Kristen

Charis quoted Mary Kassan:
“One commentator has suggested English equivalents of ‘Piercer’ and ‘Pierced One.’ The bodies of male and female reflect this idea.”
It seems more logical that the names reflect the physical bodies, not that the physical bodies reflect the names. It’s common in language that names reflect some aspect of what that which is named is and does. “Piercer” and “Pierced One” seem very logical ways to describe male and female bodies in terms of what makes them male and female. I note, though, that both male and female together are called “Adam” in Genesis 5:2. This reflects that the “totality of their essence” is more similar than it is different. I see no scriptural backing for claiming that all of what a woman is, is defined by the fact that she is “pierced,” or that all of what a man is, is defined by the fact that he is the “piercer.” As I mentioned earlier, in Song of Solomon, one metaphor the Lover gives his Beloved is “an army with banners,” — a metaphor of strength– and one metaphor the Beloved gives of her Lover is “henna blossoms” — a metaphor of softness. Apparently it is possible, even desirable, for males and females to exhibit both characteristics.
Many times in our marriage, in sexual relations and otherwise, I am the iniator and he is the responder, and vice versa. He likes it that way. Am I denying my nature every time I initiate a suggestion to go to a movie? Is he denying his nature every time he agrees?
Or– here’s an interesting one– what if I ask him what he wants for dinner and he says, “I don’t know, you decide”? Or what if I just go ahead and make what I want to make and “initiate” dinner, and he responsively eats it? Am I being unfeminine in this? Is he being unmasculine? Or is this simply normal give-and-take between two human beings who love and respect each other?
Carrying the one physical aspect of male-female bodies out into all other realms, is not something I can agree with or find any scriptural backing for.