“They saw their injured country's woe;
The flaming town, the wasted field;
Then rushed to meet the insulting foe;
They took the spear, - but left the shield.”
―Philip Freneau
.
And by a prudent flight and cunning save A life which valour could not, from the grave. A better buckler I can soon regain, But who can get another life again?
Archilochus
Monday, May 25, 2015
Female Redemptive Sexuality
Is Motherhood it's Only Socially Acceptable Form? Or are we on the Threshold of Something New?
But a friend of mine recently spoke of being invited to a retreat to discuss "The Two Mary's: Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Christ"
And so we see the historical social options of women exemplified... either the accepted marriage/ motherhood, or a "shameful" retreat/ withdrawl from social life. Yet surely Magdalene is the stronger example of a woman deserving of social leaderhsip and responsibility, isn't she?
We seem to have an entered an era when non-procreative sex is celebrated as the epitome of human fulfillment. Yet, where is the female Hugh Hefner, who celebrates the "inherent sterility" of her "freely-chosen" lifestyle
She seems to be, as of yet, still missing from the socially-desirable outcomes set. We have "Real slutty but married Housewives". But where is the single mother with eight Baby Daddy's being celebrated in our culture? And if not, why not?
...and I think that it comes back to postmodernism. The authoritative compulsion to Enjoy! ...but only in the safer-consequence varieties. Decaffeinated sexuality makes for increased "worker availability" and less time off for dependent care. Capital smilaes all the way to the bank!
In Ireland, a contractual equivalent to marriage (civil union) proved insufficient. It's a quest for total social acceptance, much as a "degree" serves as a symbolic proxy for 'an education'. Today's gays are chasing rainbows and unicorns. There is little "redemption" to be found in the practice of sodomy.
But where is the single mother with eight Baby Daddy's being celebrated in our culture? And if not, why not?
Not sure but she's much more an obsession with the Christian Right than with anyone else.
The authoritative compulsion to Enjoy! ...but only in the safer-consequence varieties. Decaffeinated sexuality makes for increased "worker availability" and less time off for dependent care. Capital smiles all the way to the bank!
No contest.
Feminism saw child bearing as an obligation imposed by male patriarchy and thus an instrument of oppression. They haven't moved on from that.
Much of Marie Antoinette's misfortune lay in her and Louis VI not hitting it off right away (although the male system was to blame for a few years, it appears) and producing heirs a bit later than expected. Then there was Le Petit Trianon, where in the vox populi's mind unspeakable sexual excesses were played out. (France and Belgium have plenty of modern brothels called 'Trianon'). ;-)
The point is that you have a daughter, something that redeems the act and lends some goodness to it.
Yes, one can argue that through sex comes a "relief" from pain, but that relief would eventually come (every 21-23 days for a man, 28 days for a woman) via a nocturnal emission or period whether one engaged in the act or not.
And yes, "biblical" people, "Catholic" people who DON'T believe in "birth control" only have sex to procreate, or to take a chance at procreating. They don't masturbate, they don't commit acts of sodomy.
Yes, one can argue that through sex comes a "relief" from pain, but that relief would eventually come (every 21-23 days for a man, 28 days for a woman) via a nocturnal emission or period whether one engaged in the act or not.
And yes, "biblical" people, "Catholic" people who DON'T believe in "birth control" only have sex to procreate, or to take a chance at procreating. They don't masturbate, they don't commit acts of sodomy.
C’mon, FJ, now it’s my turn to call HUMBUG!
Sex is soooo much more than a bit of ‘relief’! The women I’ve loved, for the most part… I adored the ground they walked on. (There was that one at ‘Le Trianon’ that wasn’t so satisfactory ;-) ). ‘Good sex’ is almost sacred.
Catholics who don’t believe in birth control (what’s with the quote marks?) don’t do ‘BAD SEX’? Who knew? This is so counter-factual it’s not worth refuting. In your mind maybe but not in the real world.
You are a product of your Age, Gert. And it is only in the "Modern" Age that your views have developed currency.
No doubt. Is modernity per se bad?
To require sex to be redemptive is to require it to be sinful firstly.
Ideas about the sinfulness of sexuality are also relatively recent (Christianity) and have morphed a good deal too.
Xtian ideas about sodomy became quite obsessive when it was found some priests (Middle middle ages) were indulging in it too.
I've watched your video and can see now why your question was posed. I think it would have helped to elaborate a little though. A question invites an answer, no?
To require sex to be redemptive is to require it to be sinful firstly.
No, it requires it to be "healthful" first. The Modern Age has brought many remedies for STDs past, but there are still some for which there are no cures. And the practice of sodomy has exacerbated many of their pathologies. AIDS comes to mind, as it is 100x more transmittable in male homosexuals.
So given the "ill" health effects, please help identify the "positives"... the "redemptive" qualities.
I look at the Bible as the equivalent of a Ancient Medical Dictionary, filled with "prescriptions" for proper health maintenance. Jewish Dietary Laws were a health guarantee long before bacteria and virus were ever identified.
So given the "ill" health effects, please help identify the "positives"... the "redemptive" qualities.
Happiness.
AIDS is an infectious disease, much like any other. We fight those with science and medicine, not bigotry. The latter point is important because many infectious diseases (or rather their sufferers) were stigmatised in the past, often by 'religious' stances.
One of Mankind's biggest enemies are infectious diseases and that War is far from over. 'Holy books' now can do very little to help and mostly obfuscate and obstruct real progress.
Jewish Dietary Laws were a health guarantee long before bacteria and virus were ever identified.
And 2,000 years of endless embroidering on those basic laws have generated a body of work that is today almost 100 % ritualistic in nature. 'Kasherizing' often takes absurd forms. Deep cleaning a kitchen is a good thing of course but you hardly need to be Jewish to do so. And other cultures understand that too. The world isn't 4,000 years old, FJ.
There’s twit (I call him 'Dumbass from Donbass', that’s where he’s from) on a science forum I hang out at, who believes the ‘US has spread AIDS across the world’. This is a disease which has generated loads of conspiracy stuff.
I also really hate that kind of 'secondary arguments' that Xtians so often use against homos. We know, we know: G-d's supposed to be against it, so why not stick to your guns and shut up already about AIDS!
We fight those with science and medicine, not bigotry.
Quarantines and prosciptions on certain behaviours ARE science and medicine. THAT is where "bigotry" (By Gott!) originates. Talk of "bigotry" is what "obfuscates".
For example, I have pancreatis. I can't drink alchohol. That isn't the "Bible" telling me not to do something harmful to me, that is my DOCTOR telling me not to do it. Believe me when I say, I'd love to blame my affliction on the doctor's "bigotry" and keep on drinking. But every time I do, I end up in the E.R.
...and yes, 'happiness' is a redemptive quality. But it largely offset by 'sadness'. The sadness of discovering that I have an STD, have infected my partner, and that they may die because I indulge in HIGH RISK sexual behaviours. I've heard that the average homosexuals life expectancy is 12 years less than a heterosexuals. This ISN'T because of homophobia (as the writer claims). It's because of AIDS.
As for AIDS, the cat long ago escaped out of THAT politically correct bag... 7.6 million deaths... and "science" keeping another 35 million on VERY EXPENSIVE LIFE SUPPORT.
Look, I read ‘And The Band Played On’, in the late 80s and agreed how much of the gay community had shot itself in the foot in those early, heady days of AIDS.
But homophobic bigotry is much like any other form of racism: it takes on all kind of forms. Homophobia existed long, long before AIDS, much like antisemitism existed long before the Nazi expression of it.
For much of the anti-gay community AIDS is simply gefundenes fressen.
Call it homophobic bigotry if you like. But I'm sure that the catamite or Eromenos companion to an Erastes on the Theban and Spartan battlefields would have preferred not being used as a blow up doll, much as many a Catholic altar boy resented being fondled by His Holiness before Mass. But then, when you're forced to join the Agoge at age seven, you've got to do what it takes to survive.
Re-reading the book via Wiki’s entry. I can remember just how much blame there was to go around:
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the agency responsible for tracking down and reporting all communicable diseases in the U.S., faced governmental apathy in the face of mounting crisis. Shilts reported how CDC epidemiologists forged ahead blindly after being denied funding for researching the disease repeatedly. Shilts expressed particular frustration describing instances of the CDC fighting with itself over how much time and attention was being paid to AIDS issues.[26] Although Reagan Administration officials like Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler and Assistant Secretary Edward Brandt spoke publicly about the epidemic, calling it in 1983 its "Number One Health Priority" no extra funding was given to the Centers for Disease Control or the National Institutes of Health for research.[27] What the U.S. Congress pushed through was highly politicized and embattled, and a fraction of what was spent on similar public health problems.[28] Shilts made comparisons to the government's disparate reaction to the Chicago Tylenol murders, and the recent emergence ofLegionnaire's Disease in 1977. In October 1982, seven people died after ingesting cyanide-laden Tylenol capsules. The New York Timeswrote a front-page story about the Tylenol scare every day in October, and produced 33 more stories about the issue after that. More than 100 law enforcement agents, and 1,100 Food and Drug Administration employees worked on the case. Johnson & Johnson disclosed they spent $100 million attempting to uncover who had tampered with the bottles. In October 1982, 634 people were reported having AIDS, and of those, 260 had died. The New York Times wrote three stories in 1981 and three more stories in 1982 about AIDS, none on the front page.[29] The Tylenol Crisis was a criminal act of product-tampering; Legionnaire's Disease was a public health emergency. Twenty-nine members of the American Legion died in 1976 at a convention in Philadelphia. The National Institute of Health spent $34,841 per death of Legionnaire's Disease. In contrast, the NIH spent $3,225 in 1981 and about $8,991 in 1982 for each person who died of AIDS.[30] Shilts accused Ronald Reagan of neglecting to address AIDS to the American people until 1987—calling his behavior "ritualistic silence"—even after Reagan called friend Rock Hudson to tell him to get well.[31] After Hudson's death and in the face of increasing public anxiety, Reagan directed Surgeon General C. Everett Koop to provide a report on the epidemic. Though Koop was a political conservative, his report was nevertheless clear about what causes AIDS and what people and the U.S. government should do to stop it, including sex and AIDS education provided for all people.[32] On a civic level, the closure of gay bathhouses in San Francisco became a bitter political fight in the gay community. Activists put pressure on the San Francisco Public Health director to educate people about how AIDS is transmitted, and demanded he close bathhouses as a matter of public health.[33]
Sexual deviance, including of the CRIMINAL type, isn't confined to any particular group, FJ. You know that too.
Just finished watching first hand (coppers) accounts of the Jimmy Saville (and his associate) affair. Countless under-age girls damaged for life. By a male heterosexual celebrity.
Currently watching the FBI Files on PBS about James DeBardeleben II, a prolific male hetero sex predator. 375 years of porridge.
Gay marriage WILL turn many male gays much less promiscuous, that's a strong argument in favour.
You've had your share of health problems. Hope things are bearable. Health is like your well: you don't miss the water until your well runs dry.
Sanctioning gay marriage will lead to sanctioning male-female sodomy. You think AIDS is bad now, just wait until America's numbers catch up to S. Africa's %'s in the hetero-transmitted category.
Agreed of course that sex sells and that gratuitous 'enjoyment' is being promoted cos $$$$ - ££££. But I see that as a different problem entirely.
You tell me I'm a child of my age. Sure. But I think your religious upbringing colours your view too. (Where would we be w/o a bit of howaboutery, eh?)
Sanctioning gay marriage will lead to sanctioning male-female sodomy. You think AIDS is bad now, just wait until America's numbers catch up to S. Africa's %'s in the hetero-transmitted category.
Humbug. Where the hell are you getting that idea from???
I had a very liberal sexual upbringing. I have a gay brother and a gay son. I was a merchant seaman, and a rather libertine one at that. I'm not speaking from sexual ignorance.
ps - I may have been raised a Lutheran, but I became agnostic and now consider myself a non-Christian Deist.
South Africa has the biggest and most high profile HIV epidemic in the world. In 2012, an estimated 6.1 million people were living with HIV, with 240,000 South Africans dying from AIDS-related illnesses. 1
South Africa has the largest antiretroviral treatment rollout programme in the world. Life expectancy has also increased by 5 years since the height of the epidemic. 2 Moreover, these efforts have been largely financed from its own domestic resources. The country now invests more than $1 billion annually to run its HIV and AIDS programmes. 3
However, HIV prevalence remains high (17.9 percent) among the general population, although it varies markedly between regions. 4 For example, HIV prevalence is almost 40 percent Kwazulu Natal compared with 18 percent in Northern Cape and Western Cape. 5 For a more detailed breakdown, visit our South Africa HIV and AIDS statistics page.
Men who have sex with men (MSM) and HIV in South Africa
HIV prevalence among men who have sex with men (MSM) in South Africa is an estimated 9.9 percent with roughly 9.2 percent of all new HIV infections in the country related to this group
- See more at: http://www.avert.org/hiv-aids-south-africa.htm#sthash.ayLJVzzt.dpuf
Lets draw a line under it for now. The effect of Gay marriage, if any, will become visible in about a generation or so, at least in the relevant parts of the world.
FJ, I think there is a middle ground to be found. We're setting ourselves up for chaos if we truly believe we can be EITHER OR. Just a few thoughts I had as I read throught the comments...
I hate, really hate, the word "cougar". It's one more way to objectify women, and it doesn't help anything. Women, like men, continue to be sexual well-past child bearing years. I don't understand why it's such a phenomenon that we have to label it and make a big deal of it. But then, female sexuality in itself is a fascinating topic to many people. I still don't understand why.
I think it has to do with sex being taboo, since...Biblical times? I don't know.
Why do fememists not support motherhood? (or something to that effect) It's just one more way that today's "feminists" undercut themselves and lose the support of thinking women along the way. In my simplified view, feminism should advocate the betterment of women everywhere. But then, we would have to decide what would equal "betterment". That's where I diverge from today's feminists.
I see so many young women claiming to be feminists, because they can watch porn, participate in porn, and generally be as depraved as any man can. Well? Congratulations? I'd rather see women making scientific breakthroughs or starting successful companies. I really don't care, just do something to better yourself and the world around you. Motherhood is BY FAR, the most demanding thing I do. The responsibility of it usually overwhelms me and renders me paralyzed. I'm working on it, though.
But this, like any other argument, feels pointless to me. The only value it has is what I can teach my own children. I don't argue with other women because it is pointless. I don't try to define what a "good" mother is, either.
As far as a woman being EITHER Mary Magdelene OR Mary mother of Christ, it never happens. In my life, I've never met a woman who isn't some of both.
p.s. I think it's HILARIOUS that a lot of bloggers think I'm a "feminazi". (another stupid word that helps nothing). Talk about not taking the time to get to know someone...
p.p.s. as I read my comment, it came across as self-righteous. I don't mean for it to. My experiences in life have given me more empathy...which is why I don't believe that any woman is EITHER OR. One of my best friends in high school was the picture-perfect church girl...on the outside. At night, she snuck out to be with her boyfriend. On the other hand, the girls that people call "slut" and "whore" and sometimes the ones with the biggest hearts. Anyway, I don't like these labels. Do we label men like this?
There are a lot of 'expressions' of feminism that are the exact opposite of it. 'Grrrlpower' a la 'Spice Girls for one. Prancing around in male-desirable attire empowers no one. But it 'pays $$$$$ to sleep with the enemy', you know?
Jen, meet Gert... Gert, Jen is the friend I mentioned at the outset of this thread who had been invited to a retreat to discuss Mary Magdalene and Mary, Mother of Jesus.
@ Jen,
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that either/or were the only options. Although I did mean to imply that women who try and fail to meet the "mother of Jesus" standard do very likely withdraw from society if they failed to achieve it, rather than adopt the Magdalene for role model. The "shame" is something they'd prefer not to deal with.
And you know me, I'm polemical, and so labels like "cougar" flow pretty naturally. ;) I'm sure there are better descriptive terms.
As for modern feminism, I think they've discovered that money and achieving a certain detached "social distance" from others outside of the family is pretty empowering. It's something men have normally taken for granted. What remains to be seen is how "society" will now deal with children and reproduction. Whither the family? Or the Fordism/post-Fordism of a "Brave New World"?
As for modern feminism, I think they've discovered that money and achieving a certain detached "social distance" from others outside of the family is pretty empowering.
Agreed but I don’t think ‘true feminism’ is as dead as you make out yet. Defanged by Capitalism, yes.
Don't get me wrong, Gert. I think it's still possible to "Fall" and "Be" in 'true love'. I'm just saying that marriage, as an institution and model for the common man, is on the decline, and what is "replacing" it still remains a bit up in the air. Charles Murray speaks of 'Fishtown' and 'Belmont' (Belmont representing traditional marriage), and how the 'Belmont" model is becoming passe. That doesn't mean that people won't be getting married and having children... but I'm suggesting that even for those in the 'Belmont' class, surrogacy and the like will become an increasingly attractive option.
And who knows, given that corporations seem to have fully attained 'personhood', there's little to prevent them from 'growing their own workers' in the future, or perhaps even more likely, importing the best and brightest on H1B visas as the 'left-behind' become more and more the disposable homo sacer of a throw away, consumerist society.
Blimey, that really WOULD be a Brave New World. Brrrr...
I think you might want to start putting pen to paper now, seriously Farmer.
If there is one thing I've learned from my long science career, it's that all scientific and technological progress serves economic interests, so you might not be far wrong there.
If I were now to rewrite the book, I would offer the Savage a third alternative. Between the Utopian and primitive horns of his dilemma would lie the possibility of sanity... In this community economics would be decentralist and Henry-Georgian, politics Kropotkinesque and co-operative. Science and technology would be used as though, like the Sabbath, they had been made for man, not (as at present and still more so in the Brave New World) as though man were to be adapted and enslaved to them. Religion would be the conscious and intelligent pursuit of man's Final End, the unitive knowledge of immanent Tao or Logos, the transcendent Godhead or Brahman. And the prevailing philosophy of life would be a kind of Higher Utilitarianism, in which the Greatest Happiness principle would be secondary to the Final End principle – the first question to be asked and answered in every contingency of life being: "How will this thought or action contribute to, or interfere with, the achievement, by me and the greatest possible number of other individuals, of man's Final End?"
Hi Gert. You guys can really get off on a tangent. :-) But I agree with what you said about modern feminism. when I hear about women in afghanistan in iran making so much progress, I realize that the original idea will never die.
In the West the 'feminist revolution' stalled, co-opted by capitalism/neoliberalism. But in many parts of the world it hasn't even begun yet, we should not forget that!
Does anyone really believe that the SYRIZA government has an "alternative" plan? I don't. Their plan is to borrow as much as possible and pay back as little as possible. That's not an "alternative". THAT is the status quo. An alternative would be to ban corporations and "charter" certain necessary ones. There would be twenty years of economic hardship, but after that small, individually held businesses would be thriving.
He's a "theory" guy, not a mechanic. But having the right theory would be helpful. I like the Delphic meden agan, but that's about as far as my dim light leads me.
Small is beautiful has other drawbacks but having thought about that, I can live w/o the unbridled technological ‘progress’ that mainly serves the pockets of the 0.1 %.
We could all stop fiddling with our “iStuff” and go for a walk in a forest or something. Far more interesting and definitely healthier too.
If you look at poor kids making a toy gun from a piece of wood or a football from a bundle of plastic bags, then observe a rich kid with a full size air conditioned toy car, who is the happiest? Seems to make almost no difference, AT ALL. (In the case of Woody Allen you’d make the ‘toy’ gun from a bar of soap, of course!)
I’m not advocating poverty of course, should that not be clear.
We agree. Large has it's uses, it can squeeze every inefficiency out of a vital product (ie.- transportation), but inefficiencies in "distribution" can also allow for market segmentation and cultural divergence.
Actually, there is a certain commensurability between the first and second Constitutional Amendments that deserves acknowledgement every once and a while... ;)
Gert, did you see this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BszzS7HfwDw
Try to not focus on Gellar. What do you think about what the imam says? Are his statements reasonable?
If he (as a Muslim) says that Gellar deserves to be killed like a pig, because she doesn't observe (or respect) Muslim customs, should we as a "free" society support his kind of behavior? I mean, he has the right to rant and rave like a lunatic, but should we fear him? Make laws to protect his sacred book / images / beliefs?
I see these emblems on cars all the time. They are in the shape of the icthus, but they have feet coming from the bottom. Inside the fish, it says "Darwin". I supopse it's mocking the Christian viewpoint of Creation. I have yet to see one of these cars smashed and destroyed because the driver is making light of (or mocking) Christanity.
I didn't know people had gone to such lengths to parody the icthus... In Egypt, fundamentalist Muslims have even created their own version of a shark eating the fish. Interesting. So...it's okay to make fun of Christian beliefs...but it doesn't apply to Islam?
I'm just curious why the double standard? Why is Islam set apart?
Dont' get me wrong. I don't care who mocks Christianity. I just think it's very dangerous to set one group apart like this.
I'm just curious what your thoughts are here. I don't think this issue is about religion at all, by the way. I recently had a very confusing conversation about this with a very dear friend of mine, and I was saddened to see that we have such different approaches. I think he misunderstood me, but I'm still trying to figure out why reasonable people are in such disagreement about it.
Anjem Chokkers is a known nut, not worth listening to. Neither is Pampams, they deserve each other, BTW. Trust Faux Snooze to get these two on one program!
Do you want a list of nutty Belgians, Americans (put Shammity high up there, please), Christians, Jews, Atheists, feminists? (List non-exhaustive)
As long as you keep judging a group by its worst, you won’t get it. Simples.
I wouldn’t call them Feminazis but there were, back in those heady days, some feminists that were extremely radical and openly hated men. Representative of feminism?
Disaster. I’m out of Chimay!
The 'walking fish' is a symbol of Evolution. So what? If that offends anyone, I don't know what wouldn't.
Exactly! The walking fish is mocking a Christian symbol (the icthus). But nobody is killed over it. It doesn't offend me. But drawing cartoons of Muhammad gets people killed. I was pointing out the obvious.
Have a good weekend, fellas! Don't waste too many minutes online. :-)
p.s. FJ, I just finished A Tale of Two Cities (first time reading it since high school). Ugh. Talk about the perfect female! Can you say Lucy Manette?!
p.p.s. Even though I love to crochet, I am no Madame Defarge. ;-)
112 comments:
In plain English:
'Fear of predatory pederasts disguised as teh Ghey surrogate parents.'
Am I right or am I right? ;-)
That's one way to read this post.
But a friend of mine recently spoke of being invited to a retreat to discuss "The Two Mary's: Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Christ"
And so we see the historical social options of women exemplified... either the accepted marriage/ motherhood, or a "shameful" retreat/ withdrawl from social life. Yet surely Magdalene is the stronger example of a woman deserving of social leaderhsip and responsibility, isn't she?
Oooopsie: Another anti-gay Pastor bites the dust
Will address your point later on.
Nice link.
Mary Magdalene, of course, but:
either the accepted marriage/ motherhood, or a "shameful" retreat/ withdrawl from social life
... seems such a false dichotomy to me?
Perhaps. But I'm thinking of people like Emily Dickinson, from the day when women either married, or became Ms. Havesham.
Is this the dawning of the new age of socially accpeted "Cougars"?
Maybe it was 'either or' back back in the days of 'Real' Men/'Real' Women, but not any more.
'Cougars' must be an Americanism. Menoget. 'Splain?
Sure...
We seem to have an entered an era when non-procreative sex is celebrated as the epitome of human fulfillment. Yet, where is the female Hugh Hefner, who celebrates the "inherent sterility" of her "freely-chosen" lifestyle
She seems to be, as of yet, still missing from the socially-desirable outcomes set. We have "Real slutty but married Housewives". But where is the single mother with eight Baby Daddy's being celebrated in our culture? And if not, why not?
In the animal kingdom, the super-procreative female is the "Queen" of the colony. But in human society, she ranks lower than the drone.
Why do femininsts so disdain motherhood?
...and I think that it comes back to postmodernism. The authoritative compulsion to Enjoy! ...but only in the safer-consequence varieties. Decaffeinated sexuality makes for increased "worker availability" and less time off for dependent care. Capital smilaes all the way to the bank!
erratum "consequence-free" for 'consequence' above.
Even Mary Kay Latorneau sought the socially acceptable safe-haven of marriage, a place that even homosexuals seek social "sanction" in.
In Ireland, a contractual equivalent to marriage (civil union) proved insufficient. It's a quest for total social acceptance, much as a "degree" serves as a symbolic proxy for 'an education'. Today's gays are chasing rainbows and unicorns. There is little "redemption" to be found in the practice of sodomy.
If gays are to find it, they will need new symbols once the old ones (ie- marriage) prove themselves the 'empty vessels' that they truly are.
And so the battle over sexuality's meaning marks a new 'Round'.
HUMBUG!
But where is the single mother with eight Baby Daddy's being celebrated in our culture? And if not, why not?
Not sure but she's much more an obsession with the Christian Right than with anyone else.
The authoritative compulsion to Enjoy! ...but only in the safer-consequence varieties. Decaffeinated sexuality makes for increased "worker availability" and less time off for dependent care. Capital smiles all the way to the bank!
No contest.
Feminism saw child bearing as an obligation imposed by male patriarchy and thus an instrument of oppression. They haven't moved on from that.
Much of Marie Antoinette's misfortune lay in her and Louis VI not hitting it off right away (although the male system was to blame for a few years, it appears) and producing heirs a bit later than expected. Then there was Le Petit Trianon, where in the vox populi's mind unspeakable sexual excesses were played out. (France and Belgium have plenty of modern brothels called 'Trianon'). ;-)
Louie Louis, said we gotta go, baby!
she's much more an obsession with the Christian Right than with anyone else.
As a "tragic figure", not kore (ideals). Ideology (patriarchical) will never change if the "dreams" remain the same.
in the vox populi's mind unspeakable sexual excesses were played out...
lol! ...the aristocrats!
They haven't moved on from that.
ergo, neither has the Patriarchy.
ps - Not helpful, FT. "Why" is it HUMBUG?
If I use a condom is that nooky 'not redemptive'?
The Aristocrats, yes, but Marie Antoinette was as prim and proper as Mrs Grundy! (I saw it on PBS so it must be true!)
Happy Memorial Day, BTW!
Thanks. And a Happy Spring Bank Holiday to you. ;)
If I use a condom is that nooky 'not redemptive'?
I give up. Do you find anything "redemptive" in it? Some 'surplus' value that you can build a symbolic around other than disposable consumerism?
I don't really understand the point. E.g. long before contraception was around, did people only have sex to procreate?
And how is making love to my wife (non-pro-creatively) consumerist or non-redemptive? We have one daughter, the apple of my eye, of course.
And she never said that thing about eating cake either! ;-)
The point is that you have a daughter, something that redeems the act and lends some goodness to it.
Yes, one can argue that through sex comes a "relief" from pain, but that relief would eventually come (every 21-23 days for a man, 28 days for a woman) via a nocturnal emission or period whether one engaged in the act or not.
And yes, "biblical" people, "Catholic" people who DON'T believe in "birth control" only have sex to procreate, or to take a chance at procreating. They don't masturbate, they don't commit acts of sodomy.
Yes, one can argue that through sex comes a "relief" from pain, but that relief would eventually come (every 21-23 days for a man, 28 days for a woman) via a nocturnal emission or period whether one engaged in the act or not.
And yes, "biblical" people, "Catholic" people who DON'T believe in "birth control" only have sex to procreate, or to take a chance at procreating. They don't masturbate, they don't commit acts of sodomy.
C’mon, FJ, now it’s my turn to call HUMBUG!
Sex is soooo much more than a bit of ‘relief’! The women I’ve loved, for the most part… I adored the ground they walked on. (There was that one at ‘Le Trianon’ that wasn’t so satisfactory ;-) ). ‘Good sex’ is almost sacred.
Catholics who don’t believe in birth control (what’s with the quote marks?) don’t do ‘BAD SEX’? Who knew? This is so counter-factual it’s not worth refuting. In your mind maybe but not in the real world.
You are a product of your Age, Gert. And it is only in the "Modern" Age that your views have developed currency.
You are a product of your Age, Gert. And it is only in the "Modern" Age that your views have developed currency.
No doubt. Is modernity per se bad?
To require sex to be redemptive is to require it to be sinful firstly.
Ideas about the sinfulness of sexuality are also relatively recent (Christianity) and have morphed a good deal too.
Xtian ideas about sodomy became quite obsessive when it was found some priests (Middle middle ages) were indulging in it too.
I've watched your video and can see now why your question was posed. I think it would have helped to elaborate a little though. A question invites an answer, no?
To require sex to be redemptive is to require it to be sinful firstly.
No, it requires it to be "healthful" first. The Modern Age has brought many remedies for STDs past, but there are still some for which there are no cures. And the practice of sodomy has exacerbated many of their pathologies. AIDS comes to mind, as it is 100x more transmittable in male homosexuals.
So given the "ill" health effects, please help identify the "positives"... the "redemptive" qualities.
I look at the Bible as the equivalent of a Ancient Medical Dictionary, filled with "prescriptions" for proper health maintenance. Jewish Dietary Laws were a health guarantee long before bacteria and virus were ever identified.
So given the "ill" health effects, please help identify the "positives"... the "redemptive" qualities.
Happiness.
AIDS is an infectious disease, much like any other. We fight those with science and medicine, not bigotry. The latter point is important because many infectious diseases (or rather their sufferers) were stigmatised in the past, often by 'religious' stances.
One of Mankind's biggest enemies are infectious diseases and that War is far from over. 'Holy books' now can do very little to help and mostly obfuscate and obstruct real progress.
Jewish Dietary Laws were a health guarantee long before bacteria and virus were ever identified.
And 2,000 years of endless embroidering on those basic laws have generated a body of work that is today almost 100 % ritualistic in nature. 'Kasherizing' often takes absurd forms. Deep cleaning a kitchen is a good thing of course but you hardly need to be Jewish to do so. And other cultures understand that too. The world isn't 4,000 years old, FJ.
There’s twit (I call him 'Dumbass from Donbass', that’s where he’s from) on a science forum I hang out at, who believes the ‘US has spread AIDS across the world’. This is a disease which has generated loads of conspiracy stuff.
I also really hate that kind of 'secondary arguments' that Xtians so often use against homos. We know, we know: G-d's supposed to be against it, so why not stick to your guns and shut up already about AIDS!
Ooops: 'There's a twit [...]', of course...
We fight those with science and medicine, not bigotry.
Quarantines and prosciptions on certain behaviours ARE science and medicine. THAT is where "bigotry" (By Gott!) originates. Talk of "bigotry" is what "obfuscates".
For example, I have pancreatis. I can't drink alchohol. That isn't the "Bible" telling me not to do something harmful to me, that is my DOCTOR telling me not to do it. Believe me when I say, I'd love to blame my affliction on the doctor's "bigotry" and keep on drinking. But every time I do, I end up in the E.R.
Yes, the Bible is outdated in certain areas, as was Galen's Anatomy and Humour theories. But it was the best "science" available in its' time.
...and yes, 'happiness' is a redemptive quality. But it largely offset by 'sadness'. The sadness of discovering that I have an STD, have infected my partner, and that they may die because I indulge in HIGH RISK sexual behaviours. I've heard that the average homosexuals life expectancy is 12 years less than a heterosexuals. This ISN'T because of homophobia (as the writer claims). It's because of AIDS.
Western reliance upon "Science" instead of the Bible has already impacted homosexual lifestyles to the tune of a dozen years less life.
And given Obama's stance on the Ebola outbreak, his "no bigotry - no quarantine" policy almost cost the world a much larger problem...
As for AIDS, the cat long ago escaped out of THAT politically correct bag... 7.6 million deaths... and "science" keeping another 35 million on VERY EXPENSIVE LIFE SUPPORT.
Ecclesiastes, Ch 1
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
1 in 5 homosexuals in America have AIDS 1 in 10 don't know that they have it.
Look, I read ‘And The Band Played On’, in the late 80s and agreed how much of the gay community had shot itself in the foot in those early, heady days of AIDS.
But homophobic bigotry is much like any other form of racism: it takes on all kind of forms. Homophobia existed long, long before AIDS, much like antisemitism existed long before the Nazi expression of it.
For much of the anti-gay community AIDS is simply gefundenes fressen.
Thanks for the links.
And stop blathering on about PC! :-)
Call it homophobic bigotry if you like. But I'm sure that the catamite or Eromenos companion to an Erastes on the Theban and Spartan battlefields would have preferred not being used as a blow up doll, much as many a Catholic altar boy resented being fondled by His Holiness before Mass. But then, when you're forced to join the Agoge at age seven, you've got to do what it takes to survive.
Vaginal sex (penis in the vagina) is the second highest-risk sexual behaviour.
How come it isn't stigmatised, FJ?
How come MALE homosexuality is so more hated than its lesbian variant?
Pffff...
Re-reading the book via Wiki’s entry. I can remember just how much blame there was to go around:
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the agency responsible for tracking down and reporting all communicable diseases in the U.S., faced governmental apathy in the face of mounting crisis. Shilts reported how CDC epidemiologists forged ahead blindly after being denied funding for researching the disease repeatedly. Shilts expressed particular frustration describing instances of the CDC fighting with itself over how much time and attention was being paid to AIDS issues.[26]
Although Reagan Administration officials like Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler and Assistant Secretary Edward Brandt spoke publicly about the epidemic, calling it in 1983 its "Number One Health Priority" no extra funding was given to the Centers for Disease Control or the National Institutes of Health for research.[27] What the U.S. Congress pushed through was highly politicized and embattled, and a fraction of what was spent on similar public health problems.[28]
Shilts made comparisons to the government's disparate reaction to the Chicago Tylenol murders, and the recent emergence ofLegionnaire's Disease in 1977. In October 1982, seven people died after ingesting cyanide-laden Tylenol capsules. The New York Timeswrote a front-page story about the Tylenol scare every day in October, and produced 33 more stories about the issue after that. More than 100 law enforcement agents, and 1,100 Food and Drug Administration employees worked on the case. Johnson & Johnson disclosed they spent $100 million attempting to uncover who had tampered with the bottles. In October 1982, 634 people were reported having AIDS, and of those, 260 had died. The New York Times wrote three stories in 1981 and three more stories in 1982 about AIDS, none on the front page.[29] The Tylenol Crisis was a criminal act of product-tampering; Legionnaire's Disease was a public health emergency. Twenty-nine members of the American Legion died in 1976 at a convention in Philadelphia. The National Institute of Health spent $34,841 per death of Legionnaire's Disease. In contrast, the NIH spent $3,225 in 1981 and about $8,991 in 1982 for each person who died of AIDS.[30]
Shilts accused Ronald Reagan of neglecting to address AIDS to the American people until 1987—calling his behavior "ritualistic silence"—even after Reagan called friend Rock Hudson to tell him to get well.[31] After Hudson's death and in the face of increasing public anxiety, Reagan directed Surgeon General C. Everett Koop to provide a report on the epidemic. Though Koop was a political conservative, his report was nevertheless clear about what causes AIDS and what people and the U.S. government should do to stop it, including sex and AIDS education provided for all people.[32]
On a civic level, the closure of gay bathhouses in San Francisco became a bitter political fight in the gay community. Activists put pressure on the San Francisco Public Health director to educate people about how AIDS is transmitted, and demanded he close bathhouses as a matter of public health.[33]
How come it isn't stigmatised, FJ?
Because there can't be human reproduction w/o it, or it's new test-tube Dr. Frankenstein equivalents?
How come MALE homosexuality is so more hated than its lesbian variant? Because lesbians don't go around raping men?
My how things have changed. AIDS expenditures now account for over 1/10th of Reagan's Defense Budget ($300B in the 80's)
Given the promiscuity now being advocated, it'll likely need to double within another generation.
Sexual deviance, including of the CRIMINAL type, isn't confined to any particular group, FJ. You know that too.
Just finished watching first hand (coppers) accounts of the Jimmy Saville (and his associate) affair. Countless under-age girls damaged for life. By a male heterosexual celebrity.
Currently watching the FBI Files on PBS about James DeBardeleben II, a prolific male hetero sex predator. 375 years of porridge.
Gay marriage WILL turn many male gays much less promiscuous, that's a strong argument in favour.
You've had your share of health problems. Hope things are bearable. Health is like your well: you don't miss the water until your well runs dry.
Rape is largely confined to males. Welcome to the new agoge. Have you picked your Erastes yet inr the Sacred Band tent-swap?
Sanctioning gay marriage will lead to sanctioning male-female sodomy. You think AIDS is bad now, just wait until America's numbers catch up to S. Africa's %'s in the hetero-transmitted category.
Agreed of course that sex sells and that gratuitous 'enjoyment' is being promoted cos $$$$ - ££££. But I see that as a different problem entirely.
You tell me I'm a child of my age. Sure. But I think your religious upbringing colours your view too. (Where would we be w/o a bit of howaboutery, eh?)
Culture used to be a shield. The culture wars have turned it into a spear.
Sanctioning gay marriage will lead to sanctioning male-female sodomy. You think AIDS is bad now, just wait until America's numbers catch up to S. Africa's %'s in the hetero-transmitted category.
Humbug. Where the hell are you getting that idea from???
As regards the numbers. I'm willing to bet on it.
I had a very liberal sexual upbringing. I have a gay brother and a gay son. I was a merchant seaman, and a rather libertine one at that. I'm not speaking from sexual ignorance.
ps - I may have been raised a Lutheran, but I became agnostic and now consider myself a non-Christian Deist.
Will look at your latest post too. On the morrow. Night, Farmer.
Night!
On South Africa...
South Africa has the biggest and most high profile HIV epidemic in the world. In 2012, an estimated 6.1 million people were living with HIV, with 240,000 South Africans dying from AIDS-related illnesses. 1
South Africa has the largest antiretroviral treatment rollout programme in the world. Life expectancy has also increased by 5 years since the height of the epidemic. 2 Moreover, these efforts have been largely financed from its own domestic resources. The country now invests more than $1 billion annually to run its HIV and AIDS programmes. 3
However, HIV prevalence remains high (17.9 percent) among the general population, although it varies markedly between regions. 4 For example, HIV prevalence is almost 40 percent Kwazulu Natal compared with 18 percent in Northern Cape and Western Cape. 5 For a more detailed breakdown, visit our South Africa HIV and AIDS statistics page.
Men who have sex with men (MSM) and HIV in South Africa
HIV prevalence among men who have sex with men (MSM) in South Africa is an estimated 9.9 percent with roughly 9.2 percent of all new HIV infections in the country related to this group
- See more at: http://www.avert.org/hiv-aids-south-africa.htm#sthash.ayLJVzzt.dpuf
Ok. Your last points have been noted.
Lets draw a line under it for now. The effect of Gay marriage, if any, will become visible in about a generation or so, at least in the relevant parts of the world.
FJ, I think there is a middle ground to be found. We're setting ourselves up for chaos if we truly believe we can be EITHER OR.
Just a few thoughts I had as I read throught the comments...
I hate, really hate, the word "cougar". It's one more way to objectify women, and it doesn't help anything. Women, like men, continue to be sexual well-past child bearing years. I don't understand why it's such a phenomenon that we have to label it and make a big deal of it. But then, female sexuality in itself is a fascinating topic to many people. I still don't understand why.
I think it has to do with sex being taboo, since...Biblical times? I don't know.
Why do fememists not support motherhood? (or something to that effect) It's just one more way that today's "feminists" undercut themselves and lose the support of thinking women along the way. In my simplified view, feminism should advocate the betterment of women everywhere. But then, we would have to decide what would equal "betterment". That's where I diverge from today's feminists.
I see so many young women claiming to be feminists, because they can watch porn, participate in porn, and generally be as depraved as any man can. Well? Congratulations? I'd rather see women making scientific breakthroughs or starting successful companies. I really don't care, just do something to better yourself and the world around you. Motherhood is BY FAR, the most demanding thing I do. The responsibility of it usually overwhelms me and renders me paralyzed. I'm working on it, though.
But this, like any other argument, feels pointless to me. The only value it has is what I can teach my own children. I don't argue with other women because it is pointless. I don't try to define what a "good" mother is, either.
As far as a woman being EITHER Mary Magdelene OR Mary mother of Christ, it never happens. In my life, I've never met a woman who isn't some of both.
p.s. I think it's HILARIOUS that a lot of bloggers think I'm a "feminazi". (another stupid word that helps nothing). Talk about not taking the time to get to know someone...
p.p.s. as I read my comment, it came across as self-righteous. I don't mean for it to. My experiences in life have given me more empathy...which is why I don't believe that any woman is EITHER OR. One of my best friends in high school was the picture-perfect church girl...on the outside. At night, she snuck out to be with her boyfriend. On the other hand, the girls that people call "slut" and "whore" and sometimes the ones with the biggest hearts. Anyway, I don't like these labels. Do we label men like this?
Feminazi, that's so disgusting. :(
There are a lot of 'expressions' of feminism that are the exact opposite of it. 'Grrrlpower' a la 'Spice Girls for one. Prancing around in male-desirable attire empowers no one. But it 'pays $$$$$ to sleep with the enemy', you know?
'Sluts' and 'whores' and the Madonna complex. Patriarchy has always venerated and despised women in equal amounts. Not quite there yet today either...
Jen, meet Gert... Gert, Jen is the friend I mentioned at the outset of this thread who had been invited to a retreat to discuss Mary Magdalene and Mary, Mother of Jesus.
@ Jen,
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that either/or were the only options. Although I did mean to imply that women who try and fail to meet the "mother of Jesus" standard do very likely withdraw from society if they failed to achieve it, rather than adopt the Magdalene for role model. The "shame" is something they'd prefer not to deal with.
And you know me, I'm polemical, and so labels like "cougar" flow pretty naturally. ;) I'm sure there are better descriptive terms.
As for modern feminism, I think they've discovered that money and achieving a certain detached "social distance" from others outside of the family is pretty empowering. It's something men have normally taken for granted. What remains to be seen is how "society" will now deal with children and reproduction. Whither the family? Or the Fordism/post-Fordism of a "Brave New World"?
IMO - Surrogacy is the "capital marketization" of the feminine. And so even "the feminine" and "feminism" has succumbed to capitalism.
Want a child? Buy an egg, buy some sperm and rent a womb! And if they can find a way of speeding up the 9 month process, they will!
ps - I can also slip a few "genetic enhancements" into the DNA mix and produce you a real Vunderkind (or if you can afford it, a few dozen)!
Hi Jen (again):
Farmer:
As for modern feminism, I think they've discovered that money and achieving a certain detached "social distance" from others outside of the family is pretty empowering.
Agreed but I don’t think ‘true feminism’ is as dead as you make out yet. Defanged by Capitalism, yes.
Proof that ‘true love’ still exists too, here! Come on in...
Don't get me wrong, Gert. I think it's still possible to "Fall" and "Be" in 'true love'. I'm just saying that marriage, as an institution and model for the common man, is on the decline, and what is "replacing" it still remains a bit up in the air. Charles Murray speaks of 'Fishtown' and 'Belmont' (Belmont representing traditional marriage), and how the 'Belmont" model is becoming passe. That doesn't mean that people won't be getting married and having children... but I'm suggesting that even for those in the 'Belmont' class, surrogacy and the like will become an increasingly attractive option.
And who knows, given that corporations seem to have fully attained 'personhood', there's little to prevent them from 'growing their own workers' in the future, or perhaps even more likely, importing the best and brightest on H1B visas as the 'left-behind' become more and more the disposable homo sacer of a throw away, consumerist society.
Blimey, that really WOULD be a Brave New World. Brrrr...
I think you might want to start putting pen to paper now, seriously Farmer.
If there is one thing I've learned from my long science career, it's that all scientific and technological progress serves economic interests, so you might not be far wrong there.
'Farmer's Diaries', A Dystopian Novel, would have a ring to it!
'In 2047, in a small town in Oceania, IngCap industrialists were building the second human R2D2 factory, [...]'
It would practically write itself. I reserve the Rights!
A tale of hubris, corruption, true love, rebellion, a war against the Humanoids and the terminal decline of Human Civilisation.
I'm more of an "Island" fan... the minute you establish your Utopia, some 'foreign' b*stards sneak in and tear it down.
If I were now to rewrite the book, I would offer the Savage a third alternative. Between the Utopian and primitive horns of his dilemma would lie the possibility of sanity... In this community economics would be decentralist and Henry-Georgian, politics Kropotkinesque and co-operative. Science and technology would be used as though, like the Sabbath, they had been made for man, not (as at present and still more so in the Brave New World) as though man were to be adapted and enslaved to them. Religion would be the conscious and intelligent pursuit of man's Final End, the unitive knowledge of immanent Tao or Logos, the transcendent Godhead or Brahman. And the prevailing philosophy of life would be a kind of Higher Utilitarianism, in which the Greatest Happiness principle would be secondary to the Final End principle – the first question to be asked and answered in every contingency of life being: "How will this thought or action contribute to, or interfere with, the achievement, by me and the greatest possible number of other individuals, of man's Final End?"
the minute you establish your Utopia, some 'foreign' b*stards sneak in and tear it down.
Tuttut, now where did you get that idea from? We was only spreadin' a lill' Democracy and Freedomses(TM)!
...so that we could "set-up" someone who could sell us all your oil.... ;)
'sell'? That wasn't part of the plan! I'd be more Rockefellerish about that.
Second Chimay (the 'Double', Nl. 'dubbel') opened. The glass has a little Fleur de Lys etched in the bottom. Just to remind us... ;-)
“In the good old days, when we saw a person in a straw skirt we nicked their country.”
Blackadder Goes Forth
"Sell" establishes the system. Gotta make "allies".
Hi Gert.
You guys can really get off on a tangent.
:-)
But I agree with what you said about modern feminism. when I hear about women in afghanistan in iran making so much progress, I realize that the original idea will never die.
Hi Jen,
Nice to meet you, finally!
You guys can really get off on a tangent.
Yeah, but it's all true! ;-)
In the West the 'feminist revolution' stalled, co-opted by capitalism/neoliberalism. But in many parts of the world it hasn't even begun yet, we should not forget that!
Farmer:
A very decent piece at Salon.com here: Greece, Ukraine and neoliberalism.
Jen:
Errrmm... there was nothing "self-righteous" about it. Stand up and be counted.
Does anyone really believe that the SYRIZA government has an "alternative" plan? I don't. Their plan is to borrow as much as possible and pay back as little as possible. That's not an "alternative". THAT is the status quo. An alternative would be to ban corporations and "charter" certain necessary ones. There would be twenty years of economic hardship, but after that small, individually held businesses would be thriving.
...but then, it's much more complicated than that!
Agreed on SYRIZA but they're about the only party standing up to austerity, that's why hesitantly I would support them.
I fell for that 'too big to fail' crap too. Can't believe I sucked that, with hindsight. I blame da Jooooos (NOT)
It's time to get 'programmatic' about 'our' anti-Neoliberal 'party'. Slavoj isn't really helpful there.
He's a "theory" guy, not a mechanic. But having the right theory would be helpful. I like the Delphic meden agan, but that's about as far as my dim light leads me.
'It's far more complicated than that!'... that's what the Zionists always claim. Must be 'The Swindler's Adage' or somefink.
Yes, 'ask the right questions'.
I loved that short interview where he says 'let them read my emails, they might learn something!'
Small is beautiful has other drawbacks but having thought about that, I can live w/o the unbridled technological ‘progress’ that mainly serves the pockets of the 0.1 %.
We could all stop fiddling with our “iStuff” and go for a walk in a forest or something. Far more interesting and definitely healthier too.
If you look at poor kids making a toy gun from a piece of wood or a football from a bundle of plastic bags, then observe a rich kid with a full size air conditioned toy car, who is the happiest? Seems to make almost no difference, AT ALL. (In the case of Woody Allen you’d make the ‘toy’ gun from a bar of soap, of course!)
I’m not advocating poverty of course, should that not be clear.
We agree. Large has it's uses, it can squeeze every inefficiency out of a vital product (ie.- transportation), but inefficiencies in "distribution" can also allow for market segmentation and cultural divergence.
O/T (OTT?):
Gun-toting muzzie-haters crap on about ‘tolerance’ (Bring your own crayons).
Meden agan, maybe?
Actually, there is a certain commensurability between the first and second Constitutional Amendments that deserves acknowledgement every once and a while... ;)
Gert,
did you see this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BszzS7HfwDw
Try to not focus on Gellar.
What do you think about what the imam says?
Are his statements reasonable?
If he (as a Muslim) says that Gellar deserves to be killed like a pig, because she doesn't observe (or respect) Muslim customs, should we as a "free" society support his kind of behavior? I mean, he has the right to rant and rave like a lunatic, but should we fear him? Make laws to protect his sacred book / images / beliefs?
I see these emblems on cars all the time. They are in the shape of the icthus, but they have feet coming from the bottom. Inside the fish, it says "Darwin". I supopse it's mocking the Christian viewpoint of Creation. I have yet to see one of these cars smashed and destroyed because the driver is making light of (or mocking) Christanity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variations_of_the_ichthys_symbol
I didn't know people had gone to such lengths to parody the icthus... In Egypt, fundamentalist Muslims have even created their own version of a shark eating the fish. Interesting. So...it's okay to make fun of Christian beliefs...but it doesn't apply to Islam?
I'm just curious why the double standard? Why is Islam set apart?
Dont' get me wrong. I don't care who mocks Christianity. I just think it's very dangerous to set one group apart like this.
I'm just curious what your thoughts are here. I don't think this issue is about religion at all, by the way. I recently had a very confusing conversation about this with a very dear friend of mine, and I was saddened to see that we have such different approaches. I think he misunderstood me, but I'm still trying to figure out why reasonable people are in such disagreement about it.
Jen,
Anjem Chokkers is a known nut, not worth listening to. Neither is Pampams, they deserve each other, BTW. Trust Faux Snooze to get these two on one program!
Do you want a list of nutty Belgians, Americans (put Shammity high up there, please), Christians, Jews, Atheists, feminists? (List non-exhaustive)
As long as you keep judging a group by its worst, you won’t get it. Simples.
I wouldn’t call them Feminazis but there were, back in those heady days, some feminists that were extremely radical and openly hated men. Representative of feminism?
Disaster. I’m out of Chimay!
The 'walking fish' is a symbol of Evolution. So what? If that offends anyone, I don't know what wouldn't.
Jen:
Insult Islam to your heart's content. Whatever makes you happy. You've got my 'blessing'. But it doesn't lead anywhere...
Exactly! The walking fish is mocking a Christian symbol (the icthus). But nobody is killed over it. It doesn't offend me. But drawing cartoons of Muhammad gets people killed. I was pointing out the obvious.
I'm not judging a group by its worst, I'm trying to point out an inconsistency.
I think we're in agreement, anyway.
:-)
Jen:
I was pointing out the obvious.
Sure. You need Anjem Crackernuts for that? ;-) Another 5 mins of my life I'll never get back...
Good thing that there's always the tube... ;)
Have a good weekend, fellas!
Don't waste too many minutes online. :-)
p.s. FJ, I just finished A Tale of Two Cities (first time reading it since high school). Ugh. Talk about the perfect female! Can you say Lucy Manette?!
p.p.s. Even though I love to crochet, I am no Madame Defarge. ;-)
@ Jen,
I'll try!
And I don't think I've ever read the Tale. :(
Have a Great weekend!
I'm not as bad as Homey. Plus I've always got a stash of cider.
Watching 'Kit Carson' on PBS. The Gallery of Human Barstools is near-infinite.
Great Ulster-Scot? Or Great "American"?
I guess that since it's a PBS series and not a BBC one, it must be the latter. ;)
I gotta get a new avatar... ;)
Yank v. Yorkshire psychos...
Haha, very good.
Blackadder:
'The Germans stole our entire supply of lavatory paper'.
KIT Carson: Slayer of Apaches and Navaho. From a liberal PoV, naturellement...
Next week: Ronnie Raygun! Yaaayy!
Post a Comment