(no subject)
Jul. 25th, 2006 06:28 pmSo I'm surfing the internet (is for porn) and came across this website where they dress girls like it's the 1950's and tie up young boys with duct tape. No, really.
Depends on what you mean by wrong, I guess. We've got Freedom of Religion (though I'm always carefully reminded that this does not mean Freedom from Religion by those who are all about the Godhead) in this country. It's in the Bill of Rights, not that anyone bothers to read the fucking thing these days. (For the pedants among us, the first amendment reads thusly: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.) I guess, writ large, it's okay to dress girls like it's the 1950's and tie up young buys with duct tape for religion. Yep. It's okay as a macro.
How 'bout the thinking behind the activities? The macro thinking is God wants us to do it. While I don't hold with that as a reasoned basis for doing much of anything (and here, I might well say "Atheist" in much the same voice that Captain Jack Sparrow says "Pirate") it isn't thinking that I can politely call wrong in civilized discussion. *sigh* I guess if you allow that there's a God and that you want to do what God wants you to do and that this whole 1950's and duct-tape adventure is bound up in what God wants, well, yeah, it makes sense. On a macro level, still mostly unobjectionable.
But still I'm writing a post for you here. So where is the wrong? The devil is, as always, in the details.
The way this site is written, girls have to be modest so that boys have an easier time of staying pure. WTF? I... buh... the way I dress is responsible for the souls of others? Hardly fair, I gotta say. My sartorial choices are in no way studied enough for that kind of effect from MY end. It's not like I'm making a special temptress effort or anything. Also, I don't think anyone has been tempted towards sin by contemplating what I look like under my clothes in more than ten years.
Also, nowhere on the website does it discuss how young men should dress so that I don't ogle them. It's okay for young men to wander around in those low-slung pants and tank tops that cling without a care in the world?!? They're only like fifteen. How dare they flaunt their sixpack perfection and lean, youthful bodies in front of me! It's like they're ASKING to be stared at, with their careful scruff, lean arms, and studied expressions of indolence. Dang. How can I not want that? It's pretty. Anybody would want to look at it. Sauce for the goose, mind. This website totally ignores sauce for the goose. Modesty isn't a one-way street, damn it. What we need here is unisex Afghan burqas.
Finally, Just For Men: I don't care if you have a penis or not -- take some damn responsibility for your impure thoughts.
Full disclosure: I'm way too old to do more than ogle and I take good care to follow the most important rule for those of us in the wonderful world of adulthood: Ogle discreetly. For youths among people their own ages, well, they're too wrapped up in the clueless years to get all *that* much fucking done and those gorgeous bodies will be long gone before they figure it all out. You've no idea the karmic satisfaction that this gives me. (It is things like this that convince me firmly that if there were a God, sie'd have a vicious sense of humor.)
Depends on what you mean by wrong, I guess. We've got Freedom of Religion (though I'm always carefully reminded that this does not mean Freedom from Religion by those who are all about the Godhead) in this country. It's in the Bill of Rights, not that anyone bothers to read the fucking thing these days. (For the pedants among us, the first amendment reads thusly: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.) I guess, writ large, it's okay to dress girls like it's the 1950's and tie up young buys with duct tape for religion. Yep. It's okay as a macro.
How 'bout the thinking behind the activities? The macro thinking is God wants us to do it. While I don't hold with that as a reasoned basis for doing much of anything (and here, I might well say "Atheist" in much the same voice that Captain Jack Sparrow says "Pirate") it isn't thinking that I can politely call wrong in civilized discussion. *sigh* I guess if you allow that there's a God and that you want to do what God wants you to do and that this whole 1950's and duct-tape adventure is bound up in what God wants, well, yeah, it makes sense. On a macro level, still mostly unobjectionable.
But still I'm writing a post for you here. So where is the wrong? The devil is, as always, in the details.
The way this site is written, girls have to be modest so that boys have an easier time of staying pure. WTF? I... buh... the way I dress is responsible for the souls of others? Hardly fair, I gotta say. My sartorial choices are in no way studied enough for that kind of effect from MY end. It's not like I'm making a special temptress effort or anything. Also, I don't think anyone has been tempted towards sin by contemplating what I look like under my clothes in more than ten years.
Also, nowhere on the website does it discuss how young men should dress so that I don't ogle them. It's okay for young men to wander around in those low-slung pants and tank tops that cling without a care in the world?!? They're only like fifteen. How dare they flaunt their sixpack perfection and lean, youthful bodies in front of me! It's like they're ASKING to be stared at, with their careful scruff, lean arms, and studied expressions of indolence. Dang. How can I not want that? It's pretty. Anybody would want to look at it. Sauce for the goose, mind. This website totally ignores sauce for the goose. Modesty isn't a one-way street, damn it. What we need here is unisex Afghan burqas.
Finally, Just For Men: I don't care if you have a penis or not -- take some damn responsibility for your impure thoughts.
Full disclosure: I'm way too old to do more than ogle and I take good care to follow the most important rule for those of us in the wonderful world of adulthood: Ogle discreetly. For youths among people their own ages, well, they're too wrapped up in the clueless years to get all *that* much fucking done and those gorgeous bodies will be long gone before they figure it all out. You've no idea the karmic satisfaction that this gives me. (It is things like this that convince me firmly that if there were a God, sie'd have a vicious sense of humor.)
no subject
Date: 2006-07-25 10:40 pm (UTC)Oh and BTW, I will be in the Altoona area overnight for a bank related training course I am to be teaching out that way fairly soon. As in tentative date is class on August 16th so I would drive out on the afternoon of August 15th if we confirm for that date.
How close is that to you, and would you be interested in meeting for dinner?
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 10:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-27 02:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-25 10:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 02:23 am (UTC)i hereby take full responsibility for all my impure thoughts. i'll try to post some of them soon.
personally, i liked the bit about the "vibrant, passionate marriage which portrays the love Christ has for his Bride the church." reminds me of an old punk song... (http://gobi.kappamaki.com/~brni/music/Jesus.mp3)
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 03:44 am (UTC)You know, it occurs to me that the way these
whackjo...theists write, my life as a teenage agnostic should have been a nonstop session of drugs, sex, and fast times. They always write as if the only thing saving teenagers from the horrors of whatever horrifies bluenoses is Christianity.Well, you know what, guys? I never did drugs, or partied crazy, or engaged in any of the other things you guys are afraid of. I worked at a job to make money for college, and I studied to get straight As. I lived, in other words, the life you guys want your kids to live.
And I did it without religion. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. (But don't inhale.)
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 10:51 am (UTC)You went to Ridgemont, then?
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 03:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 02:15 pm (UTC)For beings that are supposed to be made in the likeness and image of the Divine, we are apparently incapable of making any real decisions for ourselves. Yet if we make the wrong decision regarding a Personal Savior, we're doomed to the Lake of Fire (tm).
I've spoken to sincerely religious people who don't strike me as hypocritical or bluenosed in any way, and none of them have ever been able to satisfactorily explain to me the inherent contradiction there. Or the many other contradictions of their faith. At least the Catholics are honest enough to admit they don't have an answer, saying "Sorry, it's a mystery." Ah, well...
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 03:03 pm (UTC)the inherent contradiction is that if "god is love"(tm), then there would be no hell. which is why some xtians don't believe in hell.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 04:38 pm (UTC)There is not a line-item veto option for Christianity.
The way I understand it, Christianity isn't like a buffet, where you can have a double portion of the crispy, fresh Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness and some of the very palatable Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother WITHOUT having to eat any of the rather tired Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Ox or the gelatinous and bombastic Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me.
(Christianity hits the spot,
twelve apostles, that's a lot
Jesus Christ, the Virgin too,
Christianity's the thing for you!)
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 09:19 pm (UTC)xtianity derives from judaism, which is a religion of laws, but also the recognition that the law must be interpreted to be relevent. there's an old saying something to the effect of "ask 3 rabbis about what a passage in the Torah means, get 4 opinions." i saw this at avi's mother's house for the memorial, where at sundown we were all suppose to face the west (the setting sun), and a debate broke out about which direction west was. eventually, everyone settled on which way THEY felt was west (this varied somewhat over 90 degrees), and it was all good.
the torah was never meant to be taken literally. it is, in parts, a mythologized history of the jewish people, some behavioral rules (mostly to guard against food-bourne disease), and allegorical stories meant for people to reflect on and come to a better understanding of ethics and of what their relationship to themselves, to others, and to God should be. it is teaching through story-telling.
jesus continued in that tradition. was the story of the good samaritan "true"? in what sense? if i had a time machine, could i find THE samaritan of the story, maybe do a 20/20 spot on him? it's a story, meant to teach. as such, it makes sense to also look at the teachings of the followers of jesus as allegorical story-telling, except, perhaps, for that nutter Paul, who would have given the 700 club a run for it's money. the whole the-church-is-god's-bitch-like-yer-wife-is-your-bitch thing started with him.
the whole concept of "hell" is a relatively recent phenomenon, starting to seep into some jewish fringe cults around 100-200 BC, if i remember correctly, probably filtering in from ideas of an underworld from roman and egyptian religions. it's been a long time, and i have never actually read the book from cover to cover, but i don't remember jesus every being quoted as telling people they were going to go to hell and suffer eternal torment for making the wrong decisions. in fact, he said that the way to eternal life was through him, which implies that the alternative isn't an eternal afterlife of torment. it implies that when you die, you stay dead.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 08:59 pm (UTC)“Isn’t it cool that God is watching us at every moment?”
“You need permission from my father to do that.”
“This isn’t Burger King, dude! You can’t have it your way!”
“My mating rituals are much like that of the Praying Mantis. I will have to eat you if you continue.”
Uh, folks, these are what we here in the real world like to call "flirtation". Where is the "No?" The "Stop?" The "Because I said so, dammit!"
Oh. Right.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 09:21 pm (UTC)heh...
god likes to watch.
(i hereby take full responsibility for my impure thoughts)
no subject
Date: 2006-07-27 07:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-27 01:38 pm (UTC)Yeeeeeah. A friend of mine found that site a few weeks ago and directed me to it--I collect shit like that--and we were both most dismayed to realize that it's local for us.
According to them, I believe, boys are more likely to be tempted than girls, so only boys need to be protected from those ev0l thoughts. Ugh.
*smashes things*
I want to go to one of their events so that I can write it up in my journal. But I'm not sure I can keep a straight face and, well, I don't want to be rude...
Really. ;)
no subject
Date: 2006-07-27 09:10 pm (UTC)Watch this space.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-28 04:17 pm (UTC)Meanwhile, Enguerrand the Fourth is the Sire de Coucy, the Black Prince is waiting for the throne of England, and the Sublime Porte is ready to conquer Vienna.