please don't think of her as "HIS WOMAN" (or him as her man). this implies ownership, and marriage is not about ownership. he might have worn it out of respect/love for her, yes.
There are some references to what I'm talking about on the wikipeda page on Mazdak. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazdak
To stress that this was the type of ownership implied. Never has it been legal right for a husband to allow a third party to have sexual intercourse with his wife, at the third party's pleasure. Despite this being the simplistic understanding of the term "his wife" may imply this.
If you want to understand terms in it's simplistic understanding, then I think you better worry about terms like sunrise/sunset.
What? Since when do you need to "own the legal rights" to perform sexual intercourse? Are you saying I cannot legally have sex unless I'm married?
I'm having a hard time following what you're saying, because most of your post is just rambling. The Mazdakian? Nothing to do with us. Abrahamic religion abolishing sexist doctrines? Are you kidding me? The Bible is full of extremely sexist views. It treats women explicitly like objects.
None of your post has anything to do with my parent comment, nor the original. I feel there is a pattern here, because all of your other posts in this thread have been the same. Right now, in 2012, a man referring to his partner as "his woman" (or a woman referring to her partner as "her man") implies ownership and has a negative connotation.
Islam took over Persia and put an end to Mazdakian belief. This is a credit to Abrahamic religion. The society you were born in could have been very different had Mazdak's ideas won. The concept of family would not exist and the gene pool would have very few trees. The idea of monogamous relationships are a given in our society and this is built on the success of Abrahamic religion removing competing systems almost entirely out of the conscience of human thought.
In history one could find other competing systems and the Mazdakian is just one example.
One must remember the bible was written before it's ideas were successful. To re-interpret it's ideas are after it's success may lead one to the wrong conclusions about what it actually was trying to convey. It may appear to be a lot more sexist than what it actually meant.
Yeah ... 'cause I'm sure a guy that just became a multi-billionaire didn't have a prenup.
English translations translated freely taking preference for poetic sound.
So as long as the bible is part of English speaking culture the usage of woman as wife will be common.
Something I find interesting about Persian culture. In Persian the word Zan means both wife and woman, but there is another more formal word Khanom. Which is always to be used when speaking or referring to someone older than you. I wouldn't be surprised if this is due to the etymology of the two word being from different languages.
This objection seems entirely fabricated and completely overblown.
Mmm, except we're not talking about a transliteration of a Bible verse. This is colloquial usage of the term "his woman" in the English language with respect to American culture, which implies ownership. This has absolutely-- and I mean absolutely-- nothing to do with Hebrew.
> So as long as the bible is part of English speaking culture the usage of woman as wife will be common.
And has nothing to do with what we're talking about. The term implies ownership, and the Bible takes a very "man owns woman" stance. I assume your intent was not to prove my point?
Also, I think tersiag was stressing the person for which he wore a suit, not that he wore a suit for HIS woman (instead of someone else's woman).