http://fyiradio.podomatic.com/entry/2009-12-01T14_01_29-08_00
That is all for now.
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
Thursday, 12 November 2009
Suicide?
...trust me, it would be last last thing I'd ever do.
Rather, let's ponder self-harm. To quote mind.org.uk
For me, SH was a coping mechanism; a vent for emotions that I could either turn on others, or myself. It's very against my character to lash out, and probably would have landed me in a lot of trouble. So I self-harmed instead. A far more discreet and introverted path to destruction.
It took various forms (predominantly burns, impacts, eating disorders, and mental torture) and grew progressively worse over several years (in line with my life situation). At the climax, things were quite severe.
I feel it's important to note that I didn't quit just by saying "I don't want this" or "I'm not going to". Blunt truth is, I did want to. I enjoyed it, and made sure the wounds would cause me grief for as long as possible.
I'm soon approaching a year 'clean' thanks to facing - and then dealing with - the issues I had at the time, combating my depression, alongside a determination to stop and find other outlets for any recurring urges. I'm proud to say I'm much more at ease with myself and my lot in life than I've ever been; in fact, I'm more than just at ease with things, I'm glad of them. And I remain this way by remembering what it was like, recognising the signs, and arresting the descent into depression before I'm too far down the slippery slope. Dealing with the molehills before they become mountains.
I have various mementos (mostly jewelery and notepads) that I use to remind me of difficult times and lessons learnt; reminders that I've been through that, dealt with this, have come through stronger and can do it all again.
In the case of SH, I have the scars as souvenirs; it's a shame I can't take them off or leave them at home like all my other keepsakes, or stop them hurting in the cold. But there they are, symbols of my foolishness, my desperation, my growth, my strength and my triumph.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam.
Rather, let's ponder self-harm. To quote mind.org.uk
"...a way of expressing very deep distress. Often, people don't know why they self-harm. It's a means of communicating what can't be put into words or even into thoughts and has been described as an inner scream. Afterwards, people feel better able to cope with life again, for a while.
Self-harm is a broad term. People may injure or poison themselves by scratching, cutting or burning their skin, by hitting themselves against objects, taking a drug overdose, or swallowing or putting other things inside themselves. It may also take less obvious forms, including unnecessary risks, staying in an abusive relationship, developing an eating problem (such as anorexia or bulimia), being addicted to alcohol or drugs, or someone simply not looking after their own emotional or physical needs.
These responses may help someone to cope with feelings that threaten to overwhelm them; painful emotions, such as rage, sadness, emptiness, grief, self-hatred, fear, loneliness and guilt. These can be released through the body, where they can be seen and dealt with. Self-harm may serve a number of purposes at the same time. It may be a way of getting the pain out, of being distracted from it, of communicating feelings to somebody else, and of finding comfort. It can also be a means of selfpunishment or an attempt to gain some control over life. Because they may feel ashamed, afraid, or worried about other people’s reactions, people who self-harm often conceal what they are doing rather than draw attention to it.
It's worth remembering that most people behave self-destructively at times, even if they don't realise it. Perfectly ordinary behaviour, such as smoking, eating and drinking too much, or working long hours, day after day, can all be helping people to numb or distract themselves and avoid being alone with their thoughts and feelings..."
For me, SH was a coping mechanism; a vent for emotions that I could either turn on others, or myself. It's very against my character to lash out, and probably would have landed me in a lot of trouble. So I self-harmed instead. A far more discreet and introverted path to destruction.
It took various forms (predominantly burns, impacts, eating disorders, and mental torture) and grew progressively worse over several years (in line with my life situation). At the climax, things were quite severe.
I feel it's important to note that I didn't quit just by saying "I don't want this" or "I'm not going to". Blunt truth is, I did want to. I enjoyed it, and made sure the wounds would cause me grief for as long as possible.
I'm soon approaching a year 'clean' thanks to facing - and then dealing with - the issues I had at the time, combating my depression, alongside a determination to stop and find other outlets for any recurring urges. I'm proud to say I'm much more at ease with myself and my lot in life than I've ever been; in fact, I'm more than just at ease with things, I'm glad of them. And I remain this way by remembering what it was like, recognising the signs, and arresting the descent into depression before I'm too far down the slippery slope. Dealing with the molehills before they become mountains.
I have various mementos (mostly jewelery and notepads) that I use to remind me of difficult times and lessons learnt; reminders that I've been through that, dealt with this, have come through stronger and can do it all again.
In the case of SH, I have the scars as souvenirs; it's a shame I can't take them off or leave them at home like all my other keepsakes, or stop them hurting in the cold. But there they are, symbols of my foolishness, my desperation, my growth, my strength and my triumph.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam.
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
You can't have everything....
Besides, where would you put it?
I have the urge to write; the beehive of my mind once more scoffs at the prospect of a night's sleep. I want to write about everything, and yet nothing. Both are impossible goals. How often have I set myself unattainable targets, and then been vaguely disappointed when I almost (but not quite) reached them?
Too many times, and 'vaguely disappointed' might be a bit of a facetious understatement.
I can't have everything, but I find myself craving it. (Perhaps if I shoved it in the back of my closet...? We could reenact scenes from Narnia, it would be great...)
I just wish there was one thing I both enjoyed and was good at. Which doesn't necessarily imply I think I'm completely useless (despite the perceived opprobrium my hyper-critical judgment constantly attempts to place upon my self-image). Jack of all trades, master of none, as the saying goes.
I can't decide what I want to do with myself; I tend to have an aptitude and affinity for a disgusting range of activities. But to actually do anything worthwhile with any of them would require dedication and effort; a combination of laziness, fleeting impulsiveness, and a dread of failure, conspire against me.
Things I used to enjoy doing now fill me with despair; the reasons for my enjoyment, my desire to do them, have all gone, leaving a void that I'm struggling to fill (not least in my bank account). Where to move on to now? How to do so? How to explain doing so....?
Buggrit. Give me everything, with cream and mocha butter-icing on top.
My apologies for the obscurity of this post. Here, have some Corrs to make you feel better.
I have the urge to write; the beehive of my mind once more scoffs at the prospect of a night's sleep. I want to write about everything, and yet nothing. Both are impossible goals. How often have I set myself unattainable targets, and then been vaguely disappointed when I almost (but not quite) reached them?
Too many times, and 'vaguely disappointed' might be a bit of a facetious understatement.
I can't have everything, but I find myself craving it. (Perhaps if I shoved it in the back of my closet...? We could reenact scenes from Narnia, it would be great...)
I just wish there was one thing I both enjoyed and was good at. Which doesn't necessarily imply I think I'm completely useless (despite the perceived opprobrium my hyper-critical judgment constantly attempts to place upon my self-image). Jack of all trades, master of none, as the saying goes.
I can't decide what I want to do with myself; I tend to have an aptitude and affinity for a disgusting range of activities. But to actually do anything worthwhile with any of them would require dedication and effort; a combination of laziness, fleeting impulsiveness, and a dread of failure, conspire against me.
Things I used to enjoy doing now fill me with despair; the reasons for my enjoyment, my desire to do them, have all gone, leaving a void that I'm struggling to fill (not least in my bank account). Where to move on to now? How to do so? How to explain doing so....?
Buggrit. Give me everything, with cream and mocha butter-icing on top.
My apologies for the obscurity of this post. Here, have some Corrs to make you feel better.
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
Are free goods better than those you have to pay for?
A charity I once volunteered for was in the business, amongst other things, of providing literature to those who ordinarily wouldn't have access to it. People in developing countries could buy books on all manner of subjects. Key word: buy. A price was set according to the general wealth of people in the country, but a price there was, even for the truly destitute.
Why can this be seen as a good thing? If the charity wasn't doing it purely to cover their costs (which were far greater than anything they could make off just selling books)? Because it made the people value what they were receiving.
Each day, I have thrust upon me reams of pamphlets, newspapers, et al, none of which I particularly want, all of which are free. Frankly, I don't even appreciate it enough to wipe my arse with them (take heed, all ye accursed LondonLite distributors). But were I to sacrifice something to obtain them, even a fairly negligible pittance, each sheet would mean at least a little something to me.
Moving on from the realms of gratis processed tree carcass, let us use this as an analogy for rights. Writing with the Western world in mind, allusions and explicit references to our "right" to do X, Y or Z, are rife. We have laws and systems and beliefs that are designed to empower us, uphold and protect our rights in almost every conceivable area of life.
But most of us haven't had to sacrifice a damn thing for them.
How often do we think about our liberties and freedoms, outside of the context of a debate over the justifiability of a specific action? How much do we take for granted peoples' rights to (theoretically) do as they please, within the confines of not harming others? And how many rights are hence infringed upon (or outright abused); to what extent are they undervalued?
I wonder if the skewing of equal rights, largely due to overzealous, misguided political correctness, can be attributed in part to this phenomenon? Or, to approach from a slightly different angle, do we even want equal rights any more?
Free speech! (as long as you concur with the majority consensus re what is acceptable). Bloody Thought Police; never there when you need 'em, eh?
How is it possible - nay, permissible - that people get so caught up in correct terminology, cunning word-play and Being Universally Palatable, that the very essence of free speech (or the point of a debate) is lost in a soul-devouring vortex of facade and smarmy conjecture? Why, in the modern Western world, are there cries to gag those we disagree with?
Have my most cynical fears truly been realised? Have we really degenerated so far, as to be incapable of hearing another's puerile opinion without embracing it as our own, to the point where individuals are deemed to require silencing? Can we not be satisfied with offering up our own views and debating our differences, rather than demanding certain views not be aired?
How ironic that rights and anti-bigotry laws can now enhance the arsenal of the very stances they were supposed to oppose.
Thursday, 20 August 2009
Honey, if you love me.....
....won't you please, please smile?
A curious, amusing game from my younger years. If you happen to be unfamiliar with it, the basic concept was thus: the group sits around in a circle, generally on chairs, with one person in the middle. This person selects someone, sits on their knee or lap, and recites the line "Honey, if you love me, won't you please, please smile?" using any mannerisms/tone they wish. If the person manages to keep a straight face whilst replying with "I love you honey, but I just can't smile", another victim is selected and the process repeated until a smile is produced, whereupon the two swap places and the new person in the middle continues the routine.
All in the name of fun and entertainment, but rather similar to the mind games people have a habit of playing in real life. "If you really loved me, you wouldn't do that..." "You're my friend, you have to come." "If you truly appreciated what we have, you wouldn't be afraid to take the next step..." "You can't say you love me and want to be with me, and expect me to believe you if you then say you don't want to have sex."; demanding others jump through hoops, manipulating them into doing something that supposedly validates and proves the existence of a relationship (be it friendship, family, religious, or romantic).
That's not to say we shouldn't do things for those we love (or those we hate, depending on your views regarding forgiveness, and killing your enemies with kindness, and all that jazz). Even things that require personal sacrifice in some form. I hope that I generally make it clear that there isn't anything at all people shouldn't ask of me; they just shouldn't assume or expect compliance purely on the basis of the existence/desired affirmation of a relationship/rappor.
If I do something for another, I want it to be out of love, a desire to please the person, adherence to my (overbearing) sense of integrity, perhaps to create opportunities for new experiences, or achieve some form of gain (mutual or otherwise). Not to merely feed the concept of a bond between us, satisfy social expectations, or ratify emotions *coughreligiouspeoplecough.* (It all applies to religion/a relationship with a god, too. Perhaps more so).
For when that starts to happen, the things we do cease to be about the people involved, and begin to center around sustaining the image of a relationship; taking action out of a misplaced sense of duty, as opposed to communicating with each other. Perpetuation takes precedence; fear of the unknown prevents a relationship from running its natural course (be that towards demise, or greater depths of trust and intimacy).
Instead of being something to describe people relating to each other, the relationship becomes an entity in its own right, which must be sated. It must progress through various preconceived stages, in the right order, and once one 'level' has been attained, it is hard to go back to a 'lower' level. You've already been to third base, so henceforth you have to go at least that far again. You've done W, X and Y together, so the only next logical step is to do Z, and you simply have to go there for the relationship to mean something. Right? Your self-worth is entirely dependent on upholding relationships with friends, deities, and lovers. Right?
Stupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupid.
Interaction needs to happen in both directions; that's why it's inter-action, instead of just actions out of obligation. Relationships should yield rewards other than "being in a relationship".
Change should not be feared and resisted. People grow together; people grow apart. The wheel of life keeps on turning.
Friday, 7 August 2009
Ad infinitum....vita aeterna
BFF - Best Friends Forever. Eternal Life. Eternal Damnation. "I'll love you forever".
Infinity. Eternity. Forever. Evermore. Hogwash.
As humans, we seem to have an obsession with stagnation. A refusal to embrace change, growth, the spice of life. We want things to last forever; why? Fear of the unknown future? Why is "eternal life" the ultimate reward? Is what we have never good enough?
Certainly, it is pleasant when a good thing lasts more than a fleeting moment. But who's to say that if a good thing passes on, it won't give way to something better?
One can spend so much time and energy in futile attempts to prolong, preserve, and hoard, that something perishes without being fully enjoyed. Smell the flowers now; tomorrow they will be gone. Don't store that food until it is stale and mouldy, because it is too good to eat. "Eat, drink, and be merry".
Clinging to relationships (be it family, friends or the OneTrueLoveTM) and not wanting to have to make new ones, long after your lives have gone down different paths, is senseless. I suspect that worrying over how to keep someone forever, has killed more than one relationship.
Similarly, fretting endlessly about health (sometimes to the point where it makes you ill and stressed!); enjoy things in moderation, don't refuse every slice of white bread, piece of cake, drink or cigarette, for the sake of the extra two weeks' life it might bring you when you're old and decrepit and shitting in your pants. When death could be just around the corner, as inevitable as taxes, why waste time and effort to suffer in vain?
Friends, food, moments, love, lovers, life....all come to an end. Fact. There's no use worrying about it. I'd rather simply enjoy it all as much as I can when I have it, and when it's gone; it's gone.
Infinity. Eternity. Forever. Evermore. Hogwash.
As humans, we seem to have an obsession with stagnation. A refusal to embrace change, growth, the spice of life. We want things to last forever; why? Fear of the unknown future? Why is "eternal life" the ultimate reward? Is what we have never good enough?
Certainly, it is pleasant when a good thing lasts more than a fleeting moment. But who's to say that if a good thing passes on, it won't give way to something better?
One can spend so much time and energy in futile attempts to prolong, preserve, and hoard, that something perishes without being fully enjoyed. Smell the flowers now; tomorrow they will be gone. Don't store that food until it is stale and mouldy, because it is too good to eat. "Eat, drink, and be merry".
Clinging to relationships (be it family, friends or the OneTrueLoveTM) and not wanting to have to make new ones, long after your lives have gone down different paths, is senseless. I suspect that worrying over how to keep someone forever, has killed more than one relationship.
Similarly, fretting endlessly about health (sometimes to the point where it makes you ill and stressed!); enjoy things in moderation, don't refuse every slice of white bread, piece of cake, drink or cigarette, for the sake of the extra two weeks' life it might bring you when you're old and decrepit and shitting in your pants. When death could be just around the corner, as inevitable as taxes, why waste time and effort to suffer in vain?
Friends, food, moments, love, lovers, life....all come to an end. Fact. There's no use worrying about it. I'd rather simply enjoy it all as much as I can when I have it, and when it's gone; it's gone.
Saturday, 1 August 2009
Deep down, all people are good....
....it's just difficult to get past the ribs to the really tasty parts.
I can be somewhat disillusioned when it comes to humans. It's not that I'm cynical, we just all suck. The social constructs we weave around ourselves, to create a senseless prison, are frustrating to say the least.
God loved the birds and made trees....Man loved the birds and made cages.
We have emotions, good and bad ones. They can occasionally override logical thought. To complicate things, we also have a plethora of -mostly unwritten- laws attempting to control how we deal with our feelings; taboos, stiff upper lips, keeping up appearances, "proper" behaviour, religion, dating protocols, institutions such as marriage...
Love, in its purest form, is arguably one of the finest and most powerful emotions (brief aside: Ziggy Marley is Epic Win); yet we so often manage to spoil it with jealousy (and who doesn't love Freddy?).
Relationships have been on my mind rather a lot lately; dealing with the fallout of friends' romantic dilemmas, other friends getting engaged/married, various dramas and gossip, have all had me thinking about how I relate to others, and how that compares to the general populace.
I've also met some thought-provoking people and had great discussions on various subjects. One of them I was interviewing for FYi RADiO, and had some interesting things to say on the subject of sexuality and its fluid nature; having previously considered himself a happy out-n-proud homosexual, he is now a happily (heterosexually) married father of one. Another is an enlightened Swede (I'm slowly building up a collection of them) who seems to share similar views to me regarding relationships.
Far too much defining and limiting goes on in mainstream thinking. Friendship is this, and "serious" relationship is this; friends can't cuddle, or hold hands, or share a bed; partners must only do these things with each other. I am this, therefore I can only be romantically/sexually attracted to/involved with this; why is a gay man treated like a heinous traitor for finding happiness with a woman, getting married and having kids?
Can't we just go with the flow, and do whatever feels right in the situation? Why the rigid adherence to generalised preconceptions about ourselves? Why the stifling sets of "appropriate" and "inappropriate" behaviours? I have good friends whose company I truly enjoy; it has been assumed on more than one occasion that we are dating, when the relationship couldn't be any more platonic. It's at once amusing and infuriating. Blur the lines a bit, people! Break down the walls! In previous blog entries I ranted about how we sometimes view physical contact; how sad, for example, that two male friends would refrain from exploring any physical element to their relationship (eg hugging) for fear of appearing gay.
The dubious virtues of monogamy is another aspect of relationships open to debate. Had you asked me a few years ago, I would have been quite staunchly all for it, and why not? We are brought up with the concept drummed into us as the ultimate ideal. Yet it is a practice founded on jealousy and possessiveness, neither of which I would consider beneficial.
The highly unrealistic Hollywood/Disney concept of One True Love (TM) only serves to compound the problem. Two people meet, perhaps become friends first, get along, and then the Next Step is taken and they're Going Out. So much unnecessary stress and pressure to Live Happily Ever After, and somehow the relationship changes; rather than progressing naturally, easily, suddenly everyone's talking about it, there's nerves, a whole list of things to live up to. One person has to fulfil all of another's needs and desires, almost from day one it seems. There is a monopoly on who they can see, how they can interact with others. You can't hang out together, you have to go on Dates. Suspicion and jealousy rear their ugly heads, people feel "trapped" in their relationship, some "cheat". They've moved out of the "friendship" box and into the "partners" box, where the rules must be different.
Those who aren't privileged and are Single can feel a sense of despair, longing, sadness. They're not good enough to be in this fabled Relationship. Attraction, or Crushes, become a source of boundless angst, for fear of expressing love and receiving rejection, or apprehension over what moving out of the Friendship box will do to the existing relationship. Pointless. Complicating.
Marriage; once a business/political contract, joining tribes/families, sealing the exchange of land and possessions (including the woman). Nowadays more for "love" (and to give into peer pressure, religion, for legal/tax benefits, or immigration, and to claim exclusive possession of each other). Noble.
Am I generalising? Of course, but I've met far too many people who are all worked up over the whole monogamous relationship thing.
Do I disagree with monogamy in general? No; I disagree with it being marketed as the One and Only Way, and of people falsely committing to a monogamous relationship, when they're going to cheat. Certainly, if two people grow close enough that they meet all each others' desires, or they wish to take on the responsibility of raising a family, then monogamy could work. Divorce statistics would suggest a lot of people are rather hasty in making that decision, though.
How sensible is it, considering the fluidity of sexuality and character, to bind oneself into a lifelong emotional and sexual relationship with one person, and one person only?
Nor is this justification for being a slut. I view promiscuity as lots of sex, with minimal relationship. What I'm talking about is being open to concurrent relationships developing naturally, building trust and respect, taking them as far as the people involved wish, without adding all the complications and social hangups. Omitting the jealousy. It doesn't always have to lead to copulation, nor does it have to avoid copulation. There are other forms of intimacy/physical closeness that are just as valid, perhaps more so in certain situations.
Besides, sex is the last thing I'm looking for in a person.
(But it's still on the list, with a very select few.)
I can be somewhat disillusioned when it comes to humans. It's not that I'm cynical, we just all suck. The social constructs we weave around ourselves, to create a senseless prison, are frustrating to say the least.
God loved the birds and made trees....Man loved the birds and made cages.
We have emotions, good and bad ones. They can occasionally override logical thought. To complicate things, we also have a plethora of -mostly unwritten- laws attempting to control how we deal with our feelings; taboos, stiff upper lips, keeping up appearances, "proper" behaviour, religion, dating protocols, institutions such as marriage...
Love, in its purest form, is arguably one of the finest and most powerful emotions (brief aside: Ziggy Marley is Epic Win); yet we so often manage to spoil it with jealousy (and who doesn't love Freddy?).
Relationships have been on my mind rather a lot lately; dealing with the fallout of friends' romantic dilemmas, other friends getting engaged/married, various dramas and gossip, have all had me thinking about how I relate to others, and how that compares to the general populace.
I've also met some thought-provoking people and had great discussions on various subjects. One of them I was interviewing for FYi RADiO, and had some interesting things to say on the subject of sexuality and its fluid nature; having previously considered himself a happy out-n-proud homosexual, he is now a happily (heterosexually) married father of one. Another is an enlightened Swede (I'm slowly building up a collection of them) who seems to share similar views to me regarding relationships.
Far too much defining and limiting goes on in mainstream thinking. Friendship is this, and "serious" relationship is this; friends can't cuddle, or hold hands, or share a bed; partners must only do these things with each other. I am this, therefore I can only be romantically/sexually attracted to/involved with this; why is a gay man treated like a heinous traitor for finding happiness with a woman, getting married and having kids?
Can't we just go with the flow, and do whatever feels right in the situation? Why the rigid adherence to generalised preconceptions about ourselves? Why the stifling sets of "appropriate" and "inappropriate" behaviours? I have good friends whose company I truly enjoy; it has been assumed on more than one occasion that we are dating, when the relationship couldn't be any more platonic. It's at once amusing and infuriating. Blur the lines a bit, people! Break down the walls! In previous blog entries I ranted about how we sometimes view physical contact; how sad, for example, that two male friends would refrain from exploring any physical element to their relationship (eg hugging) for fear of appearing gay.
The dubious virtues of monogamy is another aspect of relationships open to debate. Had you asked me a few years ago, I would have been quite staunchly all for it, and why not? We are brought up with the concept drummed into us as the ultimate ideal. Yet it is a practice founded on jealousy and possessiveness, neither of which I would consider beneficial.
The highly unrealistic Hollywood/Disney concept of One True Love (TM) only serves to compound the problem. Two people meet, perhaps become friends first, get along, and then the Next Step is taken and they're Going Out. So much unnecessary stress and pressure to Live Happily Ever After, and somehow the relationship changes; rather than progressing naturally, easily, suddenly everyone's talking about it, there's nerves, a whole list of things to live up to. One person has to fulfil all of another's needs and desires, almost from day one it seems. There is a monopoly on who they can see, how they can interact with others. You can't hang out together, you have to go on Dates. Suspicion and jealousy rear their ugly heads, people feel "trapped" in their relationship, some "cheat". They've moved out of the "friendship" box and into the "partners" box, where the rules must be different.
Those who aren't privileged and are Single can feel a sense of despair, longing, sadness. They're not good enough to be in this fabled Relationship. Attraction, or Crushes, become a source of boundless angst, for fear of expressing love and receiving rejection, or apprehension over what moving out of the Friendship box will do to the existing relationship. Pointless. Complicating.
Marriage; once a business/political contract, joining tribes/families, sealing the exchange of land and possessions (including the woman). Nowadays more for "love" (and to give into peer pressure, religion, for legal/tax benefits, or immigration, and to claim exclusive possession of each other). Noble.
Am I generalising? Of course, but I've met far too many people who are all worked up over the whole monogamous relationship thing.
Do I disagree with monogamy in general? No; I disagree with it being marketed as the One and Only Way, and of people falsely committing to a monogamous relationship, when they're going to cheat. Certainly, if two people grow close enough that they meet all each others' desires, or they wish to take on the responsibility of raising a family, then monogamy could work. Divorce statistics would suggest a lot of people are rather hasty in making that decision, though.
How sensible is it, considering the fluidity of sexuality and character, to bind oneself into a lifelong emotional and sexual relationship with one person, and one person only?
Nor is this justification for being a slut. I view promiscuity as lots of sex, with minimal relationship. What I'm talking about is being open to concurrent relationships developing naturally, building trust and respect, taking them as far as the people involved wish, without adding all the complications and social hangups. Omitting the jealousy. It doesn't always have to lead to copulation, nor does it have to avoid copulation. There are other forms of intimacy/physical closeness that are just as valid, perhaps more so in certain situations.
Besides, sex is the last thing I'm looking for in a person.
(But it's still on the list, with a very select few.)
Wednesday, 17 June 2009
i am the voices......
Yes! I hear you cry out in astonishment and woe; 'tis I indeed! Back once more from the dark and mysterious nethers of obscurity, breaking radio silence with grandiose prolix aplomb, and striking forth once more into the dubious realms of international renown, bearing gifts of tautological obfuscation and recondite prose. Behold (aghast, perchance) as I weave tales of whimsy and spin elaborate flights of fancy before your bedazzled eyes!
Or not, as the case may be. Buggrit! (as Foul Old Ron would likely put it).
As of late, I haven't been lacking in time to blog, so much as lacking inspiration and drive. My reticent nature (whilst quietly longing for someone willing to persist and prise information from me) forbids the documenting of every fleeting spat, crush, whinge, nonevent, and minor tribulation in my humble existence. Maybe I'm just not in touch with my inner teenage girl. Meh. Who needs an inner child, when you can have an inner chicken?! *SQUAWK!*
I hit a turning point today. After a long, dark period of self-scrutiny, questioning and (let's face it) depression, something, somehow, fell into place. Like the dropping of the finest of pins onto the cold hard floor of the cavernous dimensions of the mind, sending disproportionate echoes reverberating to the farthest reach, at a frequency that cuts through the hubbub of the psyche as if it were perfect silence. Spreading, seeping steadily through everything like a damp British fog, changing nothing whilst altering all. A peculiar sensation to put into words.
Strange, really, the things we hold on to. The buried thoughts and memories, lodged and hidden, that, for all intents and purposes, should be insignificant and yet conspire to cause untold grief and torment. How odd that something I once stated, as the culmination of insidious ideas I had been led (or led myself) to believe, should be the vital strand. That elusive segment of the tangle, which needs but a small nudge; to be looked at in a different light, from a different angle, in order to start the whole mess unravelling.
There will certainly be more knots to untie as the jumble unwinds. I hope and pray this isn't a brief high on my emotional rollercoaster, soon to be banished (yet again) by the uncontrollable plummet into devastation and morose self-pity/-absorption; a momentary surfacing of an extroverted, exuberant persona, soon to go the way of the mayfly.
But via the releasing of these memories, I have rediscovered the Meaning(lessness) of Life (or was it Liff?), together with the ability to earnestly cease taking it all so damn seriously. The damage will slowly be built over, stronger than before.
Here's to new beginnings, old endings, obscure neglected vocabulary, and sausages.
rAmen.
Oh, and here's also to the cute foreign barman I'm so going to hit on, for the lulz, next Tuesday.
Peace out.
Or not, as the case may be. Buggrit! (as Foul Old Ron would likely put it).
As of late, I haven't been lacking in time to blog, so much as lacking inspiration and drive. My reticent nature (whilst quietly longing for someone willing to persist and prise information from me) forbids the documenting of every fleeting spat, crush, whinge, nonevent, and minor tribulation in my humble existence. Maybe I'm just not in touch with my inner teenage girl. Meh. Who needs an inner child, when you can have an inner chicken?! *SQUAWK!*
I hit a turning point today. After a long, dark period of self-scrutiny, questioning and (let's face it) depression, something, somehow, fell into place. Like the dropping of the finest of pins onto the cold hard floor of the cavernous dimensions of the mind, sending disproportionate echoes reverberating to the farthest reach, at a frequency that cuts through the hubbub of the psyche as if it were perfect silence. Spreading, seeping steadily through everything like a damp British fog, changing nothing whilst altering all. A peculiar sensation to put into words.
Strange, really, the things we hold on to. The buried thoughts and memories, lodged and hidden, that, for all intents and purposes, should be insignificant and yet conspire to cause untold grief and torment. How odd that something I once stated, as the culmination of insidious ideas I had been led (or led myself) to believe, should be the vital strand. That elusive segment of the tangle, which needs but a small nudge; to be looked at in a different light, from a different angle, in order to start the whole mess unravelling.
There will certainly be more knots to untie as the jumble unwinds. I hope and pray this isn't a brief high on my emotional rollercoaster, soon to be banished (yet again) by the uncontrollable plummet into devastation and morose self-pity/-absorption; a momentary surfacing of an extroverted, exuberant persona, soon to go the way of the mayfly.
But via the releasing of these memories, I have rediscovered the Meaning(lessness) of Life (or was it Liff?), together with the ability to earnestly cease taking it all so damn seriously. The damage will slowly be built over, stronger than before.
Here's to new beginnings, old endings, obscure neglected vocabulary, and sausages.
rAmen.
Oh, and here's also to the cute foreign barman I'm so going to hit on, for the lulz, next Tuesday.
Peace out.
Wednesday, 27 May 2009
Don't Believe Everything You Think
I'm sure I'll remember what I wanted to write about eventually, but for now, let's talk about exams.
They annoy me. Partly because almost all my friends are currently in the throes of exam season, and are resultantly busy and tired and stressed. But also in a broader sense. Such an inaccurate, traumatic method of judging and separating people. Not to mention, with current trends in moderation, increasingly useless as the bar continues to be dropped. So much for standards.
One of my pet peeves is the onus placed on people to succeed in exams, gain qualifications, go to university, etc. Complete and utter bollocks. Certainly, if you want to be a doctor, or a microbiologist, teacher, or any other profession that explicitly requires a university diploma, go for it. But why all the stress and angst? Especially if what would really make you happy is a job completely unrelated to any of the academic qualifications you're accruing.
I wanted to leave school after O-levels; ended up making a deal with the parents, which involved my staying on until I'd done A-levels.
I pretty much left home as soon as I'd finished my exams. And guess what? In nearly five years since, not one person or prospective employer has asked about my exams. No one gives a flying duck (sic) that I got the highest attainable grade in all my subjects up to AS level, the best IGCSE English results in the country, distinctions in my music grades, or an ABB for A-level in Physics, Pure Maths and Biology, despite not doing any coursework (30% of the grade, hence the B's). Heck, I don't even know where the damn certificates are any more. Useless bits of paper.
Why lose so much sleep over something that means so little? Chillax and enjoy.
Bingo! Brain has come back with what I was supposed to be rambling about, during a quasi-random Facebook conversation with Frau Steeple (who really shouldn't be so entertainingly cruel towards Herr Schnick):
I was never one of the "cool" gang in school. Quite the opposite. I was most certainly one of the misfits, the strange fringe groups. I daresay I still am, being rather odd, and prone to random whims and personality jumps.
Some of my friends only fit in certain groups; they are uncomfortable if they are ever in another social circle. I regularly interact with people from so many opposing social factions, it's like a bad comedy. But I prefer it that way. My taste in people is like my taste in music; very eclectic.
Meh.
They annoy me. Partly because almost all my friends are currently in the throes of exam season, and are resultantly busy and tired and stressed. But also in a broader sense. Such an inaccurate, traumatic method of judging and separating people. Not to mention, with current trends in moderation, increasingly useless as the bar continues to be dropped. So much for standards.
One of my pet peeves is the onus placed on people to succeed in exams, gain qualifications, go to university, etc. Complete and utter bollocks. Certainly, if you want to be a doctor, or a microbiologist, teacher, or any other profession that explicitly requires a university diploma, go for it. But why all the stress and angst? Especially if what would really make you happy is a job completely unrelated to any of the academic qualifications you're accruing.
I wanted to leave school after O-levels; ended up making a deal with the parents, which involved my staying on until I'd done A-levels.
I pretty much left home as soon as I'd finished my exams. And guess what? In nearly five years since, not one person or prospective employer has asked about my exams. No one gives a flying duck (sic) that I got the highest attainable grade in all my subjects up to AS level, the best IGCSE English results in the country, distinctions in my music grades, or an ABB for A-level in Physics, Pure Maths and Biology, despite not doing any coursework (30% of the grade, hence the B's). Heck, I don't even know where the damn certificates are any more. Useless bits of paper.
Why lose so much sleep over something that means so little? Chillax and enjoy.
Bingo! Brain has come back with what I was supposed to be rambling about, during a quasi-random Facebook conversation with Frau Steeple (who really shouldn't be so entertainingly cruel towards Herr Schnick):
I was never one of the "cool" gang in school. Quite the opposite. I was most certainly one of the misfits, the strange fringe groups. I daresay I still am, being rather odd, and prone to random whims and personality jumps.
Some of my friends only fit in certain groups; they are uncomfortable if they are ever in another social circle. I regularly interact with people from so many opposing social factions, it's like a bad comedy. But I prefer it that way. My taste in people is like my taste in music; very eclectic.
Meh.
Monday, 20 April 2009
"Tempt not a desperate man...."
Long time no rant. I've been a busy little bee. A bee that also excels in procrastination, it seems. Alas.
Tempting as it is to go off on one about politicians, lawyers, police, insurance brokers and the DSA, I'm not allowing myself a foray into such self-indulgent drivel.
Instead, I'm going to indulge myself and drivel on about people. Shock horror surprise.
It is oft bemoaned that, in our society, the general assumption is that one is heterosexual until proven otherwise. I have a related gripe, which I have found extends right across my somewhat disparate social circles: why, I ask, why is sex assumed implicit? (Not gender or genitals or any of that malarky; I refer, for now, to that messy, sticky, glandular act of copulation)
I'm going to be twenty two in a few weeks. I've been told I'm not bad looking and a reasonably likeable sort of person (but then again, mums and friends are indebted to say such things, right?). It would seem that many expect, upon seeing me and knowing my age, that I have one or two notches upon my bedpost. Perhaps a lesser occurrence amongst religious types, where abstinence (or professed abstinence, as the case may be...) is more common; until they find out I bat for the other team, whereupon I must surely be doing more screwing than a Black&Decker cordless 'driver. Can you say "stereotype"?
As my boss so eloquently put it, "21?! You must be up to your nuts in guts every night!"
Now, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the act of coitus, nor those whom partake of it. I'm sure it's great, and I suppose I'll get round to it some day. But it becomes tiresome to have it repeatedly presumed that ones decisions, actions, aspirations, et al. are influenced by a libido that isn't there. That, for example, I'm into someone for the sake of getting into them. Can't I just be interested and friendly?
No, I don't like pussy and tits. No, I'm not a top. Yes, I am a virgin. No, it doesn't bother me. Yes, I could get some if I wanted. No, I don't make a habit of objectifying people. No, sex and romance isn't the be-all and end-all. Yes, I do wish people would stop portraying it as such, and pressuring others into thinking they need to get some ASAP, or thinking they're worthless/ugly/failures/doomed because they haven't.
Perhaps I should just print that out on little cards and hand them out as a pre-emptive measure, to save reliving the same tired old conversations?
Tempting as it is to go off on one about politicians, lawyers, police, insurance brokers and the DSA, I'm not allowing myself a foray into such self-indulgent drivel.
Instead, I'm going to indulge myself and drivel on about people. Shock horror surprise.
It is oft bemoaned that, in our society, the general assumption is that one is heterosexual until proven otherwise. I have a related gripe, which I have found extends right across my somewhat disparate social circles: why, I ask, why is sex assumed implicit? (Not gender or genitals or any of that malarky; I refer, for now, to that messy, sticky, glandular act of copulation)
I'm going to be twenty two in a few weeks. I've been told I'm not bad looking and a reasonably likeable sort of person (but then again, mums and friends are indebted to say such things, right?). It would seem that many expect, upon seeing me and knowing my age, that I have one or two notches upon my bedpost. Perhaps a lesser occurrence amongst religious types, where abstinence (or professed abstinence, as the case may be...) is more common; until they find out I bat for the other team, whereupon I must surely be doing more screwing than a Black&Decker cordless 'driver. Can you say "stereotype"?
As my boss so eloquently put it, "21?! You must be up to your nuts in guts every night!"
Now, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the act of coitus, nor those whom partake of it. I'm sure it's great, and I suppose I'll get round to it some day. But it becomes tiresome to have it repeatedly presumed that ones decisions, actions, aspirations, et al. are influenced by a libido that isn't there. That, for example, I'm into someone for the sake of getting into them. Can't I just be interested and friendly?
No, I don't like pussy and tits. No, I'm not a top. Yes, I am a virgin. No, it doesn't bother me. Yes, I could get some if I wanted. No, I don't make a habit of objectifying people. No, sex and romance isn't the be-all and end-all. Yes, I do wish people would stop portraying it as such, and pressuring others into thinking they need to get some ASAP, or thinking they're worthless/ugly/failures/doomed because they haven't.
Perhaps I should just print that out on little cards and hand them out as a pre-emptive measure, to save reliving the same tired old conversations?
Sunday, 8 March 2009
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
So it's midnight, I have to be up for work in six hours at the latest, and the beehive of my mind continues to elude slumber's sweet embrace. Take note kids, that's what you get for selling your soul and working double shifts; screwed up body clock. Oh, and lots of overtime pay to go towards your bike fund.
Experiences. Memories. The good, the bad, and the ugly.
Why is there evil in the world? Why can we not always be happy? Without contrast, how could we truly appreciate anything?
It was with shock that I realised we're over a week into March. Six months since I've been living in London. Less than two months 'till I turn twenty two. Along with remembering old and current friends, I've been recollecting some of my more memorable experiences, and the great contrasts between them.
I have been in over twenty different countries, all unique; both wonderful and terrible in their own ways. Seen people and creatures dead, dying, diseased, disfigured, in poverty, and in pain; met people content, healthy, rejoicing, friendly and generous.
I have been atheist; I have been Christian.
I have had £5 to my name and no roof over my head; I have earned over £300 in a day, eaten the finest of foods and lived in more than comfortable housing.
My first girlfriend; my first boyfriend.
I have been healthy, strong, fit as a fiddle; I have been so sick I couldn't keep half a cup of water down; was once in such constant pain I was popping codeine just to try and sleep; spent 3 months with the prospect of cancer hanging over my head.
Friends who love me, supported me, advised me; enemies who bullied, tortured, slandered and tried to undermine me.
Times when I could have died, gone to Heaven, and not been happier; times I wanted to die, to put an end to it all (and nearly did).
Times I have injured or killed; times I have comforted or healed.
Work that involved sitting on a boat, reading books in the sun; work that saw me elbow-deep in oil and sludge, getting 4 hours' sleep on the good nights, or drenched in raw sewage (if I ever tell you something tastes like shit, I mean it...)
So cold I couldn't feel my limbs; so hot I couldn't sweat any more.
Going out to drink on a Thursday, finishing on the Monday morning on the way to work; getting through a couple of bottles of wine with each meal; drowning sorrows; being dry, learning to enjoy alcoholic beverages when I don't just want to get hammered.
Doing nothing but chilling for a month or two; clocking 300 hours of work a month.
Hoarding possessions; giving everything away.
My 20th in Loughborough, drinking shots all night, sleeping in a grotty student house; my 21st in Nacula, Fiji, sober and sitting on a deserted beach with a bonfire, sleeping in a local village about as far from civilisation and the beaten track as you can get.
The list goes on for quite a while further, but this is all very self-indulgent; you're forgiven if you're bored of this tripe. To conclude, variety is the spice and zest of life; seek it out. Weather the bad moments, for they are what make the good times good.
What I once considered the worst things to happen to me, I now consider the best, for they made me stronger, and make me realise how blessed I am. To forget your life is, perhaps, one of the saddest of losses. Treasure all of it.
0130....damn
Experiences. Memories. The good, the bad, and the ugly.
Why is there evil in the world? Why can we not always be happy? Without contrast, how could we truly appreciate anything?
It was with shock that I realised we're over a week into March. Six months since I've been living in London. Less than two months 'till I turn twenty two. Along with remembering old and current friends, I've been recollecting some of my more memorable experiences, and the great contrasts between them.
I have been in over twenty different countries, all unique; both wonderful and terrible in their own ways. Seen people and creatures dead, dying, diseased, disfigured, in poverty, and in pain; met people content, healthy, rejoicing, friendly and generous.
I have been atheist; I have been Christian.
I have had £5 to my name and no roof over my head; I have earned over £300 in a day, eaten the finest of foods and lived in more than comfortable housing.
My first girlfriend; my first boyfriend.
I have been healthy, strong, fit as a fiddle; I have been so sick I couldn't keep half a cup of water down; was once in such constant pain I was popping codeine just to try and sleep; spent 3 months with the prospect of cancer hanging over my head.
Friends who love me, supported me, advised me; enemies who bullied, tortured, slandered and tried to undermine me.
Times when I could have died, gone to Heaven, and not been happier; times I wanted to die, to put an end to it all (and nearly did).
Times I have injured or killed; times I have comforted or healed.
Work that involved sitting on a boat, reading books in the sun; work that saw me elbow-deep in oil and sludge, getting 4 hours' sleep on the good nights, or drenched in raw sewage (if I ever tell you something tastes like shit, I mean it...)
So cold I couldn't feel my limbs; so hot I couldn't sweat any more.
Going out to drink on a Thursday, finishing on the Monday morning on the way to work; getting through a couple of bottles of wine with each meal; drowning sorrows; being dry, learning to enjoy alcoholic beverages when I don't just want to get hammered.
Doing nothing but chilling for a month or two; clocking 300 hours of work a month.
Hoarding possessions; giving everything away.
My 20th in Loughborough, drinking shots all night, sleeping in a grotty student house; my 21st in Nacula, Fiji, sober and sitting on a deserted beach with a bonfire, sleeping in a local village about as far from civilisation and the beaten track as you can get.
The list goes on for quite a while further, but this is all very self-indulgent; you're forgiven if you're bored of this tripe. To conclude, variety is the spice and zest of life; seek it out. Weather the bad moments, for they are what make the good times good.
What I once considered the worst things to happen to me, I now consider the best, for they made me stronger, and make me realise how blessed I am. To forget your life is, perhaps, one of the saddest of losses. Treasure all of it.
0130....damn
Sunday, 1 March 2009
What are you? A man or a mouse?
I've had this question posed to me on quite a few occasions, mostly when I was a child. Amusingly, I recall a little voice in my head that piped up every time, giving "squeak" as a private reply.
Identity has been on my mind of late. I don't consider my "identity" to be who/what I view myself as; I am a stream of consciousness contained within a corporeal shell, with various subconscious and/or glandular desires and emotions. I have the capacity to learn, reason and remember, and a greater capacity to forget. To define and categorise oneself is to impose limits on what you can be or achieve. It's similar to trying to describe God; every label you apply makes God less like God and more like your own (mis)conception of what a God should be.
When I think of my "identity", it is what others view me as. I have many, quite different identities, depending on who you ask; depending on what sort of situation people have experienced me in. When someone says they're afraid of me, I'm generally shocked (and I know a few people who would laugh at that). But that's the facet of "me" that they've seen.
I am rather fond of getting my own way; when I want something to happen, I'm not averse to doing whatever I have to in order to realise my wish. Appearance, how I present and comport myself, is one tool I have come to use a lot. It is something we are all judged on, and something we can have a lot of control over. I also find that my mental self image rarely lines up with my actual image; what is inside is rarely reflected on the outside.
This doesn't bother me much. For whatever reason, I am quite detached from what body I have, or what people call me/refer to me as. Those who ask me what name I want them to use, invariably get a hazy "whatever" in reply.
At face value, it seems most people see me as a heterosexual man in his mid-twenties, confident, neatly dressed, well-built, quiet and well-mannered. It is an image I have cultivated and encourage, for the simple reason that it helps me get what I want. In general, people afford me more respect as a result, for like it or not ours is a sexist, ageist (etc) society; if, for example, I were to look my age or younger, or look like a woman, certain things would become a lot more difficult.
Someone once commented to me, "You know, for such a macho guy, you sure do have some very feminine traits..." I just grinned.
We all judge books by their covers; it can't be avoided. But don't forget there's a myriad of pages contained within.
Identity has been on my mind of late. I don't consider my "identity" to be who/what I view myself as; I am a stream of consciousness contained within a corporeal shell, with various subconscious and/or glandular desires and emotions. I have the capacity to learn, reason and remember, and a greater capacity to forget. To define and categorise oneself is to impose limits on what you can be or achieve. It's similar to trying to describe God; every label you apply makes God less like God and more like your own (mis)conception of what a God should be.
When I think of my "identity", it is what others view me as. I have many, quite different identities, depending on who you ask; depending on what sort of situation people have experienced me in. When someone says they're afraid of me, I'm generally shocked (and I know a few people who would laugh at that). But that's the facet of "me" that they've seen.
I am rather fond of getting my own way; when I want something to happen, I'm not averse to doing whatever I have to in order to realise my wish. Appearance, how I present and comport myself, is one tool I have come to use a lot. It is something we are all judged on, and something we can have a lot of control over. I also find that my mental self image rarely lines up with my actual image; what is inside is rarely reflected on the outside.
This doesn't bother me much. For whatever reason, I am quite detached from what body I have, or what people call me/refer to me as. Those who ask me what name I want them to use, invariably get a hazy "whatever" in reply.
At face value, it seems most people see me as a heterosexual man in his mid-twenties, confident, neatly dressed, well-built, quiet and well-mannered. It is an image I have cultivated and encourage, for the simple reason that it helps me get what I want. In general, people afford me more respect as a result, for like it or not ours is a sexist, ageist (etc) society; if, for example, I were to look my age or younger, or look like a woman, certain things would become a lot more difficult.
Someone once commented to me, "You know, for such a macho guy, you sure do have some very feminine traits..." I just grinned.
We all judge books by their covers; it can't be avoided. But don't forget there's a myriad of pages contained within.
Wednesday, 4 February 2009
Hot Steamy Yaoi! (Intro)
I'll admit, perhaps the title is ever-so-slightly misleading. Don't expect me to apologise (nor explain, if you don't understand it).
At the request of a few people, on various occasions, what follows shall be an account of my views on Christianity and the Bible in relation to homosexuality. It's not going to be short, and I'll even include references at the end. Aren't I kind?
But before I begin, I would like to make certain points clear:
And so, without much further ado, let us move forwards, beyond the forewords!
At the request of a few people, on various occasions, what follows shall be an account of my views on Christianity and the Bible in relation to homosexuality. It's not going to be short, and I'll even include references at the end. Aren't I kind?
But before I begin, I would like to make certain points clear:
- This isn't intended to sway anyone's beliefs, but merely clarify and explain how I came to my own conclusions and opinions. Better people than I have tried and failed to change the stance of anti-homosexuality proponents. One cannot reason a man out of a position he has not been reasoned into. I gave up trying a while ago.
- I spent a long time over this subject, and invested a lot of thought, research, introspection, and prayer into it before I decided what was right in my eyes. We are all biased, but this is, in no way, merely an exercise in self-justification. I don't need that.
- Within this disquisition, I shall not be addressing in depth my perception of the follies and downfalls of organised religion, or the Christian churches. I don't want to end up typing a novel. Most major Christian denominations put great emphasis on the authority of the Bible, and some on the authority of the Church and Tradition. It is these aspects I shall mainly be concentrating on.
- I have tried to make the main body concise and fairly easy reading, for those who can't bear the thought of indepth study. The references/bibliography at the end are, therefore, quite comprehensive, and I'd urge anyone with the will and patience to study further on their own. Don't take my opinions as gospel.
- This is a touchy issue, with many people having very big fights and fallings-out. It's not likely to be resolved any time soon, but in all the theology and philosophy, try to remember that real people, with real feelings, are being affected by society's opinions (i.e. YOUR opinions) in a very real way.
- I don't make a habit of pondering and debating theology any more. There are more imortant things to life. This is in answer to a couple of requests, not a sign of more things to come.
- Comments, criticism, and debate are always welcome, on the strict condition that they are legible, grammatically correct, polite, justified/backed-up with suitable evidence, and in response to having actually read my writings. Slogans, derogatoriness, dogma, condemnation, etc. may be inserted directly into your rectum, without having to be aired to me first.
- If you can't understand sarcasm, I have no time for you.
- If you don't know common Latin abbreviations, or polysyllabic words, might I recommend a dictionary as a wonderful resource?
- If you wish to use this essay, by all means do so. I will request, however, that it remains complete, including references, and you don't claim it as your own unless you bother to reword it. Plagiarism is the sincerest form of
flatterycopyright infringement.
And so, without much further ado, let us move forwards, beyond the forewords!
Hot Steamy Yaoi! (Part 1)
The mainstream Christian stance on homosexuality has long been (and to a large extent still is) that homosexuality is a Sin. "God Hates Fags", as some might eloquently suggest. Certain modern groups put a gentler, more politically-correct spin on it, talking about "loving the sinner, hating the sin" and stressing that it's "homosexual acts, not homosexual orientation/desires" that is the sin. Pretty wording, just as destructive and sinister when put into practice.
Ask the average self-professing Christian why it's Wrong, and you'll likely get the answer "the Bible says so". Ask them where, and you'll have many people stumped. Que mutterings about "Old Testament" and "Sodom and Gomorrah", or even "Unnatural-ness" and "fallen worlds". I have yet to meet a person who, having been brought up in a Western/Judeo-Christian country, could tell me that they thought homosexuality was absolutely fine until they read it was wrong in the Bible. Always, the opinion comes before the justification.
Two words: Societal Influence.
There are cultures and societies in our world for whom homosexuality and transsexuality are perfectly normal, in fact are an intrinsic part of life (for example, tribes in New Guinea1). If they don't have some mystic instinct that tells them it's Evil, why do Westerners?
We grow up with the concept of some things being "right" or "wrong" all around us, either implied or outright expounded. A person's take on homosexuality often fits in as part of their fundamental worldviews, which are formed early on in childhood and heavily influenced by those around them (e.g. parents, siblings, teachers)2. So we generally perceive homosexuality as either "good" or "bad" before we're of an age to understand what romance and sex even are. Worldviews are very hard to change; they form our core beliefs, how we view our surroundings, our opinions on how life should operate; therefore when we are mature enough to begin considering such subjects as sexuality, we already carry deeply rooted preconceptions and biases.
Hence, it is little wonder this debate is causing so much strife in our world, and people rabidly stand by arguments touting "proof" that endures scrutiny and reason, like a snowman endures a Saharan heatwave.
Proof such as "the Bible says so".
For those who don't know (viz. the majority of people), in the original translations of the Bible, homosexuality is directly mentioned a grand total of zero times. Even different English translations cannot agree, with some including no mention of "homosexual" or "homosexuality" (e.g. the KJV, NCV, the Message, ASV, YLT) and others (e.g. NIV, NKJV, NLT, ESV, NASV) including the word in dubious translations that I shall address later. Interesting to note, however, that those translations that do make direct mention of the term "homosexual" are exclusively modern, (from the latter part of the 1900's, or the start of 2000, often the 1980's or 1990's), whereas translations with no mention of the word include those both old and new. Again, this reeks of societal influence upon the translators.
This, of course, has not stopped people from finding passages in the Bible, from which to construct support for their arguments. The most common of these include the Creation account in Genesis, the Levitical laws, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and Paul's letters to the Romans, Corinthians and Timothy.
Ask the average self-professing Christian why it's Wrong, and you'll likely get the answer "the Bible says so". Ask them where, and you'll have many people stumped. Que mutterings about "Old Testament" and "Sodom and Gomorrah", or even "Unnatural-ness" and "fallen worlds". I have yet to meet a person who, having been brought up in a Western/Judeo-Christian country, could tell me that they thought homosexuality was absolutely fine until they read it was wrong in the Bible. Always, the opinion comes before the justification.
Two words: Societal Influence.
There are cultures and societies in our world for whom homosexuality and transsexuality are perfectly normal, in fact are an intrinsic part of life (for example, tribes in New Guinea1). If they don't have some mystic instinct that tells them it's Evil, why do Westerners?
We grow up with the concept of some things being "right" or "wrong" all around us, either implied or outright expounded. A person's take on homosexuality often fits in as part of their fundamental worldviews, which are formed early on in childhood and heavily influenced by those around them (e.g. parents, siblings, teachers)2. So we generally perceive homosexuality as either "good" or "bad" before we're of an age to understand what romance and sex even are. Worldviews are very hard to change; they form our core beliefs, how we view our surroundings, our opinions on how life should operate; therefore when we are mature enough to begin considering such subjects as sexuality, we already carry deeply rooted preconceptions and biases.
Hence, it is little wonder this debate is causing so much strife in our world, and people rabidly stand by arguments touting "proof" that endures scrutiny and reason, like a snowman endures a Saharan heatwave.
Proof such as "the Bible says so".
For those who don't know (viz. the majority of people), in the original translations of the Bible, homosexuality is directly mentioned a grand total of zero times. Even different English translations cannot agree, with some including no mention of "homosexual" or "homosexuality" (e.g. the KJV, NCV, the Message, ASV, YLT) and others (e.g. NIV, NKJV, NLT, ESV, NASV) including the word in dubious translations that I shall address later. Interesting to note, however, that those translations that do make direct mention of the term "homosexual" are exclusively modern, (from the latter part of the 1900's, or the start of 2000, often the 1980's or 1990's), whereas translations with no mention of the word include those both old and new. Again, this reeks of societal influence upon the translators.
This, of course, has not stopped people from finding passages in the Bible, from which to construct support for their arguments. The most common of these include the Creation account in Genesis, the Levitical laws, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and Paul's letters to the Romans, Corinthians and Timothy.
Hot Steamy Yaoi! (Part 2)
Levitical Laws
The book of Leviticus, third book of the Christian Old Testament and the Jewish Torah. An entire volume on ritual purity. Instructions to the Jews and their priests, designed to distinguish them from the surrounding nations. To strengthen their cultural identity, and prevent foreign practices and acts of worship from corrupting their traditions.
It lays down the law on "proper" behaviour, from sacrifices and offerings3 to ceremonial purification4, from how to perform rituals5 to what not to do as acts of worship6, and sets out punishments for those who disobey7. It states that Israel should not act like the Egyptians and Canaanites, and gives a list of deeds and behaviours that should, therefore, be considered unacceptable8.
Amongst all this, we find the brief verse used by some to condemn homosexuality:
Repeated a couple of chapters later with the punishment:
So, within an entire book on "How To Be a Righteous, Purified Jew and Perform All the Correct Rituals" and "What To Do To People Who Try To Do Differently (Kill Them)", we have two verses that apply to all peoples of the modern world, unequivocally stating that homosexuality is wrong. How indubitable.
Frequently, the popular bandwagon to jump on whenever Leviticus is brought up in debate, is the fact that other Laws from the book are blatantly ignored nowadays, specifically re: eating shellfish11 and wearing mixed-fibre clothing12. This is sometimes countered by talk of different "levels" of Law being present, of important Moral Codes alongside mere Health Recommendations and Ritual Codes of Practice.
It is of some significance, then, that the word translated as "abomination" is the Hebrew word "Tow`ebah", used throughout the Old Testament to signify ritual uncleanliness14. Not quite what the modern English-speaker thinks of when presented with Abomination: "nasty and disgusting; vile, loathsome.". And why use "Tow`ebah" if the author meant "Zimmah"; moral wickedness, evil15?
Another oft-made observation is that the verses cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, include female homosexuality; the wording/grammar irrefutably specify men who "lie" (whatever that means...) with men. In the same chapters, when bestiality is dealt with, both men and women are specifically forbidden from intercourse with animals13. So God is cool with lesbians but not gay men?
Interesting, also, how the 2004 NLT bible for example, says instead "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin", to handily cover up, through translation, any doubt that might otherwise ensue.
However, neither of these common points pique my interest quite so much as the fact that, in Leviticus Chapter 18 (and again in Chapter 20), it uses the phrase "Do not have sexual relations with..." eighteen times16 (alternatively, "The nakedness...thou shalt not uncover..."/"You shall not have intercourse with..."); and yet, for our single, all-important verse, the author abandons the less ambiguous phraseology for "lie as with a woman".
Or, in alternative translations, "beds-[of-a]-woman". For the Hebrew construct, "Mishkevey", formed of two nouns, appears nowhere else in the Old Testament translated as anything other than "bed" or "bed-chamber"; describing all this as obscure and enigmatic borders on understatement. A similar argument holds true for the Greek translation, the Septuagint17.
In addition, the command appears just after burning children as a sacrifice to Molech is forbidden, and just before ritual bestiality is banned, "as were the practices of the nations around Israel"18. Not a huge leap of logic to discern that "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" 9 might just, ever so possibly, have something to do with worshipping other gods.
What a stupendous argument against two people of the same sex having an emotional and physical relationship.
The book of Leviticus, third book of the Christian Old Testament and the Jewish Torah. An entire volume on ritual purity. Instructions to the Jews and their priests, designed to distinguish them from the surrounding nations. To strengthen their cultural identity, and prevent foreign practices and acts of worship from corrupting their traditions.
It lays down the law on "proper" behaviour, from sacrifices and offerings3 to ceremonial purification4, from how to perform rituals5 to what not to do as acts of worship6, and sets out punishments for those who disobey7. It states that Israel should not act like the Egyptians and Canaanites, and gives a list of deeds and behaviours that should, therefore, be considered unacceptable8.
Amongst all this, we find the brief verse used by some to condemn homosexuality:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."9
Repeated a couple of chapters later with the punishment:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."10
So, within an entire book on "How To Be a Righteous, Purified Jew and Perform All the Correct Rituals" and "What To Do To People Who Try To Do Differently (Kill Them)", we have two verses that apply to all peoples of the modern world, unequivocally stating that homosexuality is wrong. How indubitable.
Frequently, the popular bandwagon to jump on whenever Leviticus is brought up in debate, is the fact that other Laws from the book are blatantly ignored nowadays, specifically re: eating shellfish11 and wearing mixed-fibre clothing12. This is sometimes countered by talk of different "levels" of Law being present, of important Moral Codes alongside mere Health Recommendations and Ritual Codes of Practice.
It is of some significance, then, that the word translated as "abomination" is the Hebrew word "Tow`ebah", used throughout the Old Testament to signify ritual uncleanliness14. Not quite what the modern English-speaker thinks of when presented with Abomination: "nasty and disgusting; vile, loathsome.". And why use "Tow`ebah" if the author meant "Zimmah"; moral wickedness, evil15?
Another oft-made observation is that the verses cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, include female homosexuality; the wording/grammar irrefutably specify men who "lie" (whatever that means...) with men. In the same chapters, when bestiality is dealt with, both men and women are specifically forbidden from intercourse with animals13. So God is cool with lesbians but not gay men?
Interesting, also, how the 2004 NLT bible for example, says instead "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin", to handily cover up, through translation, any doubt that might otherwise ensue.
However, neither of these common points pique my interest quite so much as the fact that, in Leviticus Chapter 18 (and again in Chapter 20), it uses the phrase "Do not have sexual relations with..." eighteen times16 (alternatively, "The nakedness...thou shalt not uncover..."/"You shall not have intercourse with..."); and yet, for our single, all-important verse, the author abandons the less ambiguous phraseology for "lie as with a woman".
Or, in alternative translations, "beds-[of-a]-woman". For the Hebrew construct, "Mishkevey", formed of two nouns, appears nowhere else in the Old Testament translated as anything other than "bed" or "bed-chamber"; describing all this as obscure and enigmatic borders on understatement. A similar argument holds true for the Greek translation, the Septuagint17.
In addition, the command appears just after burning children as a sacrifice to Molech is forbidden, and just before ritual bestiality is banned, "as were the practices of the nations around Israel"18. Not a huge leap of logic to discern that "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" 9 might just, ever so possibly, have something to do with worshipping other gods.
What a stupendous argument against two people of the same sex having an emotional and physical relationship.
Hot Steamy Yaoi! (Part 3)
Sodom & Gomorrah
Ah, Sodom, the city that lent its name to the terms "sodomy" and "sodomite". Terms we automatically link with "teh buttsecks". How droll, then, that despite the Sins of Sodom being mentioned in over a score of different verses throughout the bible, "homosexuality" is never one of them19. Societal influence? Surely not again?!
Certainly, there is word of the city being full of immoral people. Inhospitable people. Idolatrous, murderous, greedy, arrogant, adulterous, prideful, oppressive, unrepentant people. All that, and more, mentioned quite specifically. But no reference to queers.
Hence one might ponder, wherefore art said fated city the namesake of such terms? Afterall, sex doesn't even come into the picture until the early Christian Church decided to note sexual immorality as being amongst Sodom's sins (for example Jude Chapter 1 Verse 7, KJV: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."). And even here, "fornication" is the translated word "Ekporneuo" (to go a whoring, "give one's self over to fornication")20 and has very heterosexual connotations. "Strange flesh" refers to having sex with angels, the "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis Chapter 6 Verses 1 to 4 (for Lot's guests were, apparently, two angels sent by God21).
The entire argument hinges, as usual, upon one precarious passage (in Genesis 19), and an interestingly translated word: Yada`. For it is this word that appears in Genesis 19 verse 5:
Alternatively:
There appears to be ever-so-slight-a-difference in the implied meaning between these two translations; what is translated as "to know" in the KJV, becomes "to have sex with" in the NIV. One could argue, the author meant "to know carnally". However, Yada` appears in the Old Testament 947 times. Yes, that's nine hundred and forty seven times24. The overwhelming majority of those mentions have no sexual implications whatsoever; it literally means to know experientially, to learn of, find out, etc.
It is perfectly true that there exists a handful of instances (about 5%) where Yada` suggests carnal knowledge. All instances (bar this single, disputed account of Sodom's tale) denote heterosexual sexual encounters. Yada` doesn't always appear alone in these cases (i.e. it is combined with other words that translate as "to lie with.." etc.) and, often, the results of this heterosexual "knowing" are also recorded (e.g. "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain..."25). In addition, if the mens' intention was to perform sexual acts with the strangers, why use Yada`, instead of one of the more direct Hebew words?
Could it not be, that the men of the city wanted to know, i.e. identify, the strangers Lot had decided to shelter within their city? In an era and culture where war, conquest and barbarism were common, and cities had walls with gates that were locked at sundown, is it odd for people to wonder why a foreigner living amongst them26 was harbouring strangers in his home at night?
Still, some consider the Sin of Sodom, and the reason it was destroyed, to be that it was full of homosexuals. I find Abraham's pleading with the Lord beforehand interestingly relevant27. It concludes with God saying "For the sake of ten [righteous men], I will not destroy [Sodom]." So, in the words of the Lord, if there were but ten men in the whole of Sodom who were righteous, the city would not have been destroyed.
Therefore, it goes without saying that if the Sin was homosexuality, then the entire city woud have had to be gay. Even today, with our advanced methods of communication and transport, you couldn't find a city like that (more's the pity). How statistically likely is it, then, that Sodom would have been populated by homosexuals?
And to say "But it was one of the sins, not the only sin, so they didn't have to all be gay, so nyer!" holds no water, for "both old and young, all the people from every quarter" were surrounding Lot's house, demanding to Yada` the strangers.
Finally, it must be mentioned that even if the incident in Sodom was about sexual acts (all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding...) then it was a case of attempted rape. An act of power, against the wishes of the recipient, degrading to the victim. Making the angels their bitches, so to speak.
Rape is never a good thing.
But neither is a case of rape grounds to condemn sex or relationships in general. A very similar occurance happened in Gibeah28, which resulted in a concubine actually being raped to death, and again a city being destroyed. But no one would use that to outlaw heterosexuality.
The sad tale of Sodom and its fate is no grounds for condemning homosexuality; one can barely concede that it's even remotely relevant.
Ah, Sodom, the city that lent its name to the terms "sodomy" and "sodomite". Terms we automatically link with "teh buttsecks". How droll, then, that despite the Sins of Sodom being mentioned in over a score of different verses throughout the bible, "homosexuality" is never one of them19. Societal influence? Surely not again?!
Certainly, there is word of the city being full of immoral people. Inhospitable people. Idolatrous, murderous, greedy, arrogant, adulterous, prideful, oppressive, unrepentant people. All that, and more, mentioned quite specifically. But no reference to queers.
Hence one might ponder, wherefore art said fated city the namesake of such terms? Afterall, sex doesn't even come into the picture until the early Christian Church decided to note sexual immorality as being amongst Sodom's sins (for example Jude Chapter 1 Verse 7, KJV: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."). And even here, "fornication" is the translated word "Ekporneuo" (to go a whoring, "give one's self over to fornication")20 and has very heterosexual connotations. "Strange flesh" refers to having sex with angels, the "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis Chapter 6 Verses 1 to 4 (for Lot's guests were, apparently, two angels sent by God21).
The entire argument hinges, as usual, upon one precarious passage (in Genesis 19), and an interestingly translated word: Yada`. For it is this word that appears in Genesis 19 verse 5:
"And they [the men of the city] called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them."22
Alternatively:
"They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'"23
There appears to be ever-so-slight-a-difference in the implied meaning between these two translations; what is translated as "to know" in the KJV, becomes "to have sex with" in the NIV. One could argue, the author meant "to know carnally". However, Yada` appears in the Old Testament 947 times. Yes, that's nine hundred and forty seven times24. The overwhelming majority of those mentions have no sexual implications whatsoever; it literally means to know experientially, to learn of, find out, etc.
It is perfectly true that there exists a handful of instances (about 5%) where Yada` suggests carnal knowledge. All instances (bar this single, disputed account of Sodom's tale) denote heterosexual sexual encounters. Yada` doesn't always appear alone in these cases (i.e. it is combined with other words that translate as "to lie with.." etc.) and, often, the results of this heterosexual "knowing" are also recorded (e.g. "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain..."25). In addition, if the mens' intention was to perform sexual acts with the strangers, why use Yada`, instead of one of the more direct Hebew words?
Could it not be, that the men of the city wanted to know, i.e. identify, the strangers Lot had decided to shelter within their city? In an era and culture where war, conquest and barbarism were common, and cities had walls with gates that were locked at sundown, is it odd for people to wonder why a foreigner living amongst them26 was harbouring strangers in his home at night?
Still, some consider the Sin of Sodom, and the reason it was destroyed, to be that it was full of homosexuals. I find Abraham's pleading with the Lord beforehand interestingly relevant27. It concludes with God saying "For the sake of ten [righteous men], I will not destroy [Sodom]." So, in the words of the Lord, if there were but ten men in the whole of Sodom who were righteous, the city would not have been destroyed.
Therefore, it goes without saying that if the Sin was homosexuality, then the entire city woud have had to be gay. Even today, with our advanced methods of communication and transport, you couldn't find a city like that (more's the pity). How statistically likely is it, then, that Sodom would have been populated by homosexuals?
And to say "But it was one of the sins, not the only sin, so they didn't have to all be gay, so nyer!" holds no water, for "both old and young, all the people from every quarter" were surrounding Lot's house, demanding to Yada` the strangers.
Finally, it must be mentioned that even if the incident in Sodom was about sexual acts (all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding...) then it was a case of attempted rape. An act of power, against the wishes of the recipient, degrading to the victim. Making the angels their bitches, so to speak.
Rape is never a good thing.
But neither is a case of rape grounds to condemn sex or relationships in general. A very similar occurance happened in Gibeah28, which resulted in a concubine actually being raped to death, and again a city being destroyed. But no one would use that to outlaw heterosexuality.
The sad tale of Sodom and its fate is no grounds for condemning homosexuality; one can barely concede that it's even remotely relevant.
Hot Steamy Yaoi! (Part 4)
Paul's Epistle to the Romans
First off, this book is quite possibly one of the most complex letters ever. Books have been written about books that have been written about [sic] Romans. Paul's theology in a nutshell, scribed to a mixed audience of Jews and Gentiles in the metropolis that was Rome; a place and people, also, Paul had never visited29 (unlike with many of his other letters, which were "follow-up" epistles, reinforcing what he had already said, in person, during previous visits30).
Ergo, it is misguided foolhardiness of the greatest order, to presume to pick a couple of verses out of context, expecting to glean a correct and enlightened message from them. But we do it anyway.
At least Paul is less vague and ambiguous than the Old Testament authors. Well...at face value.
One challenge Paul faced in writing to the Romans, as mentioned, was that he hadn't met them. How, then, could he relate to these people? For the Jewish citizens of Rome, the answer is simple: quote and/or paraphrase Jewish writings32. For the Gentiles? Well...all the cool kids were down with the Greek Philosophers. So why not borrow some of their phrases and writings?
The concept of "natural" or "unnatural" acts is not a Jewish one. It appears nowhere in the Old Testament. Naturalism33 is a philosophical concept. The first recorded use of the term "nature" was by Homer34. By definition, the phrases have nothing to do with the theological or divine moral implications of an action, as the endeavour is to explain actions and beliefs via factual and causal observations, excluding any deity or supernatural authority. Something that is "according to nature", is controlled, logical, reasoned, within Custom and Law; "against nature" is out of balance, uncontrolled, driven by emotion. Also, those terms were often used in a proscriptive manner, not descriptively (e.g. in Stoicism).
To simplify with a relevant example, for a man to have sex with a woman in order to produce offspring is a natural act; the causal result - the reason behind the action - is the production of an heir, continuation of a bloodline, help around the house, security in old age, et al. But for a man to have sex with a woman utilising prophylactics because she is hawt, is unnatural; for it is an act of lust, ruled by self-gratification and passion. Even more so when the act leads to loss of self-control and addiction.
Important to note that the Greeks viewed sex as a purely physical act, in which one body used another body as an object; it had no connection with today's concepts of romance35. Men were assumed to have high sex drives, and this desire was good in that it defined manhood, which itself was the central virtue of humanity. This force was dangerous, but needed to be sated more than it needed to be restricted to particular "objects"36.
Going back to the passage in Romans, Paul is referencing Plato:
Keeping in mind what has thus far been mentioned, it follows that homosexual intercourse is deemed a prime example of "unnatural acts" because in the eyes of Ancient Greek philosophy, there is no visible result other than personal gratification of the penetrator using the submissive partner's body. Taken in further context, the passage in Plato was a dialogue with a Cretan, renound for prolonging the sexual erastes/eromenos (man/pubescent boy) relationship beyond the point of the boy reaching full maturity, which went against cultural norms. The passage starts out mentioning crass jokes made about the matter. The acts are then compared to drunkenness/alcoholism, which becomes the focus of proceeding chapters.
It is not homosexuality being critisised, here, but "slavery to pleasure". Excess, loss of control; Passion.
To further emphasise "passion" as the misdemeanor in question, five seperate forms/parts of "passion" appear in these few verses Paul wrote: Epithumia38, Pathos39, Ekkaio40, Orexis41, and Plane42.
Which is a moderately overwhelming way of concluding that, actually...Paul isn't condemning homesexuals at all.
Fortunately (!) it doesn't end there. For the purpose of Romans Chapter 1 doesn't appear to be deliberately setting out an exhaustive list of sins to avoid, or people to condemn. Taken in context with Romans Chapter 2:
What an unfortunate choice that scholar made, all those years ago, to separate Romans Chapters 1 and 2 where he did. Paul wasn't making a list of people headed straight for Hell; he was preaching against hypocrisy! The end of Chapter 1 might be imagined to make Paul's Roman audience think, "Wow, yeah, despicable heathen Romans with their orgies and debauchery, thank goodness we're not as bad as that..." only for Paul to turn round and say "Don't be so smug! Don't judge! You're exactly the same!" He goes on to preach against legalism, a common problem, and a common theme in many of Paul's writings (i.e. most of the New Testament...).
First off, this book is quite possibly one of the most complex letters ever. Books have been written about books that have been written about [sic] Romans. Paul's theology in a nutshell, scribed to a mixed audience of Jews and Gentiles in the metropolis that was Rome; a place and people, also, Paul had never visited29 (unlike with many of his other letters, which were "follow-up" epistles, reinforcing what he had already said, in person, during previous visits30).
Ergo, it is misguided foolhardiness of the greatest order, to presume to pick a couple of verses out of context, expecting to glean a correct and enlightened message from them. But we do it anyway.
"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator...For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."31
At least Paul is less vague and ambiguous than the Old Testament authors. Well...at face value.
One challenge Paul faced in writing to the Romans, as mentioned, was that he hadn't met them. How, then, could he relate to these people? For the Jewish citizens of Rome, the answer is simple: quote and/or paraphrase Jewish writings32. For the Gentiles? Well...all the cool kids were down with the Greek Philosophers. So why not borrow some of their phrases and writings?
The concept of "natural" or "unnatural" acts is not a Jewish one. It appears nowhere in the Old Testament. Naturalism33 is a philosophical concept. The first recorded use of the term "nature" was by Homer34. By definition, the phrases have nothing to do with the theological or divine moral implications of an action, as the endeavour is to explain actions and beliefs via factual and causal observations, excluding any deity or supernatural authority. Something that is "according to nature", is controlled, logical, reasoned, within Custom and Law; "against nature" is out of balance, uncontrolled, driven by emotion. Also, those terms were often used in a proscriptive manner, not descriptively (e.g. in Stoicism).
To simplify with a relevant example, for a man to have sex with a woman in order to produce offspring is a natural act; the causal result - the reason behind the action - is the production of an heir, continuation of a bloodline, help around the house, security in old age, et al. But for a man to have sex with a woman utilising prophylactics because she is hawt, is unnatural; for it is an act of lust, ruled by self-gratification and passion. Even more so when the act leads to loss of self-control and addiction.
Important to note that the Greeks viewed sex as a purely physical act, in which one body used another body as an object; it had no connection with today's concepts of romance35. Men were assumed to have high sex drives, and this desire was good in that it defined manhood, which itself was the central virtue of humanity. This force was dangerous, but needed to be sated more than it needed to be restricted to particular "objects"36.
Going back to the passage in Romans, Paul is referencing Plato:
"And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure."37
Keeping in mind what has thus far been mentioned, it follows that homosexual intercourse is deemed a prime example of "unnatural acts" because in the eyes of Ancient Greek philosophy, there is no visible result other than personal gratification of the penetrator using the submissive partner's body. Taken in further context, the passage in Plato was a dialogue with a Cretan, renound for prolonging the sexual erastes/eromenos (man/pubescent boy) relationship beyond the point of the boy reaching full maturity, which went against cultural norms. The passage starts out mentioning crass jokes made about the matter. The acts are then compared to drunkenness/alcoholism, which becomes the focus of proceeding chapters.
It is not homosexuality being critisised, here, but "slavery to pleasure". Excess, loss of control; Passion.
To further emphasise "passion" as the misdemeanor in question, five seperate forms/parts of "passion" appear in these few verses Paul wrote: Epithumia38, Pathos39, Ekkaio40, Orexis41, and Plane42.
Which is a moderately overwhelming way of concluding that, actually...Paul isn't condemning homesexuals at all.
Fortunately (!) it doesn't end there. For the purpose of Romans Chapter 1 doesn't appear to be deliberately setting out an exhaustive list of sins to avoid, or people to condemn. Taken in context with Romans Chapter 2:
"Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?"43
What an unfortunate choice that scholar made, all those years ago, to separate Romans Chapters 1 and 2 where he did. Paul wasn't making a list of people headed straight for Hell; he was preaching against hypocrisy! The end of Chapter 1 might be imagined to make Paul's Roman audience think, "Wow, yeah, despicable heathen Romans with their orgies and debauchery, thank goodness we're not as bad as that..." only for Paul to turn round and say "Don't be so smug! Don't judge! You're exactly the same!" He goes on to preach against legalism, a common problem, and a common theme in many of Paul's writings (i.e. most of the New Testament...).
Hot Steamy Yaoi! (Part 5)
Paul's First Epistles to the Church of the Greek City of Corinth, and to Timothy
Our good friend Paul, again. Such a great guy; but is he as homophobic as some might suggest?
Another verse commonly taken to sentence queer folk to Hell. Lo and behold, the NIV unsurprisingly skews the translation further:
All this in a passage moaning about in-fighting amongst church members, members suing each other in local courts, and partaking in local (sexual) customs (let us not forget what was previously mentioned of Greek culture and its attitude towards sex). To me, it reads as if Paul is primarily concerned about the public image of the recalcitrant church of Corinth.
Once again, the whole premise rests on ambiguity. Or rather, in this particular instance, colloquialism.
To begin with, Malakos46, "effeminate" in the KJV, could be taken to mean, depending on your chosen translation and interpretation: masturbators; limp-wristed, camp, un-macho men; transvestites, or transsexuals; male prostitutes, or the submissive partner in anal intercourse (the latter being the most likely, considering Greek societal stigma36)
Malakos appears twice more in the bible, in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke46, describing what the garments of John the Baptist weren't (i.e. "soft", the literal translation of the word). Hmmm....
Wading further into the sea of uncertainty, "abusers of themselves with mankind" are Arsenokoites, or "man-beds"47. Déjà vu à la Leviticus, anyone? A unique word, made up of two Greek words translating seperately as "man" and "bed". It appears once more in the entire Bible, in 1 Timothy Chapter 1 Verse 10, written by...guess who? Paul again is not condemning anyone, but explaining who the Law was made for (manbeds, apparently).
So, homosexuality is wrong based on a single, highly equivocal word, seemingly made up by Paul, for he is the only one to ever use it. Even though Greeks were hardly prudish when it came to depicting sex acts of any shape or form, he used a bizarre euphemism to hint at woofters, rather than use a perfectly good word already established in the Greek language? Sure, I can believe that.
My leprechaun believes it too.
Maybe Paul did mean gay people. But I have been unable to find contemporary recordings of Arsenokoites outside of the two mentions by the same author. It's certainly not a word in use today. It gets a few mentions amongst authors referencing Paul's writings, so that's of no use in our epic quest to clarify the essence of the word. The fact remains that to surmise what Arsenokoites means is folly, and no suitable grounds for any argument against homosexuality.
Thus ends the discourse on the only verses in the bible one might consider to be a negative reference on the subject of homosexuality.
Our good friend Paul, again. Such a great guy; but is he as homophobic as some might suggest?
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."44
Another verse commonly taken to sentence queer folk to Hell. Lo and behold, the NIV unsurprisingly skews the translation further:
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."45
All this in a passage moaning about in-fighting amongst church members, members suing each other in local courts, and partaking in local (sexual) customs (let us not forget what was previously mentioned of Greek culture and its attitude towards sex). To me, it reads as if Paul is primarily concerned about the public image of the recalcitrant church of Corinth.
Once again, the whole premise rests on ambiguity. Or rather, in this particular instance, colloquialism.
To begin with, Malakos46, "effeminate" in the KJV, could be taken to mean, depending on your chosen translation and interpretation: masturbators; limp-wristed, camp, un-macho men; transvestites, or transsexuals; male prostitutes, or the submissive partner in anal intercourse (the latter being the most likely, considering Greek societal stigma36)
Malakos appears twice more in the bible, in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke46, describing what the garments of John the Baptist weren't (i.e. "soft", the literal translation of the word). Hmmm....
Wading further into the sea of uncertainty, "abusers of themselves with mankind" are Arsenokoites, or "man-beds"47. Déjà vu à la Leviticus, anyone? A unique word, made up of two Greek words translating seperately as "man" and "bed". It appears once more in the entire Bible, in 1 Timothy Chapter 1 Verse 10, written by...guess who? Paul again is not condemning anyone, but explaining who the Law was made for (manbeds, apparently).
So, homosexuality is wrong based on a single, highly equivocal word, seemingly made up by Paul, for he is the only one to ever use it. Even though Greeks were hardly prudish when it came to depicting sex acts of any shape or form, he used a bizarre euphemism to hint at woofters, rather than use a perfectly good word already established in the Greek language? Sure, I can believe that.
My leprechaun believes it too.
Maybe Paul did mean gay people. But I have been unable to find contemporary recordings of Arsenokoites outside of the two mentions by the same author. It's certainly not a word in use today. It gets a few mentions amongst authors referencing Paul's writings, so that's of no use in our epic quest to clarify the essence of the word. The fact remains that to surmise what Arsenokoites means is folly, and no suitable grounds for any argument against homosexuality.
Thus ends the discourse on the only verses in the bible one might consider to be a negative reference on the subject of homosexuality.
Hot Steamy Yaoi! (Part 6)
Creation, Marriage, Nature and Honorable Mentions (or lack thereof)
A.K.A. the "misc." chapter.
Where would we be without such deep and enlightened syllogism as "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"?
Some would choose to claim God made woman for man, exclusively; some uphold the view that God created them gay. Neither argument belongs in a debate forum; both shall, in all likelihood, remain as unsubstantiated as the existence and precise identity of God. I know God exists, in the same way I know I didn't choose to be gay and it isn't wrong. Simple as. End of.
It has been said to me, that if one cannot take the Creation Account in Genesis as literal and exhaustive, one might as well discount the whole of the Bible and its authority. That is not a rational argument, but a plea; it is saying "My world view is founded upon literal acceptance of Genesis". Genesis could be infallible to the letter, or it could be a campfire tale concocted by many generations of an ancient patriarchal society. Good luck proving whatever you hold true and dear to your little heart. To say homosexuality is "against the order of original creation" and abhorrant in its "unnaturalness" stems from a warping/misunderstanding of Paul (as addressed previously). Also, common belief has been brought under debate after proliferous documented cases of animal bisexuality and homosexuality, both in the wild and in captivity48
Oh, and the Bible. Is. A. Collection. Of. Books. And. Letters. Written. And. Compiled. By. Men.
How people have gotten away with using unwarranted obscurities to justify discrimination for so long, is beyond me. There exists no "-ism" under the sun that is not susceptible to exoneration via religious intolerance.
Moving on, claiming the bible only documents heterosexual relationships is both asinine and questionable.
Make of that what you will. No proof of the platonic nature of their souls' entwining, nor evidence that they were humping like a pair of horny puppies overdosed on aphrodisiacs. Just a bit of suggestive wording.
And besides, the bible is not a sappy romance novel (outside of cheesy born-again slogans claiming that it is God's love letter to mankind....). As some are wont to persistently comment on, homosexual unions cannot produce offspring. So why would the bible mention such unions, when it is frequently concerned with documenting lineage?50 And why use homosexual unions to illustrate a point concerning "sinful behaviour", when the majority of the earth's population are more heterosexually-inclined?
Omission is not permission, but nor is it prohibition.
Paul talks of marriage as a condonable method to sate sexual desire and lust51. The institution of partnership had, and still has, much further-reaching legal and social implications than getting your rocks off, but that's another argument. Point is, if it's good for heterosexuals, why do those with homosexual tendencies need to "control their urges", "get fixed" or remain celibate? If even Paul can admit that humans have urges and needs, and very few people are gifted with the ability to control or suppress them, why do we try to deny people what is right for them?
Finito
5000 words. Well done, if you made it all the way. Why not go and treat yourself to a brew...?
A.K.A. the "misc." chapter.
Where would we be without such deep and enlightened syllogism as "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"?
Some would choose to claim God made woman for man, exclusively; some uphold the view that God created them gay. Neither argument belongs in a debate forum; both shall, in all likelihood, remain as unsubstantiated as the existence and precise identity of God. I know God exists, in the same way I know I didn't choose to be gay and it isn't wrong. Simple as. End of.
It has been said to me, that if one cannot take the Creation Account in Genesis as literal and exhaustive, one might as well discount the whole of the Bible and its authority. That is not a rational argument, but a plea; it is saying "My world view is founded upon literal acceptance of Genesis". Genesis could be infallible to the letter, or it could be a campfire tale concocted by many generations of an ancient patriarchal society. Good luck proving whatever you hold true and dear to your little heart. To say homosexuality is "against the order of original creation" and abhorrant in its "unnaturalness" stems from a warping/misunderstanding of Paul (as addressed previously). Also, common belief has been brought under debate after proliferous documented cases of animal bisexuality and homosexuality, both in the wild and in captivity48
Oh, and the Bible. Is. A. Collection. Of. Books. And. Letters. Written. And. Compiled. By. Men.
How people have gotten away with using unwarranted obscurities to justify discrimination for so long, is beyond me. There exists no "-ism" under the sun that is not susceptible to exoneration via religious intolerance.
Moving on, claiming the bible only documents heterosexual relationships is both asinine and questionable.
And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. 49
Make of that what you will. No proof of the platonic nature of their souls' entwining, nor evidence that they were humping like a pair of horny puppies overdosed on aphrodisiacs. Just a bit of suggestive wording.
And besides, the bible is not a sappy romance novel (outside of cheesy born-again slogans claiming that it is God's love letter to mankind....). As some are wont to persistently comment on, homosexual unions cannot produce offspring. So why would the bible mention such unions, when it is frequently concerned with documenting lineage?50 And why use homosexual unions to illustrate a point concerning "sinful behaviour", when the majority of the earth's population are more heterosexually-inclined?
Omission is not permission, but nor is it prohibition.
Paul talks of marriage as a condonable method to sate sexual desire and lust51. The institution of partnership had, and still has, much further-reaching legal and social implications than getting your rocks off, but that's another argument. Point is, if it's good for heterosexuals, why do those with homosexual tendencies need to "control their urges", "get fixed" or remain celibate? If even Paul can admit that humans have urges and needs, and very few people are gifted with the ability to control or suppress them, why do we try to deny people what is right for them?
Finito
5000 words. Well done, if you made it all the way. Why not go and treat yourself to a brew...?
Hot Steamy Yaoi! (SAUCE!)
Please, please, please don't just take my word for it. Go see for yourself.
Seriously, this took a great deal of earnest effort to put together. Use it.
N.B. Where quotes from various bible translations have been mentioned, or statements made about publication dates of said translations, no link has been given. If you wish to study further, the Bible is readily available in most translations, for example BibleGateway.com
1. "What Ever Happened to Ritualized Homosexuality? Modern Sexual Subjects in Melanesia and Elsewhere"
Annual Review of Sex Research, 2003 by Knauft, Bruce M
2. Worldview Diversity 2006 by Mynga Futrell, Ph.D.
3. Leviticus Chapters 1 to 7
4. Leviticus Chapter 12
5. Leviticus Chapter 16
6. Leviticus Chapter 17
7. Leviticus Chapter 20
8. Leviticus Chapters 18 and 19
9. Leviticus Chapter 18 Verse 22, King James Version
10. Leviticus Chapter 20 Verse 13, King James Version
11. Leviticus Chapter 11 Verses 9 to 12
12. Leviticus Chapter 19 Verse 19
13. Leviticus Chapter 18 Verse 23 and Chapter 20 Verses 15&16
14. Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - Tow`ebah
15. Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - Zimmah
16. Leviticus Chapter 18 Verses 6 to 23, New International Version
17. Stephen C. Lovatt
18. Leviticus Chapter 18 Verses 21 to 24
19. Genesis 13v13; Genesis 18v20; Genesis 19v13; Deuteronomy 29v17-26; Deuteronomy 32v32-38; Isaiah 1v9-23; Isaiah 3v8-15; Isaiah 13v 11-19; Jeremiah 23v10-14; Jeremiah 49v16-18; Jeremiah 50v2-40; Lamentations 4v3-6; Ezekiel 16v49-50; Amos 4v1-11; Zephaniah 2v8; Matthew 20v11; Matthew 11v19-24; Mark 6v10-11; Luke 10v10-12; Luke 17v26-29; 2 Peter 2v6; Jude 1v7-8
20. New Testament Greek Lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary - Ekporneuo See also New Testament Greek Lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary - Porneuo
21. Genesis Chapter 19 Verse 1
22. Genesis Chapter 19 Verse 5, King James Version
23. Genesis Chapter 19 Verse 5, New International Version
24. Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - Yada`
25. Genesis Chapter 4 Verse 1
26. Genesis Chapter 14
27. Genesis Chapter 18 Verses 16 to 33
28. Judges Chapter 19 Verses 14 to 28
.29. Romans Chapter 1 Verse 13
30. E.g. 1 Corinthians; 2 Corinthians; Galatians; 1 Timothy; 2 Timothy
31. Romans Chapter 1 Verses 25 to 27, King James Version
32. Wisdom Chapter 14 for example, which bears a striking resemblence to Romans Chapter 1 Verses 18 to 32
33. Definition of Naturalism
34. Homer's Odyssey, 800 B.C.
35. Eros: The Myth Of Ancient Greek Sexuality by Bruce S Thornton
36. Sex and Reason by Richard A. Posner
37. Plato's Laws, 360 B.C.
38. New Testament Greek Lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary - Epithumia Romans Chapter 1 Verse 24
39. New Testament Greek Lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary - Pathos Romans Chapter 1 Verse 26
40. New Testament Greek Lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary - Ekkaio Romans Chapter 1 Verse 27
41. New Testament Greek Lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary - Orexis Romans Chapter 1 Verse 27
42. New Testament Greek Lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary - Plane Romans Chapter 1 Verse 27
43. Romans Chapter 1 Verse 24 to Chapter 2 Verse 3, King James Version
44. 1 Corinthians Chapter 6 Verses 9 and 10, King James Version
45. 1 Corinthians Chapter 6 Verses 9 and 10, New International Version
46. New Testament Greek Lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary - Makakos
47. New Testament Greek Lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary - Arsenokoites
48. National Geographic Article; Scott Bidstrup
49. 1 Samuel Chapter 18 Verses 1 to 4, King James Version
50. E.g. Numbers
51. 1 Corinthians Chapter 7
Seriously, this took a great deal of earnest effort to put together. Use it.
N.B. Where quotes from various bible translations have been mentioned, or statements made about publication dates of said translations, no link has been given. If you wish to study further, the Bible is readily available in most translations, for example BibleGateway.com
1. "What Ever Happened to Ritualized Homosexuality? Modern Sexual Subjects in Melanesia and Elsewhere"
Annual Review of Sex Research, 2003 by Knauft, Bruce M
2. Worldview Diversity 2006 by Mynga Futrell, Ph.D.
3. Leviticus Chapters 1 to 7
4. Leviticus Chapter 12
5. Leviticus Chapter 16
6. Leviticus Chapter 17
7. Leviticus Chapter 20
8. Leviticus Chapters 18 and 19
9. Leviticus Chapter 18 Verse 22, King James Version
10. Leviticus Chapter 20 Verse 13, King James Version
11. Leviticus Chapter 11 Verses 9 to 12
12. Leviticus Chapter 19 Verse 19
13. Leviticus Chapter 18 Verse 23 and Chapter 20 Verses 15&16
14. Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - Tow`ebah
15. Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - Zimmah
16. Leviticus Chapter 18 Verses 6 to 23, New International Version
17. Stephen C. Lovatt
18. Leviticus Chapter 18 Verses 21 to 24
19. Genesis 13v13; Genesis 18v20; Genesis 19v13; Deuteronomy 29v17-26; Deuteronomy 32v32-38; Isaiah 1v9-23; Isaiah 3v8-15; Isaiah 13v 11-19; Jeremiah 23v10-14; Jeremiah 49v16-18; Jeremiah 50v2-40; Lamentations 4v3-6; Ezekiel 16v49-50; Amos 4v1-11; Zephaniah 2v8; Matthew 20v11; Matthew 11v19-24; Mark 6v10-11; Luke 10v10-12; Luke 17v26-29; 2 Peter 2v6; Jude 1v7-8
20. New Testament Greek Lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary - Ekporneuo See also New Testament Greek Lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary - Porneuo
21. Genesis Chapter 19 Verse 1
22. Genesis Chapter 19 Verse 5, King James Version
23. Genesis Chapter 19 Verse 5, New International Version
24. Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - Yada`
25. Genesis Chapter 4 Verse 1
26. Genesis Chapter 14
27. Genesis Chapter 18 Verses 16 to 33
28. Judges Chapter 19 Verses 14 to 28
.29. Romans Chapter 1 Verse 13
30. E.g. 1 Corinthians; 2 Corinthians; Galatians; 1 Timothy; 2 Timothy
31. Romans Chapter 1 Verses 25 to 27, King James Version
32. Wisdom Chapter 14 for example, which bears a striking resemblence to Romans Chapter 1 Verses 18 to 32
33. Definition of Naturalism
34. Homer's Odyssey, 800 B.C.
35. Eros: The Myth Of Ancient Greek Sexuality by Bruce S Thornton
36. Sex and Reason by Richard A. Posner
37. Plato's Laws, 360 B.C.
38. New Testament Greek Lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary - Epithumia Romans Chapter 1 Verse 24
39. New Testament Greek Lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary - Pathos Romans Chapter 1 Verse 26
40. New Testament Greek Lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary - Ekkaio Romans Chapter 1 Verse 27
41. New Testament Greek Lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary - Orexis Romans Chapter 1 Verse 27
42. New Testament Greek Lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary - Plane Romans Chapter 1 Verse 27
43. Romans Chapter 1 Verse 24 to Chapter 2 Verse 3, King James Version
44. 1 Corinthians Chapter 6 Verses 9 and 10, King James Version
45. 1 Corinthians Chapter 6 Verses 9 and 10, New International Version
46. New Testament Greek Lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary - Makakos
47. New Testament Greek Lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary - Arsenokoites
48. National Geographic Article; Scott Bidstrup
49. 1 Samuel Chapter 18 Verses 1 to 4, King James Version
50. E.g. Numbers
51. 1 Corinthians Chapter 7
Wednesday, 28 January 2009
"Baaaaaaa!"
...said the sheep.
Never underestimate the stupidity of large groups. Interesting to observe how often we let our hearts and brains be overruled by peer pressure; jump on bandwagons, go with the flow, automatically agree with the consensus. Politics, religion, large organisations...
Yesterday, I read a message board thread that shook me quite a lot. I refuse to divulge the details of the board or the thread, however, it started off with someone seeking help/advice on dealing with another member's posts, which they found consistently abrasive. After a few posts, the identity of the member in question was disclosed. As more and more people replied, it became clear that the member was stepping on a lot of toes. The thread resultantly spiralled - nay, plummeted - into a defamatory bitching-fest. A handful of posters expressed disapproval of the nature of the thread, but they were lost in the tirade of heated emotions and offended people building upon each other. Eventually, the thread was closed and people were instructed to use the proper complaints/concerns channels.
It's so easy, in the heat of the moment, to go along with people when they express what you're feeling inside, is it not? To think/say/do things that you later realise were wrongful. To be a bully without realising, even when you know from personal experience how horrible bullying can be.
Easy, also, to allow originally inclusive, egalitarian groups to become exclusive and elitist. Once enough like-minded people are gathered, it is easier to attract more similar minds, rather than welcome a person who disturbs the status-quo. Support groups become collective back-patting, group-hugging affairs, offering plenty of help, love and reassurance for those who fit in and "deserve" it. Much like many mainstream Christian churches.
Pity the black sheep.
Never underestimate the stupidity of large groups. Interesting to observe how often we let our hearts and brains be overruled by peer pressure; jump on bandwagons, go with the flow, automatically agree with the consensus. Politics, religion, large organisations...
Yesterday, I read a message board thread that shook me quite a lot. I refuse to divulge the details of the board or the thread, however, it started off with someone seeking help/advice on dealing with another member's posts, which they found consistently abrasive. After a few posts, the identity of the member in question was disclosed. As more and more people replied, it became clear that the member was stepping on a lot of toes. The thread resultantly spiralled - nay, plummeted - into a defamatory bitching-fest. A handful of posters expressed disapproval of the nature of the thread, but they were lost in the tirade of heated emotions and offended people building upon each other. Eventually, the thread was closed and people were instructed to use the proper complaints/concerns channels.
It's so easy, in the heat of the moment, to go along with people when they express what you're feeling inside, is it not? To think/say/do things that you later realise were wrongful. To be a bully without realising, even when you know from personal experience how horrible bullying can be.
Easy, also, to allow originally inclusive, egalitarian groups to become exclusive and elitist. Once enough like-minded people are gathered, it is easier to attract more similar minds, rather than welcome a person who disturbs the status-quo. Support groups become collective back-patting, group-hugging affairs, offering plenty of help, love and reassurance for those who fit in and "deserve" it. Much like many mainstream Christian churches.
Pity the black sheep.
Monday, 12 January 2009
Daily Dilatoriness...
Procrastination. Delay. Putting something off, leaving life on hold.
We've all done it at one point or another. Some are far more gifted at it than others. Doing all sorts of unnecessary things, rather than "getting your stuff done", as the video puts it.
When I think about how often I seek out inane activities to fill my day, I'm slightly disturbed. It's easier to switch off; to do something that requires little effort, costs little and benefits little.
But "procrastination" implies there is something worthwhile to do; something important and significant is being avoided. How much of our day is occupied with what might be considered momentous undertakings?
Perhaps a more pertinent question would be, what might be considered significant? Important? Noteworthy?
"All is vanity...." Is anything worth doing in life?
Mundane necessities, such as eating or defecating? We need to do them to maintain our mortal coil, but are they important? Earning money, buying possessions? It all eventually declines and decays, and it's not like we're taking it with us. Helping people? Solving problems, becoming famous, building a legacy?
In our search for meaning, humans have come up with untold numbers of philosophies and religions. Something "after", something that lends greater meaning to our actions and lives. A desire to be "remarkable"; we elevate people to the status of celebrity, and obsess over fame and fortune.
Perchance nothing we achieve or obtain in life is of worth. But then again, mayhap everything in which we partake is of significance and import, no matter how seemingly trivial.
You've given your whole life to becoming the person you are today. Was it worth it? Does it matter, do you care and what difference will it make? Everything? Nothing?
We all have our views, but ultimately there's only one way to find out. And those who reach such enlightenment tend not to be particularly vocal.
Memento mori.
We've all done it at one point or another. Some are far more gifted at it than others. Doing all sorts of unnecessary things, rather than "getting your stuff done", as the video puts it.
When I think about how often I seek out inane activities to fill my day, I'm slightly disturbed. It's easier to switch off; to do something that requires little effort, costs little and benefits little.
But "procrastination" implies there is something worthwhile to do; something important and significant is being avoided. How much of our day is occupied with what might be considered momentous undertakings?
Perhaps a more pertinent question would be, what might be considered significant? Important? Noteworthy?
"All is vanity...." Is anything worth doing in life?
Mundane necessities, such as eating or defecating? We need to do them to maintain our mortal coil, but are they important? Earning money, buying possessions? It all eventually declines and decays, and it's not like we're taking it with us. Helping people? Solving problems, becoming famous, building a legacy?
In our search for meaning, humans have come up with untold numbers of philosophies and religions. Something "after", something that lends greater meaning to our actions and lives. A desire to be "remarkable"; we elevate people to the status of celebrity, and obsess over fame and fortune.
Perchance nothing we achieve or obtain in life is of worth. But then again, mayhap everything in which we partake is of significance and import, no matter how seemingly trivial.
You've given your whole life to becoming the person you are today. Was it worth it? Does it matter, do you care and what difference will it make? Everything? Nothing?
We all have our views, but ultimately there's only one way to find out. And those who reach such enlightenment tend not to be particularly vocal.
Memento mori.
Thursday, 8 January 2009
A/S/L?
21/M/Apathyville, State of Confusion, Earth
WLTM: Maker. Has much to answer for.
So I'm currently on pills, the list of possible side effects for which is as long as my arm; horrific birth defects (meaning I must remember not to get pregnant, and use at least two forms of contraception...), dry lips, nosebleeds, pancreatitis, brain swelling, photosensitivity, infections, depression, mood swings and suicidal thoughts to name but a few.
I'm blaming what happened this week on the meds. Because I never, ever thought I would manage to be stupid enough to try and drown myself. In half a litre of rum. On a completely empty stomach. In under half an hour.
Not big, not clever.
I've done more than a few foolish things in my time. This one ranks rather high. An especially frustrating day at work, on top of a lot shit happening re: humans, on top of me being idiotic, led to the thought: "I'm going to get drunk tonight". I suppose it seemed like a good idea at the time. After the first three double shots, I just took to swigging from the bottle (as you do...) and had soon drained it dry.
Now, friends will attest that I am no stranger to booze, and not a particularly lightweight drinker, either. But this was the first time I've ever vomited from alcohol, and it's probably a good thing I eventually managed to. Fortunately, I was still up for work at 6am, and true to form had no hangover today.
Ironically, it did make the world appear to be a better place, in a way; I hit rock bottom and bounced back up. C'est la vie. Realised I was being a twat.
Live and learn.
Oh, and I've promised not to kill myself while I'm on the pills. Just in case it's the chemicals doing my thinking.
=)
Tuesday, 6 January 2009
Leopold von Sacher Masoch
Leopold von Sacher Masoch, the Austrian author from the eighteen-hundreds who became the namesake of the term "masochism":
I'm not really interested in the first two definitions. Kinky, but not currently pertinent. It is the third and final meaning of the word that I feel applies to me all too well. I am a glutton for suffering at times, and I'm not sure whether it's a good thing or not.
I enjoy pain and physical hardship. My job and my hobbies all involve various degrees of discomfort, on many different levels. Life is easier to handle when it's there; I begin to fall apart when I'm not getting enough. My mind torments me psychologically, emotionally; why not physically, too? It helps balance things; if my body is missing out, the mind tends to compensate by becoming insanely depressed.
Self-destructive behaviour? Maybe. Maybe not. After all, what doesn't kill you, merely postpones the inevitable.
This evening, I deliberately harmed myself for the first time in ages, since mid-2008. Not much, just a few wounds. It felt...good. It still feels good. The blisters are fresh and raw; it throbs exquisitely, focusing my mind on something it can't use to chew up my insides. The scars are rarely noticeable, unless you look close enough. It's infinitely better than comfort-eating, which just leaves me feeling pathetic and even more miserable.
Right? Wrong? Does it matter? Should it matter? Is it worth fighting? No pain, no gain; so is the pain a bad thing?
1. The deriving of sexual gratification, or the tendency to derive sexual gratification, from being physically or emotionally abused.2. The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from being humiliated or mistreated, either by another or by oneself.3. A willingness or tendency to subject oneself to unpleasant or trying experiences.
I'm not really interested in the first two definitions. Kinky, but not currently pertinent. It is the third and final meaning of the word that I feel applies to me all too well. I am a glutton for suffering at times, and I'm not sure whether it's a good thing or not.
I enjoy pain and physical hardship. My job and my hobbies all involve various degrees of discomfort, on many different levels. Life is easier to handle when it's there; I begin to fall apart when I'm not getting enough. My mind torments me psychologically, emotionally; why not physically, too? It helps balance things; if my body is missing out, the mind tends to compensate by becoming insanely depressed.
Self-destructive behaviour? Maybe. Maybe not. After all, what doesn't kill you, merely postpones the inevitable.
This evening, I deliberately harmed myself for the first time in ages, since mid-2008. Not much, just a few wounds. It felt...good. It still feels good. The blisters are fresh and raw; it throbs exquisitely, focusing my mind on something it can't use to chew up my insides. The scars are rarely noticeable, unless you look close enough. It's infinitely better than comfort-eating, which just leaves me feeling pathetic and even more miserable.
Right? Wrong? Does it matter? Should it matter? Is it worth fighting? No pain, no gain; so is the pain a bad thing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)