That’s only two sons, by my count.

You guys might want to fix that before publication.

Also, you’ve put the line:

at the end of the answer, instead of the beginning.

While we are in the “nitpicking” mode, Edward VIII abdicated in 1936, not 1932. I"m also not sure that it’s right to lay the blame for the Abdication on Onan. Wallis Simpson had a host of issues-she was “a lady with two husbands living,” as Winston Churchill said, an American, not upper-class, tone-deaf to the social mores around her, and politically reactionary. She was also not content to be in the background, but insisted on pushing into the limelight and using her influence with the King.

Otherwise, I get the vague impression that Little Ed has a hangover today, and isn’t editing well.

Or he was typing one-handed.

Thanks for the corrections. I had caught a bunch of 'em this morning, and they’re already made, including adding a resource. I’ll get the 1932 changed, too.

While Ms Simpson had lots of things going against her, the British abhorrence of a divorced woman (at that time) was clearly way up on the list. I’m not saying Onan caused that, I’m just emphasizing the point made by most of my sources, that hang-ups about “immoral” sex acts have had massive and dire consequences over the centuries.

Our modern era, in contrast, has put all those barbers who shaved palms, out of business.

In column it is stated:

When the Spanish explorers got to the New World, they were appalled to find the Indians engaged not only in cannibalism and human sacrifice but what they considered perverted sex practices such as incest. Spanish missionaries quickly set about forcibly converting the Incas and Aztecs

Absolutely no cites for this, but I thought that I had read once that many of these reports have been discredited over time, and it is thought that they were fabricated to provide a moral justification for Spanish conquest of the New World and seizure of the gold that they found.

best to all,


Well, I suppose we’re making a start. However, the article now reads as follows:

Now, as the Bible clearly states (cited in the OP), there were in fact three sons. It’s incorrect to state that Judah had two sons. You could maybe get away with saying that he had a son named Er and a son named Onan, or that he had sons named Er and Onan, but you can’t say that he had two sons. He didn’t. He had three: Er, Onan and Shelah.

It’s also factually incorrect to state that Edward VIII abdicated in 1938. Look at the Instrument of Abdication:

Get it right, ferchrissakes. :slight_smile:

Note: the Instrument of Abdication I linked to above is an image of the actual instrument, and so the typos in the quote, e.g. “My desire the effect” instead of “My desire that effect”, are my fault, not Edward’s. :slight_smile:

Look, if he has three sons, then he also has two sons, doesn’t he? However, we’ll amend it again for the nit-pickers. We started with Judah has three sons, but only naming two. Someone didn’t like that. So we changed it to mentioning two sons and naming them. I guess I should append a whole geneology, as a footnote. Sheeeesh. OK, OK, so we’ll change it to: “had three sons, only two of whom we need to be concerned with for this particular story. Those two were Er and Onan.” I mean, why say it in six words when you can say the same thing in twenty words?

For 1936, I dunno how the typo crept in a second time. We’ll fix it. Sorry.

**C.K., ** thanks for the laugh. You stick up for yourself, lad!

Now, let me tell you about the two Quagmire triplets…

Why so much bile about enumeration? In the words of Caesar, “All gall is quartered into three halves.”

( You’ll notice that I didn’t call anyone a jerkoff )

I assumed it was a Staff Report tradition :slight_smile:

Instead of “In the biblical text, Judah, the son of Jacob (called Israel) has two sons, Er and Onan:”, or, originally just as many, “In the biblical text, Judah, the son of Jacob (called Israel) has three sons, Er and Onan”, or, now, “In the biblical text, Judah, the son of Jacob (called Israel) has three sons, the two involved in this story being Er and Onan:”, how about “In the bible, two of Judah’s sons were Er and Onan:” 10 words, instead of 17, or 24.

I want to know if Selah had to then get busy with Er’s and Onan’s widows, and how that worked out.

Believe it or not, the story gets even weirder from that point. Check out Genesis for the fascinating story of the harlot by the side of the road.

Dorothy Parker had a parakeet who was a messy eater.

She called him Onan, because he spilled his seed upon the ground.


I see you already changed it, but it’s important because if you only say two the later part about splitting the inheritence into thirds if he gets his sister-in-law pregnant makes no sense. You have to know there are three sons to do the math.

Among our chief sons are such diverse elements as Er and Onan, and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.
I’ll come in again.


Sometimes, we get interesting additional info from the Teeming M’s. In this case, we’ve had two, the one advising me of the use of “onanism” in financial circles, and now one commenting on the nom-de-plume of the person who wrote the question.

Equally fascinating is how this custom of levirate marriage became enshrined in the Law. This provided for the brother of the deceased to opt not to marry the widow, but he had to accept being taken to the town gates, having his sandal pulled off his foot, and the surname “No-Sandals” affixed to himself and all his descendants in perpetuity, just so everyone would know what a meanie he had been. I imagine the loss of face would have been considerable.