the one that people became captivated with, as they always do with enticingly lurid or "dirty" details regardless of whether they were intended to be the focus of the story. After all, "sodomy" doesn't mean "adultery," it means butt sex.

But since you bring it up, an adultery-based reading of the JOKERMAN line is also possible. There might indeed be someone in Sodom or Gomorrah who wouldn't mind porking your sister, but he won't want to marry her because he's already married...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 27th, 2009, 03:06 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri June 27th, 2008, 20:28 GMT
Posts: 17309
Location: Maybe it isn't a tour, maybe he's just lost.
The Mighty Monkey Of Mim wrote:
Long Johnny wrote:
Do you mean that "the typical reader of the Bible in historical times" would have been offended by the idea of heterosexual rape but REALLY REALLY offended by the idea of homosexual rape?

Yes. An act of rape would be seen as sinful in itself, but an act of rape combined with an act of homosexuality would be seen as doubly sinful.


- Catholics have MORTAL and VENIAL sins. A mortal sin is like adultery, a venial sin is lying to your mom about why you were late (unless it was because you were committing adultery).

RAPE would be a mortal sin, there is no "double mortal" sin.

Outside of Catholicism, in Christianity in general, FIND me someone, anyone who would agree with this ludicrous notion of "doubly" sinful.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 27th, 2009, 03:20 GMT 

Joined: Thu August 30th, 2007, 22:44 GMT
Posts: 3974
Are you willfully trying to misunderstand what I'm saying? Historically, homosexuality has been seen as a sin by the Church. A distinct and separate sin from rape. It's all well and good to say this viewpoint has changed somewhat and should continue to change going forward, but you can't just pretend it never existed in the first place. It is part of the traditional context of the Sodom & Gomorrah myth, irrespective of whatever the original author(s) intended. It is certainly a connotation (among others) that Dylan must have known the line would carry while writing it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 27th, 2009, 03:50 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri June 27th, 2008, 20:28 GMT
Posts: 17309
Location: Maybe it isn't a tour, maybe he's just lost.
The Mighty Monkey Of Mim wrote:
Are you willfully trying to misunderstand what I'm saying? Historically, homosexuality has been seen as a sin by the Church. A distinct and separate sin from rape. It's all well and good to say this viewpoint has changed somewhat and should continue to change going forward, but you can't just pretend it never existed in the first place. It is part of the traditional context of the Sodom & Gomorrah myth, irrespective of whatever the original author(s) intended. It is certainly a connotation (among others) that Dylan must have known the line would carry while writing it.


No. I think you misunderstand what I'm saying.

The question here was never whether homosexuality was viewed or not viewed as "sinful." The question was specifically whether same sex relations were one of the things being punished in the specific case of Sodom & Gomorrah. There's virtually no evidence that this was a factor in that specific case in that there are no specific references to it in the scriptural story. That's what we were arguing about.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 27th, 2009, 05:16 GMT 

Joined: Sun March 22nd, 2009, 19:14 GMT
Posts: 55
Location: San Diego, CA
I really like this song. And by the way, he has done it more recently and changed the Sodom and Gomorrah verse quite drastically, but I can't remember how. Some of the best versions are from 2003.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 27th, 2009, 06:06 GMT 

Joined: Thu August 30th, 2007, 22:44 GMT
Posts: 3974
The men of Sodom demanded that Lot send out the men of his party to be engaged sexually. Lot offered instead his virgin daughters to the Sodomites, but they refused. LJ, surely you've seen enough old movies with subtler hints at homoeroticism than that...how explicit does it need to be?

I think it's perfectly reasonable to retcon a more accommodating interpretation as a contemporary alternative, but you can't discount the historical one (even if it is faulty) when interpreting art based on it. And I'd wager that if you polled a random sampling of average people on the street, a majority of them would associate Sodom & Gomorrah with homosexuality regardless of new age scholarly revisionism. They don't think Judas betrayed Christ anymore, either, but that's not going to go very far towards changing his traditional image as a traitor anytime soon. Would you argue that we need to go back and reinterpret MASTERS OF WAR based on this new revelation?

Do I really believe that God destroyed those cities because their inhabitants were gay? Heck no. I'm not even sure if Sodom and Gomorrah (or God) ever existed. But I think when you're looking at a piece of art alluding to the story, especially one predating the advent of said scholarly revisionism, you can't just ignore any elements of it that might not conform to current fashions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 27th, 2009, 06:49 GMT 

Joined: Thu August 30th, 2007, 22:44 GMT
Posts: 3974
The limited edit window prevented me from getting that worded quite the way I'd like; this is a little better:

The men of Sodom demanded that Lot send out the men of his party to be engaged sexually. Lot offered instead his virgin daughters to the Sodomites, but they refused. LJ, surely you've seen enough old movies with subtler hints at homoeroticism than that...how explicit does it need to be?

(And I'd wager that if you polled a random sampling of average people on the street, a majority of them would associate Sodom & Gomorrah with homosexuality regardless of recent scholarly revisionism.)

I think it's perfectly reasonable to retcon a more accommodating interpretation as a contemporary alternative when looking at the story itself, but you can't discount the historical baggage (including formerly-prevailing misinterpretations) when interpreting art based on it. They don't think Judas betrayed Christ anymore, either, but how does that really affect his traditional image in art as a traitor? Would you argue that we need to go back and reinterpret MASTERS OF WAR based on this new revelation?

Do I really believe that God destroyed those cities because their inhabitants were gay? Heck no. I'm not even sure if Sodom and Gomorrah (or God) ever existed. But I think when you're looking at a piece of art alluding to the story, especially one predating the popularization of said scholarly revisionism, you can't simply ignore or whitewash any elements of it that might not conform to the fashions of the current zeitgeist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 27th, 2009, 09:38 GMT 

Joined: Thu April 9th, 2009, 11:10 GMT
Posts: 391
Regardless of the historical view, revisionist or otherwise, Dylan clearly makes a remark in the song which understands that men from Sodom and Gomorra to be gay.

That in itself is not homophobic. The verse, like most in the song, is unclear in meaning. But, by merely mentioning sodom and gomorra, in a song written during his religious born again phase, he leaves himself open to accusatiosn of homophobia, whether accurate or not.

The re-write in 2003 suggests he appreciates this, and therefore he acts to correct it.

A lot of what came out of "born again" Dylan was IMO preachy, mis-jugded, and hideously fundamentalist. I don't see that phase in his life as a fair reflection on the man in general. At that point in life he was in need of help, vulnerable and mentally screwed up.

He made mistakes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 27th, 2009, 13:59 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Fri September 1st, 2006, 06:19 GMT
Posts: 3604
Location: Sub specie aeternitatis
Long Johnny wrote:
Do you mean that "the typical reader of the Bible in historical times" would have been offended by the idea of heterosexual rape but REALLY REALLY offended by the idea of homosexual rape?

Equally ridiculous.


I'm not sure that it's so ridiculous Stan.
Let's substitute the sin of homosexuality by another to make this clear:

Situation A: I rape a girl
Situation B: I rape a girl, then a I kill her

I rape the girl in both situations A and B and I assume that raping a girl is a deadly sin.
And yet, I think you will agree that I'm even more of a sinner in situation B because there I also kill her - no?

So I think that indeed homosexual rape might have been regarded as worse than heterosexual rape because it contains 2 sins rather than just 1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 27th, 2009, 14:14 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri June 27th, 2008, 20:28 GMT
Posts: 17309
Location: Maybe it isn't a tour, maybe he's just lost.
The Mighty Monkey Of Mim wrote:
The men of Sodom demanded that Lot send out the men of his party to be engaged sexually. Lot offered instead his virgin daughters to the Sodomites, but they refused. LJ, surely you've seen enough old movies with subtler hints at homoeroticism than that...how explicit does it need to be?


The men of Sodom demanded that Lot send out them men so they could rape them. If you look at the text, Lot offers his virgin daughter in marriage and is refused. The emphasis is clearly on rape and adultery. If you look between the lines you'll see that there's nothing written there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 27th, 2009, 14:17 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri June 27th, 2008, 20:28 GMT
Posts: 17309
Location: Maybe it isn't a tour, maybe he's just lost.
andy1983 wrote:
Long Johnny wrote:
Do you mean that "the typical reader of the Bible in historical times" would have been offended by the idea of heterosexual rape but REALLY REALLY offended by the idea of homosexual rape?

Equally ridiculous.


I'm not sure that it's so ridiculous Stan.
Let's substitute the sin of homosexuality by another to make this clear:

Situation A: I rape a girl
Situation B: I rape a girl, then a I kill her

I rape the girl in both situations A and B and I assume that raping a girl is a deadly sin.
And yet, I think you will agree that I'm even more of a sinner in situation B because there I also kill her - no?

So I think that indeed homosexual rape might have been regarded as worse than heterosexual rape because it contains 2 sins rather than just 1.


Naw, sorry. The fallacy there is that there's no difference between raping a girl, then robbing a store. These are different acts. The act of rape is not somehow "worse" because you're raping someone of the same sex. The idea that a rapist could plead in his defense "Well, at least I raped a girl" is absurd.

In the story of Sodom & Gomorrah the Bible is pretty clear on what the cities did that angered God and homosexuality is not on that list.

I'm not talking about the rest of the Bible or what various Christian churches say or don't say, etc., just this story. Perhaps one of Job's sons had impure thoughts about Eli Manning, but to claim that this is why God was cruel to Job even though there's no mention of the NFL in the Old Testament at all seems wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 27th, 2009, 14:30 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Fri September 1st, 2006, 06:19 GMT
Posts: 3604
Location: Sub specie aeternitatis
Long Johnny wrote:
Naw, sorry. The fallacy there is that there's no difference between raping a girl, then robbing a store. These are different acts. The act of rape is not somehow "worse" because you're raping someone of the same sex. The idea that a rapist could plead in his defense "Well, at least I raped a girl" is absurd.


From a modern Western point of view you're absolutely right.
But in your judgement you already assume that homosexuality is not a sin - which is not the point of view of many religious doctrines. Re-set the scene to modern Iran and the whole 'at least I raped a girl' argument does become reasonable - you will probably get a relatively light punishement for raping a girl (unless it's someone important's daughter and he really doesn't like you) than for having sex with her brother (which will probably lead to capital punishment).

This is also tightly linked to our modern day perception of men and women as equals.
We accept that raping a woman is as horrible for this woman as raping a man would be to that man.
But this would be utter nonesense in most of the past.

Take a look at present day Turkey.
If I murder the guy living next door I will be severly punished.
If I murder my daughter because she had pre-marital sex with an atheist my punishment will be a lot less severe.

I think this makes clear that moral judgements are culturaly deterimened and therefor relative, not absolute.
And it seems plausible to me that most traditional Christian doctrines would view homosexual rape as worse than heterosexual rape.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 27th, 2009, 14:32 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Fri September 1st, 2006, 06:19 GMT
Posts: 3604
Location: Sub specie aeternitatis
Long Johnny wrote:
If you look at the text, Lot offers his virgin daughter in marriage and is refused.


Which is why I don't get why Dylan came up with 'sister' rather than 'daughter'.
Unless you use the words sister in the way a lot of afro(-americans) do - every woman that is part of your community is your sister and not just every woman sharing the same parents as you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 27th, 2009, 18:23 GMT 

Joined: Thu August 30th, 2007, 22:44 GMT
Posts: 3974
Long Johnny wrote:
The Mighty Monkey Of Mim wrote:
The men of Sodom demanded that Lot send out the men of his party to be engaged sexually. Lot offered instead his virgin daughters to the Sodomites, but they refused. LJ, surely you've seen enough old movies with subtler hints at homoeroticism than that...how explicit does it need to be?


The men of Sodom demanded that Lot send out them men so they could rape them. If you look at the text, Lot offers his virgin daughter in marriage and is refused. The emphasis is clearly on rape and adultery. If you look between the lines you'll see that there's nothing written there.

I don't see where that distinction is made and I don't think it makes any sense, since he's offering the only two daughters to a mob of many men, young and old. They can't all marry them. Is there some other passage I should be looking at?

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
and they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
and said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing...


I was under the impression that the scholarly debate on this issue is over the meaning of the "know" here, with those who wish to de-emphasize the homosexual angle saying that it simply means they wanted to interrogate (not have sex with) the strangers and thus were committing the sin of inhospitality. But this doesn't wash, because it doesn't make sense that Lot would respond by offering his virgin daughters if this were the case, and also because a parallel story in Judges 19 (about a Levite and his concubine visiting Gibeah) employs the same device and similar language but is somewhat less ambiguous.

And as Andy pointed out, you've got to be in some pretty serious denial to think that homosexual rape wouldn't carry an additional repugnance beyond that (not always) carried by heterosexual rape.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 27th, 2009, 19:10 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Thu February 2nd, 2006, 05:11 GMT
Posts: 3063
Location: Tokyo, Japan
As they say in Taiwanese English: I very like this song.

I love the "Oooohhh"s that end the choruses; they sound brilliant.

And I think the Infidels studio version pisses all over the outtake and the Letterman version.

To be even more perverse, I actually love the 80s production job on this track -- it really suits it. Sly and Robbie lift it heavenward. Easily one of his best 80s tracks.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 113 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group