Zephyros
Women no longer "tame the beast" by their receptivity, they are now willing and able supplicants, desiring union in equal proportions to their counterparts, lusting after it. Female care and softness are exactly the outdated views of femininity cards like Lust seek to subvert. I don't see the Thoth Priestess as tomboyish at all, as a matter of fact.
I can't recall the Crowley quote you mention; I do remember him saying the old decks were "hopelessly corrupt," as in the ideas they sought to convey had been lost over the centuries. I would respect what Sally Nichols says about the differences between esoteric Tarot and the Marseilles, if it weren't for the fact that it simply isn't true. The Marseilles is a card game, any meaning added on to it is a later addition, as far as I know, and has nothing to do with the mysteries. I could find esoteric meanings in the Monopoly board, that doesn't mean that is the original intent of its creator.
As if that weren't enough, I don't see the point of holding Crowley's own views (although I am not convinced what you are describing is his own view) as a ruler to everything. Many times I find I disagree with Crowley's points, and then I do some homework and find out exactly why I disagree and can usually explain why. No one is trying to emulate Aleister Crowley in everything, that goes against the basic messages of both the Thoth and the Book of Law. Not only that, but what's the point of saying "Crowley didn't like other decks, but I do?" I like other decks, too, some very un-esoteric. I don't have any problems with that, no crises of faith in that I both subscribe to the Thoth and, for example, the Gay Tarot or the Sakki-Sakki.
This is again the same issue in a different guise. No one can defend things attributed to them that they didn't say, and no one should be asked to justify why they don't like other decks, when everyone does. Let me give you some forum advice. A good thread would be to quote a Crowley quote, and ask what others think of it. Or, ask about the differences between the Thoth and other decks, for example the Jungian. Or ask people their opinions, simply, without projecting onto them an opinion nobody ever professed.
I can't recall the Crowley quote you mention; I do remember him saying the old decks were "hopelessly corrupt," as in the ideas they sought to convey had been lost over the centuries. I would respect what Sally Nichols says about the differences between esoteric Tarot and the Marseilles, if it weren't for the fact that it simply isn't true. The Marseilles is a card game, any meaning added on to it is a later addition, as far as I know, and has nothing to do with the mysteries. I could find esoteric meanings in the Monopoly board, that doesn't mean that is the original intent of its creator.
As if that weren't enough, I don't see the point of holding Crowley's own views (although I am not convinced what you are describing is his own view) as a ruler to everything. Many times I find I disagree with Crowley's points, and then I do some homework and find out exactly why I disagree and can usually explain why. No one is trying to emulate Aleister Crowley in everything, that goes against the basic messages of both the Thoth and the Book of Law. Not only that, but what's the point of saying "Crowley didn't like other decks, but I do?" I like other decks, too, some very un-esoteric. I don't have any problems with that, no crises of faith in that I both subscribe to the Thoth and, for example, the Gay Tarot or the Sakki-Sakki.
This is again the same issue in a different guise. No one can defend things attributed to them that they didn't say, and no one should be asked to justify why they don't like other decks, when everyone does. Let me give you some forum advice. A good thread would be to quote a Crowley quote, and ask what others think of it. Or, ask about the differences between the Thoth and other decks, for example the Jungian. Or ask people their opinions, simply, without projecting onto them an opinion nobody ever professed.
