Lot's Lot; What Can We Learn From It? #SA #Manosphere #Genesis19 #Incest

T.W. The following addresses the topic of sexual assault and the threat of sexual assault against men mentioned in the Book of Genesis chapter 19 found in the Bible. Oklahoma public school students are welcome to plagiarize any/all of this essay to complete any Old Testament writing assignment, but if your instructor is an authoritarian sympathizer/conservative, the contents may earn you a poor grade.

There are two scenarios of assault or threat of assault I wish to discuss, pointing out similarities and differences in terms of entitlement and dominance, fear and desperation, and the importance of nurturing a capacity to learn from history.

Assault Scene One: Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed in this chapter, as “the outcry against (those cities) is so great and so grievous…” (vs 20-21a). The narration states two angels (the text indicates they appeared as men) went into the city of Sodom and planned to spend the night in the city square, but Abraham’s nephew Lot convinced them to stay in his house. It goes on to say that men both young and old, from every part of the city, surrounded the house, and calling out to Lot said, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

For those of you familiar with this story, as in my experience, has this element of the story been depicted by a Sunday school teacher or pastor in such a way which there is painted an image of a gang of lust-crazed homosexuals arriving at Lot’s house wanting to get to “know” the new boys in town? The text says men from EVERY part of town showed up. Reproductively speaking, how long can a town BE a town if ALL the men are gay? I would submit that these individuals are primarily interested in perpetrating violence and defilement of Lot’s guests—to humiliate and shame them in order to achieve a sense of power and dominance, as if they felt some kind of entitlement to do whatever they wanted to them. They’re not necessarily all (or any, for that matter) motivated by homosexual orientation—entitlement, violence and defilement were clearly their motivational kinks. Lot then offers his betrothed virgin daughters to them instead, as their cultural value is less than his male-presenting guests, and perhaps because of the traditional dictates of sheltering those invited into one’s home. That offer is refused. It has been my experience that many assume this offer was not taken because each of the men of Sodom were gay, but if one reads further, it is stated that-- once the angels blinded the men--Lot went out to convince the betrothed sons-in-law to leave with him. So, it is worth asking if those sons-in-law were in the crowd of potential rapists. Also, they were natives to that town—the men surrounding the house perhaps knew the daughters were the property of men from their own town. Perhaps that is a line the mob would not cross. The scene closes with the angels pulling the Lot, his wife, and daughters, out of the house, a short debate regarding flight destination, Lot’s wife looking back with longing and turning into a pillar of salt, and Lot fleeing the city of Zoar (his first intended destination), then in fear of that town, leaving it to settle in a mountain cave with his daughters.

Assault Scene Two: The daughters are freaking out because, to their understanding, “Our father is old and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth.”(v 31) In an effort to preserve their family line, providing heirs to take care of them, as women had no economic autonomy and would need a father, brother, spouse, or son to provide for them, on separate nights they got their father drunk on wine and raped him. (No clues as to where they obtained this wine.) The text indicates Lot became what we would now refer to as  “blackout drunk”, waking with no idea what had occurred. Women living together in close proximity can experience synchronization of monthly cycles, so I do not find it surprising they both became pregnant. The son of the eldest of the two daughters fathered the Moabite nation, the other, the Ammonites—both nations which proved to be hostile to the Israelites during their exodus from Egypt. It is left to the reader’s imagination Lot’s response to observing his daughters’ growing pregnant bellies, the subsequent births, and upbringing of these children.

These scenes are similar in that sexual assaults are always wicked, horrific acts, regardless of gender and identity of the victim and perpetrator. The differences I find here are motives and consequences. In that first scene, the motive was violence, defilement, and a sense of entitlement and compulsion toward domination. Perhaps they wanted to humble Lot as well, being that he was a settler there rather than a native. The consequences were complete decimation of the entire population. Difficult to imagine anything worse.

In the second scene, the motives are compelled by fear-based catastrophizing regarding the preservation of family lineage and personal self-preservation. There WERE other men, just none in their cave except for Lot. They were afraid of the people in other cities and chose isolation and incest over any other options. It would be fair to say though, that Lot chose the isolation, as his daughters likely had no say. Also, his daughters experienced their father offering to throw them out into the mob to be gang raped—likely to their deaths. All decency bets were off for them perhaps. The consequences were that the god of Israel cursed the tribes of their resulting children, the Moabites and the Ammonites. Those nations eventually became conquered peoples, although grace was shown to the Moab line as many generations later, a Moabitess named Ruth became part of the lineage to King David and Jesus.

I suspect this chapter weighs on me because in America we are going through a time in which a male adjudicated sex offender holds the highest office in the land, and many of his cabinet members are also sex offenders. The wealth of those favored by this administration may not be trickling down, but their depraved attitudes of entitlement and domination of the vulnerable and marginalized certainly are. I submit this essay as I feel it would be wise to consider consequences of embracing the vile attitudes propagated by the manosphere gaining momentum is this country, and it is equally important that women resist attempts of those in power to restrict our autonomy, which would eventually place us in fearful situations of desperation. We would all do well to understand that bald-faced diabolical behavior will reap its own consequences, and although desperation-driven horrible acts committed in response to such acts may be met with mercy, it would be best if the marginalizing environments in which these acts are compelled are avoided in the first place. This is a reasonable lesson to be learned from this biblical text.