Relationships 101

[Eagle_Wings]

Isn't the act of seduction a form of persuing in itself, though? You don't become a piece of meat in front of a tiger unless you want to get eaten.

LoL, Well, that gives me quite an interesting picture when I now think of letting a guy know I'm interested in him!

But some of you might sit uneasy when I use the word 'seduce' because of the implications it has in our world today. Make not the mistake that I'm implying something happened at the threshing floor other than what was recorded. The act of kindness was part of the seduction. The perfuming and best clothes was not a minor role either.

I had never really given that part of the story much thought before, but thinking about it right now I don't see that Ruth necessarily "persued" her husband in the way that we use that term nowadays. Granted their time and culture was much different than ours and it is very possible that what she did was seen differently back then.

But, I see it as being no different then when a girl is getting ready to go someplace that she knows a particular guy is going to be. She takes extra care in getting ready. She chooses her clothes, jewelry, hair style, make up, perfume, etc based on the fact that she wants to make this guy notice her. When she is around the guy she finds reasons to be near him, makes frequent eye contact, laughs at even the stupidest jokes he tells, smiles just slightly larger at him then at others, etc. That is not persuing the guy, that's letting him know she's interested. (And guys....I'm sure you do the same thing to an extent!!) Persuing comes when the guy has made it clear he's not interested yet the girl continues "chasing" the guy.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[the_man]

I had never really given that part of the story much thought before, but thinking about it right now I don't see that Ruth necessarily "persued" her husband in the way that we use that term nowadays. Granted their time and culture was much different than ours and it is very possible that what she did was seen differently back then.

Exactly. I think what she did was a bold move even (no, especially) in that culture.

This example of Ruth has always been brought forth as the woman pursuing the man for a change; the exception to the rule. I believe part of this misconception is because of the overt act by Ruth in inviting Boaz before he engaged with her. Really it's a question of which comes first, the invitation or the engagement? The answer the the question is of lesser importance as to what roles each gender plays.

But, I see it as being no different then when a girl is getting ready to go someplace that she knows a particular guy is going to be. She takes extra care in getting ready. She chooses her clothes, jewelry, hair style, make up, perfume, etc based on the fact that she wants to make this guy notice her. When she is around the guy she finds reasons to be near him, makes frequent eye contact, laughs at even the stupidest jokes he tells, smiles just slightly larger at him then at others, etc. That is not persuing the guy, that's letting him know she's interested. (And guys....I'm sure you do the same thing to an extent!!) Persuing comes when the guy has made it clear he's not interested yet the girl continues "chasing" the guy.

Just my 2 cents.

Once again, you are right on. For the most part a woman gives "signs" to a man to engage with her. I don't Boaz could have missed this sign and most observant men today will not miss the signs that reasonable women give. But the other way round is true as well. A man can engage with a woman and she can decided to invite him or not.

 

[fluffy_rainbow]

*ahem* Actually, Ruth did not seduce Boaz on the threshing room floor. It was customary in those days when a woman returned a man's interest or was accepting an offer of marriage to sleep at the man's feet. Almost a sign of obedience. Ruth's actions were honorable in deed and intent.

 

[the_man]

*ahem* Actually, Ruth did not seduce Boaz on the threshing room floor. It was customary in those days when a woman returned a man's interest or was accepting an offer of marriage to sleep at the man's feet. Almost a sign of obedience. Ruth's actions were honorable in deed and intent.

Yeah, no one likes the word seduce.

 

[fluffy_rainbow]

Yeah, no one likes the word seduce.

Well, typically the words "seduce" and "seduction" carry a sexually immoral connotation; however, in this case, Ruth was not seducing Boaz. She was merely returning his affections in the manner that was customary for the times.

 

[the_man]

Well, typically the words "seduce" and "seduction" carry a sexually immoral connotation; however, in this case, Ruth was not seducing Boaz. She was merely returning his affections in the manner that was customary for the times.

Yeah, but as I said in my other posts, when I use the word seduction, no one should make the mistake that I am implying anything other than what is recorded in the Bible occured at the threshing floor (i.e. she didn't go there to sleep with him, the simplistic and typical form of seduction in the world we live in today). However, we cannot totally ignore the fact that she wanted to Boaz to be 'taken' by her, i.e. she didn't put on make up and put on her best clothes for nothing and if that part were not important, it would not have been mentioned. Hence, I used the word seduce; she did it through her actions, her words and her appearance. But if the word seduce carries too strong of a worldly connotation for you, replace it with one of the following: attract, captivate, pursade, invite, lure, delight or appeal.

 

[fluffy_rainbow]

Ah, I like captivate much better. I wasn't trying to nitpick semantics. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were implying. I know alot of people read the book of Ruth and assume she threw herself at Boaz like some loose woman in a bar LOL She was very much an honorable lady in her endeavors and apparently they were successful.

 

[the_man]

Ah, I like captivate much better. I wasn't trying to nitpick semantics. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were implying. I know alot of people read the book of Ruth and assume she threw herself at Boaz like some loose woman in a bar LOL She was very much an honorable lady in her endeavors and apparently they were successful.

I understand where you were coming from that's why I tried to make it a point to be a little more clear in my meaning.

 

[TriptychR]

So really, in the end, they both targeted each other, but Boaz still made the first actual move. Am I correct?

 

[the_man]

So really, in the end, they both targeted each other, but Boaz still made the first actual move. Am I correct?

Depends on what you mean by "move".

 

[carmi]

*ahem* Actually, Ruth did not seduce Boaz on the threshing room floor. It was customary in those days when a woman returned a man's interest or was accepting an offer of marriage to sleep at the man's feet. Almost a sign of obedience. Ruth's actions were honorable in deed and intent.

But she did what she did before Boaz proposed to her. And I'd say Boaz interest was mild, lukewarm.

If her actions were so honorable why was there the need for her to leave the barn before it dawned (on everybody what happened) - Ruth 3:14

I'm quite ignorant in history so I don't know much about the customs of those days. I cannot recall anything in the Pentateuch that would indicate that it was customary for Jewish girls to do that. I know, Ruth wasn't Jewish but Naomi was and so was Boaz.

I admire Ruth but I admire because she did something that was not so traditional (to put it mildly).

 

[TriptychR]

Depends on what you mean by "move".

And I thought you wanted to avoid semantics.

By "move," I meant that Boaz made the first action that hinted that he was interested (not only letting Ruth glean in his field, but giving her the star treatment as well). But the more I discuss this, the more I realize it's all moot. Men give signals; Women give signals. But as long as it's the guy that says, "Hey, we should go out," everything's all right. Isn't that what this argument all really boils down to?

 

[JPPT1974]

Seduce is too much like a sexual relationship with someone other than your spouse.

 

[TriptychR]

THIS JUST IN:

In researching the story of Ruth further, I read from my NIV Study Bible. In there, it says that Ruth's acts of lying at Boaz's feet and asking him to spread the cover of his garment over her were "requests for marriage" under Boaz's kinsman-redeemer law. Can anyone further verify or explain this?

 

[carmi]

THIS JUST IN:

In researching the story of Ruth further, I read from my NIV Study Bible. In there, it says that Ruth's acts of lying at Boaz's feet and asking him to spread the cover of his garment over her were "requests for marriage" under Boaz's kinsman-redeemer law. Can anyone further verify or explain this?

Re kinsman-redeemer law have a look at Leviticus 25:25.

But I can't find anything in the Old Testament that would even hint it was okay to go at night and lay down at a guy's feet in requests for marriage.

"The end justifies the means" is not scriptural.

Since Leviticus 25:25 is in the Bible, Naomi was Jewish and Boaz was her kinsman, I wonder whether it was really necessary for Ruth to do what she did (I admire her - even though I appear to be dissing her).

It also possible that Naomi and Ruth gave up on God and took things in their own hand. And they did put the pressure on Boaz. I can't call that procedure a request for marriage. Imagine they would have been caught, imagine someone actually saw Ruth lying at his feet. Neither Ruth nor Boaz were married, so it's not a matter of adultery but it's still a matter of fornication (even though they didn't do anything but it's difficult to prove). I think had someone seen them, Boaz would have been forced to marry her.

I never heard about the custom that girls went to a guy and slept at the guys feet in acceptance of a marriage proposal or in requesting marriage. Everything I ever heard about those time, women would rather be dead than caught in a situation like this.

So far I only read about women who were expected to do that by their husband AFTER they got married or women who were concubines.

 

[TriptychR]

Re kinsman-redeemer law have a look at Leviticus 25:25.

But I can't find anything in the Old Testament that would even hint it was okay to go at night and lay down at a guy's feet in requests for marriage.

"The end justifies the means" is not scriptural.

Since Leviticus 25:25 is in the Bible, Naomi was Jewish and Boaz was her kinsman, I wonder whether it was really necessary for Ruth to do what she did (I admire her - even though I appear to be dissing her).

It also possible that Naomi and Ruth gave up on God and took things in their own hand. And they did put the pressure on Boaz. I can't call that procedure a request for marriage. Imagine they would have been caught, imagine someone actually saw Ruth lying at his feet. Neither Ruth nor Boaz were married, so it's not a matter of adultery but it's still a matter of fornication (even though they didn't do anything but it's difficult to prove). I think had someone seen them, Boaz would have been forced to marry her.

I never heard about the custom that girls went to a guy and slept at the guys feet in acceptance of a marriage proposal or in requesting marriage. Everything I ever heard about those time, women would rather be dead than caught in a situation like this.

So far I only read about women who were expected to do that by their husband AFTER they got married or women who were concubines.

Well, according to my Bible, it says the tradition is still practiced in parts of the Middle East today. And you must remember that it seemed like Ruth didn't really know what Naomi's orders meant. She was foreign, and Naomi had to tell her "He'll tell you what to do next."

Still, if it is a tradition, I would assume that Boaz and Ruth would be honorable enough to not ruin it with fornication.

 

[carmi]

Well, according to my Bible, it says the tradition is still practiced in parts of the Middle East today. And you must remember that it seemed like Ruth didn't really know what Naomi's orders meant. She was foreign, and Naomi had to tell her "He'll tell you what to do next."

Still, if it is a tradition, I would assume that Boaz and Ruth would be honorable enough to not ruin it with fornication.

I did an online search. I couldn't come up with anything that would even hint it was/is okay for an unmarried girl/woman to spend the night with a man who is not her husband.

Not to mention that I can't find anything in the Old Testament law where God would approve of such a thing.

Ruth's story is in the Bible. And in many ways she is a great example. But Ruth is not just an Old Testament character, she is also a human being. Sara is mentioned in the Hebrews 11. The same Sara who was laughing because she didn't believe that she would bear a child (God named the child, Isaac means 'laughter'). Anyway, Sara didn't believe she'd ever conceive and passed her handmaid onto Abraham. It's in the Bible but show me where it says that God agreed or approved of it. Abraham - in fear of his life - pretended that Sara was not his wife and Sara ended up in a harem.

I believe you when you say that a commentator mentions it is tradition and still practiced in parts of the Middle East but did he give any kind of reference where one could verify this? I lived in the Middle East for 7 years.

But I also lived in the Western world. What would you think, what would many Christian think of a girl who goes and spends the night with a guy. Even if she proclaims "nothing happens", I bet at least someone would counter with "shun all appearances of evil". And she ends up on the weekly prayer list.

One of the many amazing things in the Bible is that we can see people at their weakest not only in their most respectable moments. To me Ruth is an encouragement, an encouragement to all those who messed up and went ahead without God's approval and with something that wasn't right in His sight and not according to His Law and you can still end up in the family tree.

Maybe I just can't find any historic text on this tradition. Maybe I can't find anything in the Bible where it says God approves of this tradition. In a way I hope I won't ever find anything like that in the Bible ... I spent quite some time repenting for even thinking about throwing myself at someone in the "here I am - take me" style.

 

[the_man]

And I thought you wanted to avoid semantics.

Hehe, I just want to be clear as to what you are asking.

By "move," I meant that Boaz made the first action that hinted that he was interested (not only letting Ruth glean in his field, but giving her the star treatment as well). But the more I discuss this, the more I realize it's all moot. Men give signals; Women give signals. But as long as it's the guy that says, "Hey, we should go out," everything's all right. Isn't that what this argument all really boils down to?

I was going to say the same thing in response to your question. It really isn't important who made the first move. What is important (atleast to your little conversation) is the design and that is for invitation and engagement; whichever comes first is really of little consequence.

 

[TriptychR]

I was going to say the same thing in response to your question. It really isn't important who made the first move. What is important (atleast to your little conversation) is the design and that is for invitation and engagement; whichever comes first is really of little consequence.

But now it seems that Ruth might have made the engagement.

 

[the_man]

But now it seems that Ruth might have made the engagement.

Well, don't stop reading at chapt 3. In order for anything to happen, Boaz had to engage. Ruths act open that possibility up to him. Notice his reply when he realized it was her: "You have not run after the younger men" sounds like he didn't think he had a shot with her or that she wasn't interested. Her actions spoke volumes and He responded to the invitation.