It appears to be the case that martyrs of a certain persuasion will be rewarded in the afterlife with the ministrations of seventy-two virgins. It would take a theologian of extraordinary skill to explain why acts of violence should be rewarded with sexual indulgence. I raise a far less knotty question: if the aim is bliss, then why virgins? Why not women of experience and expertise? Benjamin Franklin, the most practical of our Founding Fathers, was dogmatic on this nice point: shun the callow in favor of women who've been around the block, because "every Knack... by Practice [is] capable of improvement." I think that B-Frank would agree that there is something about the virgins-for-martyrs deal that's kind of, how shall I say, impractical or counter-intuitive or even kinky.
Here's a second theological conundrum. What is the reward when the martyr is herself female? I must presume that she will be blessed with seventy-two male virgins -- if not, there's a very serious afterlife asymmetry. Not to reward females who give themselves to the cause would be a statement that the culture of religious martyrdom does not support sexual equality, which I can hardly bring myself to believe. But in the case of female martyrs, the matter of sexual expertise is further exacerbated. Specifically, of what conceivable value are seventy-two knackless male virgins? If we postulate that each male virgin is good for between ten and fifteen seconds of actual intercourse, they will be used up at the rate of four to six every minute, which means that on average a martyress would enjoy a sum of only twelve or so minutes of pleasure (setting aside time for re-mounting and repositioning), which is surely insufficient exercise to produce a meaningful let alone heavenly experience.
Nor will it be all that great for the male virgin at the end of the queue who has to settle for sloppy seventy-seconds.
No comment.
Posted by: ocalipoppy | March 08, 2007 at 06:59 AM