which_chick: (Default)
[personal profile] which_chick
So 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.)

Date: 2006-07-25 10:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ladyivy.livejournal.com
That website . . . WTF?!?!?!

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?

Date: 2006-07-26 10:49 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] which-chick.livejournal.com
Altoona is about an hour, hour and a half away. Yes, I'd be happy to meet for dinner. In Altoona, there is an Outback Steakhouse. There is a Don Pablo's. There are several lesser-tier eateries like Applebee's and Ruby Tuesday's and so forth. I'm sure we will be able to find something. Details to firm up as date approaches?

Date: 2006-07-27 02:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ladyivy.livejournal.com
That works for me. The 16th is the proposed date by the person who is supposed to observe me do the training so she can learn to do it herself, so I am thinking that is pretty likely going to be the date. We are waiting for approval from our mutual boss. Once I have a confirmed date and hotel reservations I will send you and email and we can figure the specifics.

Date: 2006-07-25 10:47 pm (UTC)
ext_9278: Lake McDonald -- Glacier National Park (Satisfied)
From: [identity profile] sara-merry99.livejournal.com
The boys are learning "mental virginity" while the girls are learning how to refuse (and therefore presumably "actual" virginity). That doesn't seem fair somehow and I'm getting the feeling that the girls are, as in most conservative religious circles, getting the fuzzy end of the lollipop.

Date: 2006-07-26 02:23 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] brni.livejournal.com

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)

Date: 2006-07-26 03:44 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] electroweak.livejournal.com
The way this site is written, girls have to be modest so that boys have an easier time of staying pure.

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.)

Date: 2006-07-26 10:51 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] which-chick.livejournal.com
You wrote: ...my life as a teenage agnostic should have been a nonstop session of drugs, sex, and fast times.

You went to Ridgemont, then?

Date: 2006-07-26 03:48 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] electroweak.livejournal.com
Heck, I've never even seen the movie.

Date: 2006-07-26 02:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] teflon-tim.livejournal.com
Ah, but you see, you took responsibility for your own life, and there's the rub. Most modern religious thought -- especially the fundamentalist branches -- are all about avoiding personal responsibility. When you "come to the Lord," you give up all your control and cares to Him. If you stray from the straight and narrow, it's not your fault but the Devil's.

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...

Date: 2006-07-26 03:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] brni.livejournal.com

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.

Date: 2006-07-26 04:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] which-chick.livejournal.com
Some xians seem to feel that they have a line-item veto option in their religion. :)

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!)

Date: 2006-07-26 09:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] brni.livejournal.com

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.

Date: 2006-07-26 08:59 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] not-your-real.livejournal.com
The part that really raised the hair on the back of my neck was in one of the Mentor's Guide PDFs. They had some examples of things the girls could put in their "Top 10 Fabulous Comeback Lines" lists, the purpose of which is "To provide the girls with specific, useable responses to physical 'come-ons.'" Their examples:

“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.

Date: 2006-07-26 09:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] brni.livejournal.com

heh...

god likes to watch.

(i hereby take full responsibility for my impure thoughts)

Date: 2006-07-27 07:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] electroweak.livejournal.com
That thing was written by some creepy sixty-year-old guy, I swear.

Date: 2006-07-27 01:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] snarkhunter.livejournal.com
The way this site is written, girls have to be modest so that boys have an easier time of staying pure.

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. ;)

Date: 2006-07-27 09:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] which-chick.livejournal.com
Local religious groups stage performances of morality plays. Thus far, I have resisted attending because it would be rude to snicker during the serious parts... but the opportunity to see something titled Heaven's Gates and Hell's Flames is calling to me.

Watch this space.

Date: 2006-07-28 04:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] electroweak.livejournal.com
Local religious groups stage performances of morality plays.

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.

Profile

which_chick: (Default)
which_chick

February 2026

S M T W T F S
1 2345 67
89 1011 121314
15 161718192021
22232425262728

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 19th, 2026 01:46 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios