homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Hell   » Dear Steve Langton, (Page 4)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  12  13  14 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Dear Steve Langton,
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858

 - Posted      Profile for Erroneous Monk   Email Erroneous Monk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Add me to the list - I used to rely on the traditional RC position that sex outwith marriage is a sin, and two people of the same sex cannot be married to each other therefore...

Coming to know loving, faithful same sex couples who were in my view better spouses to each other than I am wife to my husband led me to believe that faithful committed relationships are a good thing, whether straight or gay.

But I still clung to the view that they could be "equal but different". Then during one of many debates on these boards, I finally realised what it must be like to be constantly being told that you are not quite the same as, as good as, whatever is considered "normal".

The analogy that came to me was with adoptive parenting. If I were the adoptive mother of my children, it would be soul-destroying if people insisted on referring to me as the "adoptive mother of..." or them as my "adopted children". I think it must be the same to be in a faithful committed marriage and have it constantly referred to as a "same-sex marriage", or be told that really it is a civil partnership, because it just isn't the real thing.

I think you can believe that the natural order is important, but believe that faith, hope and love are even more important.

I hope the Church will be led to that position by the Spirit. In the meantime, I'm pretty sure that most faithful Catholics don't really believe that everyone living in what the Church considers to be irregular relationships are really damned for eternity. Or almost all of us are in trouble.

--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.

Posts: 2730 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Another one here. Doc Tor nailed it. I've been in mostly conservative churches all my life, so the idea that there was any groupthink or liberal influence is crazy. My change of opinion was over a decade or so, also from my 20s through to my 30s. And not even that much from knowing many gay people (I've only actually ever been friends with a few gay people - so far as I know). It was more developing a more nuanced understanding of theology, and comparing with interpretations that were applied to other issues in the bible. For example: women in authority; slavery; usury; eating meat sacrificed to idols; eating food with blood in; divorce; baptism for the dead; women wearing head coverings... and so on. The way conservatives approach these kinds of issues hermenuetically is with massive double standards compared to LGBT issues.

Steve, I've known a lot more people with the same views as you in my life than I've known LGBT people, and that's still the case. Like you say, your views are still probably the majority in evangelical churches. However, you would probably be surprised how many people in those same churches have gradually changed their opinion on this issue. Not because of peer pressure, but in secret contemplation. And it won't be long before we're the majority. I don't think you're despicable; just wrong. But I do think you've got a massive cognitive dissonance with regards to the character of the God that you follow and your opinion on this issue. Look at all those theological issues I listed above. Look at the standards that are applied to them when they're interpreted. Look at what just gets dismissed as 'cultural' or irrelevant in modern times. Look at what the New Testament actually says on those issues, and what Christians say now.

You think you're being objective and rational and consistent (and your AS condition probably hinders you there), but your opinions are much more a product of your time and culture than you're ever likely to admit.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2040 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Overused] [Overused] That very much parallels my own process.

[ 16. February 2017, 10:40: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posts: 8644 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am the screaming liberal Steve Langton thinks characterises everyone who disagrees with him. But, I'd say that my position was arrived at with a lot of work and reading and thought as I retreated from my previous positions (which oddly has almost nothing to say about sexuality, it rarely came up at all). Saying that I arrived at it out of groupthink is ridiculous, I arrived at it whilst searching for something which was worth believing in.

Also, I'd add, after experiencing my own brokenness and then realising that I was in no position to throw stones at people who lived differently to me but otherwise seemed to be doing little particularly harmful to themselves or society.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 8806 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lucia

Looking for light
# 15201

 - Posted      Profile for Lucia     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
*Raises hand* . And another one here... My views have changed very significantly over the course of about a decade despite being in evangelical churches and in the world of international mission, both of which are pretty strongly for the 'traditional' viewpoint.
Posts: 1060 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I looked into that modern interpretation of Romans 1 on the other thread. In a PM exchange with an advocate of it I pointed out that as far as I could see, all the necessary 'connectives' ('therefores' and so on) were exactly where they should be for the traditional interpretation whereby Paul is expressing his own view.

The 'therefores' do not make the point you seem to think they make. They are all steps in an argument Paul is using to get his hearers on his side (as they think). Once he has them all agreeing (as they think) with him about how evil all these people are, in 2.1 he turns the tables and points out they are no better.

Saying the argument is one Paul himself owns because of the therefores is like saying that Mark Antony really believed Brutus was an honourable man.

We had a fun time with Romans 1 in bible study this evening but decided the last part needed closer attention in two weeks' time.

You omit the next point I made - that;

quote:
He was apparently not able to answer that as such - but instead was insistent that the text would of course be carried by a messenger who would be 'primed' to read it in such a way as to bring out this other meaning....
There is simply not the slightest proof that Paul takes the view you suggest. It's an unsupported assertion. The text makes good sense as it stands, is massively realistic, indeed Shipmates on this very thread have been working really hard at proving it very VERY VERY true.

Yes, the interpretation suits the modern thinking; but saying it's a true interpretation requires the kind of nonsense I found from that other Shipmate with his idea of Paul 'priming' a messenger to read the text contrary to its actual words. It is nonsense and essentially makes Paul incoherent. If you don't want to accept Paul, just reject him; don't do that kind of dishonest - yes I said dishonest - twisting.

A simple point -

People are meant to love people as people, irrespective of sex/gender.

Humans are physical as well as spiritual, and God regards the physical creation as good, and so that love is meant to include physical attraction, and physical displays of affection.

David about Jonathan "Your love for me was wonderful, passing the love of women".
I'm NOT arguing with that.

God has designed sexual intercourse as a thing for those he has equipped appropriately to do it - that is, males with females. Therefore males with males and females with females should not attempt it.

Marriage - in God's terms, whatever the secular world may say - is for those who can naturally do sexual intercourse, and not for those who can't; though there is nothing stopping other legal arrangements of companionship. As a piece of perspective, the biblical position is not simplistically "straight sex good, gay sex bad". The biblical position is that even 'straight' sex is intended for the married - all other sex is in varying degrees wrong. And marriage is for male with female.

If you really think it honours and respects sexuality that men do sex by shoving their penises up other men's shitholes or down other men's throats (or, BTW, that men do oral and/or anal sex with women) - or that women do what is needed to parody sex when they simply aren't naturally equipped for it - then face it that you've got a beef with the Christian God, and be honest that you are rejecting him and telling him you know better.

You talk your heads off about 'love' - the reality is that you really, really hate;

by orfeo;
quote:
I hope you contract leprosy
QED.....

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean he hates you - but "I hope you contract leprosy" definitely means you hate, and don't pretend otherwise.

Posts: 2095 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Steve - do you believe that every act of sexual intimacy should end in conception?

Because if you don't, your entire argument collapses.

--------------------
Lost in Space

Posts: 8358 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
It was more developing a more nuanced understanding of theology, and comparing with interpretations that were applied to other issues in the bible. For example: women in authority; slavery; usury; eating meat sacrificed to idols; eating food with blood in; divorce; baptism for the dead; women wearing head coverings... and so on. The way conservatives approach these kinds of issues hermenuetically is with massive double standards compared to LGBT issues.

Not to mention all the stuff about wealth. Pick the most hardline literal-Bible conservative you know and give him a million bucks, and he'll interpret that camel through the needle's eye before supper.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 29690 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
There is simply not the slightest proof that Paul takes the view you suggest. It's an unsupported assertion. The text makes good sense as it stands, is massively realistic, indeed Shipmates on this very thread have been working really hard at proving it very VERY VERY true.

Well there is more than a slight proof;

διο appears in both 1:24 and 2:1 suggesting that the two thoughts are supposed to be read in parallel. It'd be kinda odd to say that "these people are too terrible to be in the kingdom of God" and then straight afterwards say "oh, but don't judge!"

Second we have clear evidence that those who "are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice." are indeed welcomed by God. Not only did Jesus hang about with the wicked and the unrighteous, he ate with them and was friends with them.

Third we have evidence from the epistles themselves. Whatever bloodcurdling warnings we hear from Paul (and/or whoever the epistle writer to the Corinthians were), there is never any suggestion that those engaged in sexual sins are not in Christ. Indeed, the only indication of a church that is being expelled from the presence of the Lord is the one in Revelation which is being expelled for being neither hot-nor-cold. Isn't that a wonder? Why wasn't the Corinthian church expelled for being sexually permissive?

--

But y'know - we get it. The thing is obvious inside your own mind and therefore there is nothing else to be said.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 8806 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
[quote]There is simply not the slightest proof that Paul takes the view you suggest. It's an unsupported assertion. The text makes good sense as it stands

If you read it in the context of chapter 2 it makes perfect sense to see it as Paul setting up a straw man - in a list which includes a whole load of "wrong behaviour" in which homosexuality, to the exclusion of all the other items listed, has somehow gained a special focus of late. No special reading required.

quote:
Yes, the interpretation suits the modern thinking; but saying it's a true interpretation requires the kind of nonsense
I for my part don't recall using the word "true". But I would go so far as legitimate.

One of the things that's changed my mind on these issues is the way so many "killer texts" turn out either to revolve around hapax lagomena - which seems an awfully slim justification on which to condemn entire categories of our fellow humans as inferior, or even damned - or support equally legitimate alternative readings.

I have come to not a few texts thinking "there's no way round this" only to discover, to my discomfort, that if I set my prejudices to one side there were in fact other legitimate interpretations. Romans 1 is one of them.

quote:
dishonest - yes I said dishonest - twisting.
In my experience this kind of adjective gets thrown around in place of actual argument. Usually followed by "but you're impugning the Trinity" or some such nuclear threat.
quote:
Marriage - in God's terms, whatever the secular world may say - is for those who can naturally do sexual intercourse, and not for those who can't
I'd like to see the chapter and verse for that, and know what you make of marriages in which sex is, for various medical reasons, a physical impossibility.

On closer inspection I've discovered that such arguments collapse into dust unless you believe the sole legitimate purpose of marriage is procreation, which would come as a surprise to me.
quote:
If you really think it honours and respects sexuality that men do sex by shoving their penises up other men's shitholes or down other men's throats (or, BTW, that men do oral and/or anal sex with women)
It amazes me that you can't seem to deal with this topic without descending into playground language. It also amazes me how you have veered off the topic of gay sex to discuss sexual practices between straight couples. Those are two different topics.
quote:
then face it that you've got a beef with the Christian God
Please show me where the Christian God says oral and/or anal sex (irrespective of the sex of the people involved) is wrong.

I know a gay guy looking for a life partner. I also know that he is physically impotent. How does he fit into your morality?

Well before my thinking started shifting on gay issues I concluded that it was simply wrong, as a pastor, to develop an inordinate interest in peoples' sex lives. Do you really think pastoral assessment of holiness and the healthiness of a relationship should revolve around who is sticking what where in the privacy of their bedroom? Because that is where your views seem to be taking you.

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16508 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:

Marriage - in God's terms, whatever the secular world may say - is for those who can naturally do sexual intercourse, and not for those who can't; though there is nothing stopping other legal arrangements of companionship. As a piece of perspective, the biblical position is not simplistically "straight sex good, gay sex bad". The biblical position is that even 'straight' sex is intended for the married - all other sex is in varying degrees wrong. And marriage is for male with female.

On this part, I'd say that the bible is rather a lot less clear about monogomous marriage than we'd all like. The other day we were reading the (horrific, actually) story of Jacob, Leah and Rachel. That family is a mess and that Jacob spent a lot of time putting his penis where he shouldn't have.

And yet God graciously redeemed that messy, horrible, stupid family situation.

In fact, there are almost no Old Testament characters that I can think of who closely matched the man-woman marriage that we're supposed to believe is the Normal Christian state. So where does this idea come from?

Even the Adam and Eve story doesn't work. They had two sons, do the maths.

quote:
If you really think it honours and respects sexuality that men do sex by shoving their penises up other men's shitholes or down other men's throats (or, BTW, that men do oral and/or anal sex with women) - or that women do what is needed to parody sex when they simply aren't naturally equipped for it - then face it that you've got a beef with the Christian God, and be honest that you are rejecting him and telling him you know better.
I admit that I find the mechanics of sexual acts pretty uncomfortable and I don't really think that they honor or respect anything very much.

But I'm not sure that my squeamishness really cuts a lot of ice. Who cares what I think? Are these acts really any less honoring than the married couple who are sterilised and regularly have heterosexual sex?

My view is that I'd love to be Gandhi and denounce sex that is not procreative - but (i) I'm not (ii) Gandhi was a total hypocrite on this point and (iii) who cares what Gandhi said anyway?

Frankly if the sex is non-procreative, it is quite hard to see what damage it is doing in-and-of-itself. Of course there are various emotional issues tied into sex, but that's a different thing.

quote:
You talk your heads off about 'love' - the reality is that you really, really hate;
Unfortunately you need to address the hatred seen in the bible if you think this is hatred. In fact you are posting in a place where people throw flamboyant insults around. Nobody actually wants you to get leprosy, they just dislike your terrible attitude. Instead of attacking the annoying fire-alarm, try putting out the fire.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 8806 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And, in contrast, I can say that I know of several gay couples whose honouring and nurturing of their relationship is a testament to the importance that they place on it and the good things they get from it.

It would indeed be lovely if all gay relationships were trainwrecks, all heterosexual relationships were perfect and that we could easily see the benefits of the one over the other.

It ain't like that. Committed, strong, supportive human relationships are rare. And are found in places we least expect.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 8806 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Steve:
quote:
...women do what is needed to parody sex when they simply aren't naturally equipped for it...
This is beyond offensive. If you really can't see how offensive this remark is - to all women, not just lesbians - then there is no point in trying to communicate with you.

I think sex is awkward and weird and sometimes icky too. I take it as evidence that God has a sense of humour.

Posts: 3589 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
'Naturally equipped' is an interesting phrase, used by SL, I think about women who can't do intercourse. This phrase seems to have a whole ton of philosophical background, probably adjacent to natural law, and that whole rigmarole about 'perversion of natural faculties'.

It just sounds circular to me. True, women don't have a penis, and if you define sex as properly consisting of penis/vagina, then two women are 'unnatural' if they have some kind of sex.

Do people really buy into this today? As others have said, it must mean that sex is for reproduction, end of story. That is mechanical and soulless. The homophobes are the ones who are perverted, and see sex as dirty.

[ 16. February 2017, 12:15: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

--------------------
one City, United, Love MCR!

Posts: 9249 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Steve:
quote:
...women do what is needed to parody sex when they simply aren't naturally equipped for it...
This is beyond offensive. If you really can't see how offensive this remark is - to all women, not just lesbians - then there is no point in trying to communicate with you.

It is offensive, but at the same time, I found his little tirade uproariously funny. Though hateful, it was also very pathetic and that impotent vitriol made me laugh.
The little fool will go one worshiping his incompetent, inconsistent, petty, hateful god; you loving Christians continue worshiping Jesus.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 15761 | From: out of the corner of your eye | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Steve, isn't just offensive to others, he also has a massive 'ick' button.

He is very unlikely to have ever shared an orgasm with a woman - p i v sex very rarely achieves this.

Ho hum - just be grateful you are not married to him, divorce or sex toys in private would be your only choice [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 12269 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
.If you really think it honours and respects sexuality that men do sex by shoving their penises up other men's shitholes or down other men's throats (or, BTW, that men do oral and/or anal sex with women) - or that women do what is needed to parody sex when they simply aren't naturally equipped for it - then face it that you've got a beef with the Christian God, and be honest that you are rejecting him and telling him you know better.

This is interesting. Why should gay people get all the opprobrium rather than the (no doubt millions more) straight people who practise oral sex?
Posts: 3556 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This whole kind of thing sounds like sour grapes from someone who is just sure that other people are having more fun in bed than they are.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62201 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

He is very unlikely to have ever shared an orgasm with a woman - p i v sex very rarely achieves this.


Sigh, was that really necessary? Can he not be an officious prick that has satisfactory (huh, what a great word that is in this context) sex?

It is very easy to dismiss SL as an inadequate 14 year old, rather more difficult to imagine him as a loving husband and father. But try harder, please.

[ 16. February 2017, 12:44: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 8806 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This whole kind of thing sounds like sour grapes from someone who is just sure that other people are having more fun in bed than they are.

Looking at his attitudes I'm sure they are!

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 12269 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Really. If we're going to be making judgments about sexual performance based on opinions typed on an internet bulletin board, then I'm out.

I have no idea about Steve's family or sexual life, nor really want to know. But let's have a little more respect than to simply speculate.

We're better than he is. We don't have to judge him based on his type and limited information.

[ 16. February 2017, 12:47: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 8806 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

He is very unlikely to have ever shared an orgasm with a woman - p i v sex very rarely achieves this.


Sigh, was that really necessary? Can he not be an officious prick that has satisfactory (huh, what a great word that is in this context) sex?

It is very easy to dismiss SL as an inadequate 14 year old, rather more difficult to imagine him as a loving husband and father. But try harder, please.

A loving husband at least makes some effort to discover how the clitoris works.

I imagine he sees himself as the most loving person - but his words about sexuality deny this I'm sorry to say.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 12269 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
A loving husband at least makes some effort to discover how the clitoris works.

I imagine he sees himself as the most loving person - but his words about sexuality deny this I'm sorry to say.

I'm done. You carry on making up shit about someone else if you want. I'll lend you a mirror and then you can watch yourself turning into Steve Langton.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 8806 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
A loving husband at least makes some effort to discover how the clitoris works.

I imagine he sees himself as the most loving person - but his words about sexuality deny this I'm sorry to say.

I'm done. You carry on making up shit about someone else if you want. I'll lend you a mirror and then you can watch yourself turning into Steve Langton.
I think you've misunderstood Boogie. I don't read her as saying to Steve L "You're an odious person, therefore probably not getting any", which would be simple abuse, but rather "If you think that sex is all about putting a penis into a vagina you're unlikely to see the vagina-equipped partner orgasm, because that's not usually how it works", which is simply true.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4555 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I fail to see what the mechanics of sex have to do with anything at all, SL. That you find anything but PIV sex distasteful is your opinion, not shared by the majority of people in the world.

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!

Posts: 11521 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
A loving husband at least makes some effort to discover how the clitoris works.

I imagine he sees himself as the most loving person - but his words about sexuality deny this I'm sorry to say.

I'm done. You carry on making up shit about someone else if you want. I'll lend you a mirror and then you can watch yourself turning into Steve Langton.
My point (badly made I see) is that understanding sexuality is important in any relationship, heterosexual, homosexual, whatever.

Words matter, language matters - as your strong reaction to my pretty mild speculation shows.

When Steve L says "If you really think it honours and respects sexuality that men do sex by shoving their penises up other men's shitholes or down other men's throats (or, BTW, that men do oral and/or anal sex with women) - or that women do what is needed to parody sex when they simply aren't naturally equipped for it - then face it that you've got a beef with the Christian God, and be honest that you are rejecting him." He's showing such deeply ingrained ignorance of things sexual that I think my speculation about his ignorance - 'tho hellish, is not unexpected.

Much homophobia is misogyny with a large helping of ignorance.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 12269 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, it reminds me of early Freud, women don't have a dick, poor (non-)fuckers.

Something should also be said here about patriarchal attitudes, in which of course, men who love men, and women without penises, are patronized, vilified, and punished.

[ 16. February 2017, 14:53: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

--------------------
one City, United, Love MCR!

Posts: 9249 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
A loving husband at least makes some effort to discover how the clitoris works.

I imagine he sees himself as the most loving person - but his words about sexuality deny this I'm sorry to say.

I'm done. You carry on making up shit about someone else if you want. I'll lend you a mirror and then you can watch yourself turning into Steve Langton.
As Boogie clarified, SL's own words seem to indicate little regard for female pleasure. And this deserves censure in itself.
From my view, his hateful and vile words removes any need for courtesy extended towards him. Does this make me less? Probably. Does this mean I'm turning into something like him? No.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 15761 | From: out of the corner of your eye | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
DaleMaily
Apprentice
# 18725

 - Posted      Profile for DaleMaily   Email DaleMaily   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I come to this from a different perspective. I've been a Christian for all of 6 months (I don't count the 10 years at the local Methodist Sunday School), so as far as I was concerned (along with my predominantly white, middle class friends, none of whom, coincidentally, are gay), I thought I had already resolved this issue at a personal level: essentially pro-equality (so pro-gay marriage and feminist).

I then had to decide whether becoming a Christian required me to revisit these views, which for me were instinctive and arrived at as a matter of conscience, since I had no personal emotional experiences to help me on my way. This actually turned out to be one of the biggest barriers to becoming a Christian: how can a God who supposedly created and loves us infinitely outlaw gay people from loving each other and instruct his followers to be homophobic at the same time? Because if I believed that, then I wouldn't want him to be my God, whether I believed he existed or not. Fortunately I don't, largely because I didn't see Jesus say anything against it, which in hindsight was hardly surprising.

When I was on the outside looking in (often a good viewpoint), I observed the following of the "traditional" Christian opinion on sex, homosexuality and gay marriage:

"God says you should only have sex if you are married" [still trying to work that one out...]

and...

"God says that marriage can only be between a man and a woman"

THEREFORE

"Gay sex is sin. Sorry, but we didn't make the rules, God did [or more specifically Paul did, along with what women can and can't do]. Don't worry, though, we still love you and God will forgive you if you repent of your sin."

For me, this just looked like an excuse for homophobes to get their own way: they don't like gays, so they make it as hard as possible to stop gays from loving each other. Conveniently, they generally don't like to talk about gays loving each other, rather they talk about a "lifestyle", which I can only assume to be a euphemism for the "gay scene", which is apparently full of orgies and BDSM. My positioned has softened slightly since becoming a Christian and encountering people who seem genuinely conflicted on the issue (especially those who are part of evangelical churches who are anti-gay and also anti-women in leadership), a view which I initially thought was thinly veiled homophobia.

I've always been pro-marriage: I think that a professing life-long commitment and monogamy to one's partner (especially in front of God) is one of the greatest acts of love you can do. If we as Christians generally accept this, surely MORE marriage is what we want, not telling people that it's for us only.

There concludes my probably incoherent stream of consciousness.

--------------------
The more I get to know the less I find that I understand.

Posts: 40 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2017  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DaleMaily:

For me, this just looked like an excuse for homophobes to get their own way: they don't like gays, so they make it as hard as possible to stop gays from loving each other. Conveniently, they generally don't like to talk about gays loving each other, rather they talk about a "lifestyle", which I can only assume to be a euphemism for the "gay scene", which is apparently full of orgies and BDSM. My positioned has softened slightly since becoming a Christian and encountering people who seem genuinely conflicted on the issue (especially those who are part of evangelical churches who are anti-gay and also anti-women in leadership), a view which I initially thought was thinly veiled homophobia.

Conflicted, but caring people do not deserve the condemnation often directed towards them. They still need to be corrected, but more gently. Russ, Jamat and Steve Langton do not fit this catagory. They have demonstrated a lack of caring. Now, perhaps mr cheesy is correct and we should still not be mean, but they have not earned respectful treatment.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 15761 | From: out of the corner of your eye | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Only 2 brief things to say about SL's latest outburst:

1. I think it's hilarious that he's saying an alternative interpretation hasn't been PROVED. He still thinks that this is all about PROVING one single interpretation that wipes out all others and prevents debate.

2. No one, but no one jumps up and down and protests about impotent heterosexual couples getting married. The nature of sex only gets raised in this way when attempting to explain why homosexual couples can't do it right.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 17916 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669

 - Posted      Profile for venbede   Email venbede   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DaleMaily:
I think that a professing life-long commitment and monogamy to one's partner (especially in front of God) is one of the greatest acts of love you can do.

it would be nice if straight married couples were monogamous, but in lot of cases they aren't. They are still married though.

My partner and I of 39 years are monogamous, but we have no wish to be called "married" as long as we have the same legal protection as married straights.

To do so gives into the idea that we have been second rate up to now and that marriage is the only possible Christian ideal. Which history and the gospels clearly show it isn't.

--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.

Posts: 3160 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189

 - Posted      Profile for anoesis   Email anoesis   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If you really think it honours and respects sexuality that men do sex by shoving their penises up other men's shitholes or down other men's throats (or, BTW, that men do oral and/or anal sex with women) - or that women do what is needed to parody sex when they simply aren't naturally equipped for it - then face it that you've got a beef with the Christian God, and be honest that you are rejecting him and telling him you know better.

I know there has been a lot of comment about this particular paragraph already, but, hey, there are a lot of problems with it - and from my p.o.v., as a mere female (but a heterosexual one, so I think I might get points for that), there is a point which hasn't yet been addressed by commenters:-

Namely, that it seems, in Steve Langton's world, that sex is something only men 'do'. Men 'do' sex either with other men, which is icky, or they 'do' sex with women, which may potentially be icky, depending on what exactly it is they are doing. Women don't 'do' sex, though if their desires are perverted, they may be tragically left with no option but to attempt a 'parody' of the act.

So, even in heterosexual relations, men 'do' sex, and women have it done to them. Men are always agents as far as sex is concerned, and women are always recipients. Now, on the whole I agree with Mr Cheesy that there's no particular need to be speculating on the specifics of SL's own private life, but this sort of thing does honestly make you wonder. As an example, I very much think of fellatio as something a man receives, rather than 'does'. The party giving (see that? giving/receiving) the blowjob is the active one, the one who's doing the 'doing'. And a lot of the time, that's a woman, but really, in any relationship, over time, as it grows and blossoms, and ebbs and flows, and cycles around, and whatever, whatever, there's going to be fluidity in the way the desires and the roles work out. What does it matter who initiates, who assents, who inserts, who envelops, who gives, who receives? Is it ultimately even possible to tease them apart? Should it be?

--------------------
When you listen to Bruce's music you are [no longer] a loser. You are a character in an epic poem...about losers.
- Jon Stewart on Bruce Springsteen -

Posts: 890 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Steve--

You said:

quote:
Marriage - in God's terms, whatever the secular world may say - is for those who can naturally do sexual intercourse, and not for those who can't; though there is nothing stopping other legal arrangements of companionship.
Are you saying that straight people whose bodies can't manage intercourse shouldn't marry?

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17127 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025

 - Posted      Profile for Helen-Eva   Email Helen-Eva   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DaleMaily:
I come to this from a different perspective. I've been a Christian for all of 6 months (I don't count the 10 years at the local Methodist Sunday School), so as far as I was concerned (along with my predominantly white, middle class friends, none of whom, coincidentally, are gay), I thought I had already resolved this issue at a personal level: essentially pro-equality (so pro-gay marriage and feminist).

I then had to decide whether becoming a Christian required me to revisit these views, which for me were instinctive and arrived at as a matter of conscience, since I had no personal emotional experiences to help me on my way. This actually turned out to be one of the biggest barriers to becoming a Christian: how can a God who supposedly created and loves us infinitely outlaw gay people from loving each other and instruct his followers to be homophobic at the same time? Because if I believed that, then I wouldn't want him to be my God, whether I believed he existed or not. Fortunately I don't, largely because I didn't see Jesus say anything against it, which in hindsight was hardly surprising.


This is really interesting AND really important for mission. How did you resolve that problem, which I assume you have given you've said you are now christian?

Forgive me if you've explained this already - I read a bit further back in the thread but it became some kind of Fred Phelps version of the Lack of Joy of Sex so I gave up.

--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.

Posts: 577 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Steve--

You said:

quote:
Marriage - in God's terms, whatever the secular world may say - is for those who can naturally do sexual intercourse, and not for those who can't; though there is nothing stopping other legal arrangements of companionship.
Are you saying that straight people whose bodies can't manage intercourse shouldn't marry?
Well that's what his words say, taken literally. But there are other interpretations.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62201 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mousethief wins the thread.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 17916 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
mt--

Yes, I understand the LGBT meaning. But it seemed the other was implied, also. We know Steve's opinions on the first.

Are there other potential interpretations?

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17127 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If he doesn't mean the other, then he has overshot and needs to refine his conditions.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62201 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And I think we've seen where something like that leads with ingoB. You end up getting such absurdities as a woman without a womb being "open" to getting pregnant. Although I think someone on this or one of the other threads said that an impotent man, according to Catholic doctrine, has no business getting married at all. Which may well be.

If that's true it certainly is hard to come away with any other conclusion but that PIV sex is what marriage is all about -- even more than procreation since it's okay for post-menopausal or wombless women to marry.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62201 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
mt--

"PIV" = ?

Thx.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17127 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Wasn't there an RCC rule that priests had to have whole and functioning private parts?

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17127 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
mt--

"PIV" = ?

Thx.

Never mind. Figured it out.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17127 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Wasn't there an RCC rule that priests had to have whole and functioning private parts?

I believe that's correct, yes. Leading one to surmise the Catholic position is:

Men: Everything in full working order, or you're not a man.

Women: Meh. Whatever.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62201 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189

 - Posted      Profile for anoesis   Email anoesis   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
...Leading one to surmise [that] the Catholic position is:

Men: Everything in full working order, or you're not a man.

Women: Meh. Whatever.

I know you are joking, but I'm also pretty sure you're not far wrong. The tendency to view women not in terms of what they are, or have, but in terms of what they are not, or lack, is a widespread one. Men are an actual defined category, women are [not-men].

This book was a real eye-opener in that respect, especially (for me) the discovery of the extent to which a male standard pervades and informs even scientific research which is intended to provide answers about aspects of women's lives or functioning.

--------------------
When you listen to Bruce's music you are [no longer] a loser. You are a character in an epic poem...about losers.
- Jon Stewart on Bruce Springsteen -

Posts: 890 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
I know you are joking, but I'm also pretty sure you're not far wrong. The tendency to view women not in terms of what they are, or have, but in terms of what they are not, or lack, is a widespread one. Men are an actual defined category, women are [not-men].

In this case I think it goes even further: not really viewing women at all. Viewing them as inconsequential.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62201 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512

 - Posted      Profile for Goldfish Stew   Email Goldfish Stew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Steve Langton

I disagree with you. That happens.
However I don't savagely dismiss your views as I do those of a certain other cretinous being on that dead horse discussion, who I believe is trolling or hateful.

I have a bit more sympathy with you as I see your views as not overly different from mine about 15 years ago. I tried to walk that line between what I clearly saw the bible stating about certain activities, between what I clearly saw the bible saying about love, humility and *universal* fallenness (that is, me included.)

I genuinely strived for a "because we love, these things matter" approach. And genuinely thought I could communicate that.

So I write you this as someone who may have been in a similar position to you. I have changed my view - I believe I was wrong then. Maybe you believe I am wrong now. That's how it works.

The fundamental thing that got me we was the realisation that however hard I tried, I was seen as hateful, hurtful, excluding and judgemental. And compared with the Jesus of the gospels, I gradually realised that this was precisely the opposite of the "risk management matrix" he applied. He was not accused of being holier than though, too pedantic or judgemental. His contemporaries scoffed and said "friend of sinners", "eating with the wrong people" and shit like that.

Read that again. Compare the reception you get with your contemporaries with that that the big JC got from his.

The second realisation was an honest appraisal of how many biblical passages we happily relegate to "culture of the time" or "contextual." Honestly, count 'em up. I put a link in DH to a book I read at the time about black pudding. Because it makes an interesting point. Black pudding, rare steak, shellfish - these things are all also "abominations" (and the first two are covered in the NT as well.) And that just scratches the surface. Do you check a woman hasn't got her period before shaking hands? Best you do.

Then there's those words of the J-meister himself, with "love God, love your neighbour. Do that, and you have it sorted" or words to that effect. A summation of the law like that makes sense - even came from the words of the man himself. Theft. Adultery. Rape. Murder. These things are not easy to do while properly showing love you your fellow human beings. Worshiping false gods. Not particularly respectful of any true ones out there. But loving relationship with someone who happens to have the same plumbing as you? A bit difficult to capture within that summation that came from the bearded one himself, without some mental gymnastics or layers of improbability.

And finally, I realised that even if I was to take a view that said those 6 or 7 verses that could be pegged to same-sex sexual activity were still pertinent and valid, they were also somebody else's mail to sort through and I still had about 2389 verses applying to me that I really needed to work on before snooping on messages addressed to other people, no more flawed than I.

I say these things because if we weren't so different in our start points, then maybe you could reflect on what I saw in your own time. Weigh it up and decide.

Granted, my thinking has moved significantly further since then, and I'm rather atheistic for your liking. You may, therefore, consider my words dire warning rather than shining example. Po-tay-to, Po-tah-to

But I make this most unhellish of responses because I see a little bit of me from 15 years ago in you. And I don't know which of us that should scare more.

--------------------
.

Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
anoesis:
quote:
Namely, that it seems, in Steve Langton's world, that sex is something only men 'do'. Men 'do' sex either with other men, which is icky, or they 'do' sex with women, which may potentially be icky, depending on what exactly it is they are doing. Women don't 'do' sex, though if their desires are perverted, they may be tragically left with no option but to attempt a 'parody' of the act. So, even in heterosexual relations, men 'do' sex, and women have it done to them. Men are always agents as far as sex is concerned, and women are always recipients.
Yes, this is what offended me so much about Steve's post, but put far more eloquently than I did. Thank you.

It's a very old-fashioned view (I had hoped our view of sexuality had progressed beyond Aristotle, it being the 21st century and all) but this is only to be expected of someone who is still obsessing about where the Church went wrong in the fourth century AD.

[ 17. February 2017, 08:49: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posts: 3589 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
I know you are joking, but I'm also pretty sure you're not far wrong. The tendency to view women not in terms of what they are, or have, but in terms of what they are not, or lack, is a widespread one. Men are an actual defined category, women are [not-men].

In this case I think it goes even further: not really viewing women at all. Viewing them as inconsequential.
My working definition of feminism is "the belief that women are people too".

And really, any notion that sex is something that men "do" and women just have done to them (as referred to earlier by anoesis) is perilously close to the idea that a wife or girlfriend is in some sense a possession, a living breathing appliance for the purpose of sexual pleasure. And all the horrible things that flow from that.

I might add that the gay world is not completely immune from such thinking and power imbalances. It's just based on other characteristics instead of gender.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 17916 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840

 - Posted      Profile for rolyn         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

And really, any notion that sex is something that men "do" and women just have done to them (as referred to earlier by anoesis) is perilously close to the idea that a wife or girlfriend is in some sense a possession, a living breathing appliance for the purpose of sexual pleasure. And all the horrible things that flow from that.

Horrible things have been flowing from that since the dawn of civilisation.
However, we have entered an age now when, in theory, the heterosexual might have something to learn from the homosexual so as to stem the hetero on hetero horribleness.

Not that all this squabbling about marriage is necessarily going to take us to utopia, the age of Aquarius, or wherever for the simple reason of marriage being an institution based on the very idea of possession.

--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence

Posts: 2935 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  12  13  14 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools