After much analysis, I have come to the conclusion that radfem is a religion.

I want to do a lot of writing during this weekend break. I finished a major test Wednesday of last week, and yesterday (technically the day before yesterday, I’ve been up since then and haven’t had a period of sleep yet, so to me it’s still yesterday). I wanted to write about my thoughts about where the next generation of consoles seem to be going (it goes well into the great used game debate I’ve railed about before), share my thoughts about Mass Effect 3, or talk about my angry ranting against the points against “socialized medicine.” However, I’ll be damned if radfem really didn’t get my ire up today. So, I figure since they see fit to somehow redefine a conference talking about possible social reasons lesbians might not date trans women into a plot about transwomen wanting to rape them, I see no reason not to call them out for how I see them (plus, I am seriously pissed that they have the gall to say that simply BEING trans “hurts women”).

So yeah, as it says in the title, I honestly think radfem is a religion. Now before you get all up in arms talking about how they don’t center around worshiping a god of sorts, I didn’t say they were a deistic religion. If anything, they are an anti-deistic religion, but we’ll save that for later. However, there are many traits they have in common with many many religions out there.

-Definitions of what men and women inherently “are” (which is extremely ironic, given this is one of the things feminism seeks to combat)
-Strict codes of morality on how to behave and dress
-A belief that by following this tennant, the chosen believers can be saved from themselves

The more I dig, the more similarities I find too. This may simply be because of my experience, but the closest religion I can equate to radfem is fundamentalist evangelical Christianity.

Before we go on, there is something I should point out. As some of you may know, I spent the first 2 years of my college career among evangelical Christians. Not just peripherally, but entirely immersed in their world. They evangelize to newcomers (since they are probably the most influential student group on campus, the majority of RAs are members of their group) and I was lonely and didn’t know what to do so, “why not?” While I never agreed with all of their beliefs, they were fun folks. We played HALO together, I got them into Avatar: The Last Airbender (something I am most proud of), and other fun things. However, during the various times I hung out with them, attended bible studies, and went to church with them, I learned a lot about how that kind of church unit works. It opened my eyes to a lot of sociological phenomena I see, and provided a truly fascinating “anthropological study” of sorts. Anyways, I’m making these comparisons with those experiences in mind.

The first and arguably most obvious similarity is the existence of an anti-christ. To the radfem, this is the great and powerful demon “patriarchy.” Don’t get me wrong, I KNOW the patriarchy as a concept is very, very real. I seek to combat it and strike it down, no matter what my male-assigned self would lose in the process. However, where I see a powerful sociological construct, they see a dark god. An entity that they must avoid certain behaviors and mold themselves to a certain mindset, lest they become its unwitting servants and bring about the apocalypse and the end of everything good.

This dark god causes an almost calvinistic concept of “free agency isn’t.” It is the denial of personal agency, choice, and free will in the presence of this monster controlling everything just beyond our senses not unlike “the great old ones” from the Cthulhu(sp?) mythos. “You don’t really like sex, the patriarchy is just making you think you do.” Now, I definitely acknowledge the power of these kinds of things over our choice process and values. At the same time, I think it is very condescending and somewhat infantilizing to tell people “you didn’t really make that choice.” It also is extremely disrespectful toward the intellect of people. Just because it is a bad choice that may have been influenced by a sociological construct doesn’t make it something they didn’t voluntarily chose to do. I don’t tell my galpals in the evangelical church I mentioned that they didn’t “really” choose to want to be submissive to male authority figures (if anything, I can count them among the few women who deliberately chose exactly that). I might not agree with it, but it was their choice and I support their right to do it and lead their life the way they want.

Radfem might not have a god, but it most certainly has its saints and heros. Andrea Dworkin is radfem’s Moses. Leading her people away from the dark clutches of the patriarchy with her words and books. A role model to all true believers, a giant among women whose influence and ideas are felt to this day. Loved by those that believe and despised by those who don’t. If she is moses, then King David must be Mary Daly. Another giant in her own right, and one whose ideas the false believer (sex-positive feminists) and the damned (men) despise and fear. There may not be a god, but to them, she is after gods own heart, and as close to the truth as you can get. To them, the idea that transpeople are akin to Frankensteins monster and that males should be reduced to 10% of the population (both ideas Daly infamously came up with) isn’t horrifyingly hateful, it’s the truth. Just as the idea that women should be submissive to their husbands, or that gay people are abominations aren’t sexist or hateful, they are god’s truth to the evangelicals, the unbelievers just refuse to see it thanks to the influence satan. Starting to see the similarities here?

Also, the most ironic similarity of all is the idea of gender essentialism. In evangelical Christianity, it’s somewhat obvious (although there is evidence that Christ himself thought differently). In radfem, it’s more sadly ironic. Their definitions of gender are weirdly self-contradictory. One the one hand, a woman is only a woman if she has babymaking parts and 2 X chromosomes. On the other hand, being a woman is so much more then simply gender identity and appearances. I think the idea is in part that the belief system denotes women and men different as one of its core design features. The reason that this faith is -possible- is because of the inherent differences of men and women. A woman is born a woman and that makes her more then meets the eye. She is not just physically different (a “castrated man” as radfem says), she is mentally and maybe even spiritually different. Womanhood is an identity to be embraced, the most systematically and consistently oppressed people on the planet, but truly the most blessed compared to men, a class of destructive sub-humans whom are beyond redemption. All men want to do, what they crave the most, is something whose sole purpose is the domination and subordination of women. To them, the idea of trans people is the encroaching on the last of their sacred domains, patriarchy doing the unthinkable even for it and redefining the one thing they thought could never be taken from them. To think that men, the destructive and irredeemable savages, could even CLAIM to truly know what it’s like to be a woman, is the ultimate insult. Likewise, a woman who abandons her womanhood to become a man is the most self-depreciating woman of all. That’s how (I surmise) they see trans people. However, I digress. The point is that there is blatant gender essentialism (although they often argue it isn’t “really” gender essentialist, because the combating of gender roles is still of prime importance, it is simple fact because of the reality of how people with babymaking parts are treated as a class). It also falls into another similarity. “Gods chosen” versus the oppressors. When gender is a binary, it is pretty obvious that the battlefield is divided in half, and it’s not hard judging from ANYTHING I said earlier which are the chosen (provided they believe) and which are the born damned.

That leads to another similarity, the castes of people. There are “gods chosen” (believing radfem), there are the false believers (sex positive feminism), there are the unbeleivers (any other woman who “gives in to the patriarchy”), and there are the demons (men). The demons can be cared for (although true believers find themselves wanting to avoid them at all costs, more on that later), but let it never be said that they are “one of them.” If a man can never “truly” be a woman, then to claim that they can truly be one of the chosen, even if he were to truly believe it all, is the biggest impossibility of them all. The false believers choose to serve the demons because it’s easier to serve the beast then to fight it. Hell, some even deliberately include those demons in their ranks, hoping they can redeem them, but a fallen angel can never be risen again. That is the way of the world. Only after the revolution, when the demons are culled and can be properly used in a society where gods chosen rule, where there influence is minimized and curtailed (eliminated entirely if the propagation of the species can be done without it), will a holy society be built.

One of the most recent similarities I have discovered is that of the salvific transformation. Once they submit their mind to these ideas, once it sinks in down to the core to the point where it becomes the core of their beliefs, they change…well…radically. Something inside just clicks and they discover that this view of the world that they had already believed ‘in theory’ IS the absolute truth. The deeper truths of the words were revealed, and their souls have been transformed forever. Their entire perception of the world has been altered, and there is no going back. Submission to the theory until it sinks in such that one becomes an avatar of that kind of behavior and mindset is the ultimate goal. Your most fundamental perceptions will change. You have been told thousands of times the theories, and thought you knew what they meant. However, after having an epiphany, the truth was revealed in the depths of your heart. You now know what they really mean, and it is no longer “theoretical.” It is your default lens, your true self. This is when you truly see the demons and holy people for what they are, and truly know what you have to do and why.

For these and other reasons, radfem strikes me as dauntingly similar to a religion. There’s more I would say, but that would trigger a whole other block of text, and I should probably hang this rant up and eat something.

Also, just to make sure we are absolutely clear, I am not on good terms with radfem. While I do respect their conviction to their points, and some of the things they say are valid (and they are certainly more honest with their intentions then MRAs are); I find their agency erasure, gender essentialism, and blatant sexism (and yes radfem folks, it IS possible to be sexist against the male assigned) intolerable. Oh yeah, did I mention their sickening transphobia. I know that “not all radfem are like that.” Some (in fact an increasing number) have come to accept transwomen, which makes me happy. However, several key beliefs I have about this whole feminism thing are just too different from theirs, and I’m not the only one saying this.

Well, I’m off. Hopefully I’ll do some more fun writing or game playing tomorrow.

ETA:

I thought of a couple more, although these more apply to a subset of radfem (the lesbian separatists)

First, as I mentioned before, the operational definition of lesbian varies from what men society has claimed it to be. It’s not just a woman who is attracted to someone female looking, it is a woman whom is attracted to a woman (remember, we’re using Radfem’s operational definition). Furthermore, it isn’t just sex and the desire for a partner. It is deeply political. The only way to truly escape the patriarchy and return to a woman’s eden is to cut off any and everything involving men from their lives. Men have done so much damage, and since they don’t even know what it means to BE female (try as they might), they couldn’t help undo the oppression they cause even if they wanted to. It’s not that men actively oppress (even though they do), it’s that they are oppression of the patriarchy by proxy. By escaping the energies of the demons and exploring womanhood down to the most fundamental levels, a woman’s true self can be revealed. A “lesbian” who isn’t involved in exploring womanhood and is just a patriarchal slave regardless of her freedom from attraction to males isn’t a true lesbian, just as a so-called Chrisitan who hasn’t been saved through the power of Jesus Christ isn’t a true Christian.

To evangelical Christianity, people like them, “the saved”, are how god intend us all to be. We are put to sleep by the wiles of the devil and the sins of our parents and their parents up to 7 generations prior. Lesbian separatists think something similar. All women are lesbians deep down. Sexual attraction to men of any kind is a farce, something people are told they “should be.” Only by escaping the clutches of patriarchy and embracing other women can a womans true form and purpose be found. It’s not a question of “if,” but “when” she decides to take the plunge and abandon men all together. The truth of the spiritual side of being a woman can only be shared with other women. Men instinctively seek to block it, as that holy communion is what they fear the most, a connection with the divine that would erode their insidious influence. To that end, men MUST convince women that they aren’t naturally lesbians, that their attraction to men is natural and valid. It’s the only way to keep them drugged (with PIV and sex-class expectations) and controllable. This is why the defense against trans women is so important. Men are infiltrating the sacred hollows and churches of this faith, the few places where the spiritual energy and healing can occur. One of the few places where through the spiritual power of womanhood, can others who didn’t even realize how deeply they’ve been hurt, can heal and see the holy truth of what a woman truly is, versus what a man says it should be.

(HUGE DISCLAIMER, I the above are not my views)

A lot I want to say about the video game industry over the past month (but never had the time)

It’s time to crawl out of my busy little busy spot and treat myself to some babbling as a way to reward myself for my personal vigilance. While I haven’t been gaming much (see the “busy spot” thing, plus my nerd-urge has been to watch all of Death Note again lately), it will now and always remain close to my heart. That being said, for all the joy the hobby gives me, this is going to be a somewhat painful entry, because the things I have read about/witnessed/etc aren’t pretty. With that in mind, I’m going to hit the worst of it first to get it out of the way.

For those who don’t know, there was a fighting game reality show called “Cross Assault” that took several pro fightmans players in order to promote Street Fighter X Tekken. I could talk about how that game was a trainwreck from the get-go, or how Capcom shot themselves in the foot when the added certain elements to it that took away from whatever appeal the older beta had, but that’s not what I am going at here. On this show there was one female player whose fighting name was “Super-Yan.” She faced constant sexual harassment the whole time, to the point where she threw her last match because the environment was too toxic. Furthermore, in a later interview, a prominent member of said community (a player who goes by the fighting name “Aris” I think) said in an interview that sexual harassment is integral to the fighting game community (to which I call bullshit).

I’m not going to go into my usual level of detail and emotional ranting, since several people have covered this better then I ever could. However, since I am unable to pass this kind of thing up without saying a few things, here I go.

When I was watching EVO last year and Kayo Police was playing, the shit that came up on the chat stream was…sickeningly sexist to say the least. I enjoyed the match (she’s a decent C.Viper player, a character that I feel needs more love), but this shit completely ruined that for me. When word got out that she’s a trans woman…it was bigotry squared over there. I got so mad I ended up rage-quitting that livestream to find one where I couldn’t see the chat-window. The comments were THAT bad.

Ironically, some of the counter-example comments have said “we’re not bigiots, we tolerate Kayo Police.” First of all, tolerate implies that they don’t -want- her there, but they put up with her; however that’s beisdes the point. Even if we ignore their poorly used words and take it to mean that they accept her as a fully fledged member of the community and equal to the other players (not taking into account individual differences like skill level), then sorry to say but they are wrong. When she isn’t being sexually harassed and spat on for being trans, she is treated like a goddamn fetish object. Googling her name, the first thing that comes up are remarks about how hot she is (I’m not going to duplicate them here, given they often have that anti-trans bigotry and homophobia embeded inside of them). Now, I can definitely see why people would think she’s hot (she’s a model FFS). That being said, she is fetish-eyecandy first and a player second in the eyes of far too many folks in said community. This is not acceptance of her as a player, it is “tolerance on the condition that you are hot and famous.” Despite that she is skilled enough to play on the tournament level, she is still delegated to the status of eye-candy. I have heard murmurs that in the game journalism world, a similar kind of prejudice is hurled at female game journalists by the community as a whole. It’s either, “you got your job on your back, because women don’t know games” or just a banal case of “lolfat.” Either way, it pisses the shit out of me. However, I digress.

——————–

Whew, got that one out of the way. Well, in my tradition (that I just started now and may not continue next entry) of getting the worst out of the way earliest on, guess I’ll go to the second saddest and most painful thing I have to say.

Looking at the Video Game industry always has been making me feel like a doomsday prophet for a couple of years now, and it’s getting worse as time goes on. Japan has largely abandoned the US market as their marketing realities have considerably diverged during this console generation. Combine this with some truly stupid decisions on Nintendo’s part (region locking handhelds, having their latest console have only one controller, etc). Also, rumors are surfacing that Microsoft’s latest system won’t have any physical hardware for games at all, and I have no doubt Sony will follow suit (supposedly, the PS3 is already entirely digital in Europe). I have nothing against games in a purely digital format, but there are certain issues that need to be solved before I can fully commit to that model. Also, it’s obvious why the industry is racing blindly toward this option. They want to find a way to make used games a thing of the past.

Frankly, this was inevitable, but gamestop’s dickery (since they have cornered the market as the only major game retailer) has pushed this outcome forward several decades. While only a few game companies are willing to say out loud that used games are worse then software piracy, the fact that they are rushing this intensely toward digital media, which is significantly more vulnerable to precisely that, shows that either they feel secure in their online watchdog protocols (falsely so IMO), or that they feel that used games are such a threat it’s worth this risk despite how hard the industry loses its collective shit over said piracy. I can definitely understand WHY they are so freaked out over it, but I feel like it’s punishing consumers for what Gamestop did. I guess since gamestop is too powerful and essential for them right now, they want to change that (it’s probably partly about that too). I’m curious if one web service per system being the sole supplier of games would constitute a monopoly in sales venues (it technically would be). However, I digress.

At any rate, with the Japanese largely abandoning the US market (compounded with some TRULY STUPID decisions, not all of which I mentioned above), and a shift that can be described as EA put it “from a packaged goods model to a services model,” I really don’t like where the game industry is going. Honestly, I don’t mind a “services model” if it’s done the way STEAM or Netflix does it. However, part of that is contingent on access to an entire library for a subscription fee, or the ability to purchase a hard copy if one should want to (basically, you can buy something and your ability to use it won’t shut down with a halting of subscription payments, plus I think STEAM is free. Not sure though, as I don’t have a PC worthy of gaming). However, the “subscription plus game payment, both are required in order to use your console at all…that you already paid for” is not the way to go. However, one thing console devs aren’t is smart in terms of how to find a compromise between them and their customers. This past generation in particular made it crystal clear that the relationship between console devs any anything they don’t control (game devs, retailers, customers, journalists, etc) is getting increasingly strained and antagonistic, despite the fact that every one of them is absolutely crucial for the console dev’s success. This antagonistic relationship has become largely bilateral (depending on the companies) and it seems to go down a “chain.” Console devs are at the top, customers are at the bottom, and shit rolls downhill. Some of the antagonism is as a reaction to knowing how they are treated by those above. It’s a vicious cycle. However, I digress.

My point is that for those and several other reasons, I really don’t like where the game industry is going. The markets have become divided, the key relationships that keep it moving are becoming more and more strained, and there is a paradigm shift largely motivated by greed of -forcing- consumers to play along, rather then giving them what they want. It’s only a small leap to go to an on live model where people need to pay a subscription fee just to make their console function at all. If they can get away with that, then it won’t be long before all the IP industry follows suit and any physical format will be obsolete and considered tools of software pirates. It’s ironic, an industry I love so much is forcing forth a dystopic vision of the future that I would deeply resent. It’s like I said, I feel like a doomsday prophet.

——

The last thing will be something I don’t have any emotional grumblies over. A few Nintendo games have taken the option of literally beating a level for you if you don’t want to do it. I was taken aback at first. I come from a generation where games were generally (but not always) harder then they seem to be today. Maybe it’s nostalgia, or maybe it’s just this kind of “darn kids, they don’t earn their endings”, but part of me longs for that experience again. Some games, such as the last 2 megaman games (and they are the last ones, since Inafune jumped ship on Capcom) delivered that.

However, that being said, I understand the other side well too. While I am not the most fond of the folks from Penny Arcade, one of them did have a good argument about this. Despite what EULA stupidity says about games, I still view the individual game as property of the person who bought it (or paid for a license for it, whatever). So long as it isn’t being done in a way that breaks any laws, there is no reason why someone couldn’t use their game as a glorified movie if they wanted to. Not everybody has the time (especially nowadays) or investment in the medium to really power through it like I and those like me do (although I would argue I definitely don’t have the time, but I digress).

This leaves me conflicted on several levels. On the one hand, people can experience games how they want. One of the beauties of the medium is that it can deliver different things to different people and still make for an awesome overall experience. On the other hand, a truly well designed game contributes to its story and setting with everything it does (even if that story and setting is the old contra archetype of “aliens come, kill them all”, which there is nothing wrong with). To deny that part of the experience is cheating yourself of some of the more tacit elements that make the setting what it was. The kind of weapon someone uses, the way they move, those are all characterization elements. What enemies appear where, how they attack, how tough they are to kill. Those are all elements of setting and possibly story. Dozens of other things like that persist to contribute to a games story/setting/etc that people might not be aware of.

Apart from that, I was taken initially against the idea on a personal level. With the game beating itself for someone, or they not having to experience the difficult of killing boss X, they didn’t “earn” their victory. That which I and others like me have clawed so hard to get is being given to those who surrender to the challenge. It takes away from the significance of it.

Then one very critical reminder popped into my mind. Wouldn’t this be extremely similar to the cheat codes that Doom made popular back in the 90s. Hell, even prior to that, things like stage select codes, hidden continue codes, etc. used to be prevalent in games. The most famous and multi-purpose code was the contra code after all (although since it is so intrinsically attached to the game’s identity, there is a philosophical question whether using it is “really” cheating). I didn’t have a problem with that in the slightest. While they have all but disappeared on consoles (as have cheat devices like gameshark), I considered them a way to expand the game, not take away from it.

So basically I’m for it on one condition. That it be made clear that player X didn’t “legally” accomplish what they said they did in terms of beating levels and all that. If they want to cheat, skip to the next whatever, then more power to them. However, it should be clear that they did exactly that. The cheat mode in Civ 2 was literally just a menu that you activated. You could do whatever it allowed but it would claim you cheated on your civ score. That’s completely fine.

There is a lot more to the issue of making games more accessible while simultaneously keeping their core audience engaged then that. Some games appeal IS their immense challenge (Demons’ Souls comes to mind). Another issue are things like options for people who don’t want to watch cut-scenes, while not taking away the story they convey (one solution I liked is storing a narrative summary for the player to access for later, with the option to re-watch if desired, so they don’t feel they “have” to watch it). There’s a lot of things to explore, but I feel that this idea moves it in the right direction as long as it remains clear that it isn’t deigned a “legal” victory.

I was going to go on about Mass Effect 3, but that merits a separate entry. Well, it’s time to start prepping for my exam on Wednesday. Later all.

Whats in a label, and who gets to decide what it means?

GF and I had an awesome conversation yeseterday about all those cool topics like gender identity that interest me so. One thing that came to mind. Who decides who gets what labels, and what are the true qualifications for then? Also, is there a difference between “in theory” and “in practice?”

The seeds for this thought-train were planted a while back, there was a rather heated arguments in the comments of one of the articles on manboobz (I forgot which one) about what the operational definition of “queer” really was, and who has the right to dictate it. While the more…territorial arguments were a stark minority (in fact, none of the LGBT people I know had placed nearly that much importance on such a label), it showed me clear as day that to at least some within said groups, the label means a lot more then one would think it does.

Before I go on I should point something out. Over the last 2 years I’ve been trying to answer some questions I’ve had about myself now that there is finally a good direction for me to look to. After a lot of introspection I’ve come to the conclusion that I am probably agendered. However, the particularly way it has manifested has left me somewhat blessed. I’ve never felt like a man or a woman. In fact, either of those experiences are utterly enigmatic to me. I feel like if it were possible, I could slip into a female body and live my life after an adjustment period. In fact, I have dreams where I am a woman. I also feel completely fine in the (male) body I have. I have no attachment or telling of what gender I “really” am, but I have no sense of dysphoria telling me what I’m not either (beyond small bouts in my teen years). Maybe that’s the reason it’s so hard for me to believe gender to be innate, because I am in a position where anything “innate” about it beyond which sex organs I am initially assigned and how puberty manifests is ultimately alien to me.

With that said though, because of the fact that I am blessed with no dysphoria and “identity flexibility”, do I have the right to call myself trans? What does that really mean. Etymologically, trans is simply the opposite of cis. In a more granular, sliding scale system, it could be interpreted as the absence of the default. However, is that really enough to dictate that I should be such? Do I even have the right to do that? Apart from certain minor bits and quibbles growing up (particularly in my teen years), I can’t claim anything resembling the oppression “real” trans folk face. Would claiming I am “one of them” imply that I share their suffering, the pain of knowing that I am in the incorrect body configuration? Would claiming I am trans imply that I understand and have experienced things I haven’t? If under my immense privilege I make such a claim, I may as well be slapping all the people who have “truly” experienced what it is to be transgender in their faces. It would belittle and marginalize their experience to even remotely equate it with my own.

Upon contemplating this conundrum, it lead me to wonder. Is there a difference between implicit and explicit definitions for such groups and labels? Going by the example earlier, the technical definition of trans as I understand it is just “that which is not in default configuration.” Using that definition, that prefix could be applied to most of my life (and I like it that way). However, having been to LGBT support groups (these particular groups allow allies, and I knew at least one person in them well whom would vouch for me if there were any problems), I find that things in practice are a bit different then “in theory.”

I think the reasons for the differences between theory and practice are twofold. The first would be assumption of a shared experience. When I read that debate over what it meant to be “queer”, the person most adamantly protesting that asexuals can’t be considered such said that the oppression they face is too different. To claim the label doesn’t simply mean “alternative sexuality,” it presumes a shared history of oppression. His was a minority opinion, but it made a clear statement to me. To some people, the implicit meaning and history of these labels are important. To some, it denotes a shared experience. Even those who don’t feel that strongly about labels might feel that way on a subconscious level, particularly if their experience in finding this identity was through the sense of community such similar experiences provided for them.

The other reason for the differences between theory and practice is what I call “over-expression for the sake of validation.” In many communities, particularly ones where people who were lost and alone are finding their identity in, many people try to become what the community implicitly (or in some cases, such as radfem or evangelical Christianity, explicitly) believes they should be. Not just for themselves either, but out of a sense of duty to everyone else who has helped them, and to those who might come later as an example of how to claim and own your identity (which is ironic, since IMO, it claimed and owned THEM).

A good example of this in action would be an incident I was involved in a few years back. This girl, let’s call her “Crystal Wings” (obviously not her real name), is an out and proud lesbian and a very vocal feminist. When I met her, I was still in the earlier phases of unlearning my assumptions about what being a feminist means (my initial encounters were with radfem, and I hadn’t seen anything to show me otherwise until a bit before then). She was fun to talk to, and we had several discussions on feminist theory.

At a gathering at a mutual friends house, Crystal got a few drinks in her. After this happened she did what I would have never expected her to do. She hit on me. When I told her my surprise that she would even notice me like that, she told me “just because I am a lesbian doesn’t mean I don’t feel ANY attraction to men.” It was an interesting eye opener to say the least. A few days later we spoke again and she told me that “normally I am very gay” (or something along those lines). Simply put, in her sobriety, she doesn’t feel attraction toward men. I spoke with a mutual friend of mine (whose apartment this incident took place at) who used to date her. She told me that Crystal often projects herself as “THE lesbian, THE feminist, the ultimate example of someone who is on the lookout for women (in more then one sense of the phrase).” She told me that when Crystal gets drunk, things that her projected identity won’t “allow” her to be seep through. I find it ironic that the person who taught me such an important (IMO) lesson doesn’t allow herself to believe it even though she knows deep down it’s true.

After I had come to know this, I started seeing it happen in other people. This incident happened when I was still hanging around my evangelical friends (although they never knew this had happened). When I hear them talking about salvific experiences and being remade and reshaped through the will of god, I realized it is the exact same thing happening here. The only difference was that in the evangelicals, it was by design. People had come to the evangelicals, found a sense of friendship, community (“family” as it were), identity, and guidance in a time that people seem to be searching for such. Coincidentally, this is what the feminist and LGBT student groups provided (or at least tried to provide) their members as well.

Don’t misunderstand, I’m not complaining about that sense of community and, to borrow the evangelical term, “fellowship” these identities provide people. In some cases people like their new identity that they were “given.” In some cases, it IS who they really are. There is a definite upside to this too. However, it does lead to an implicit narrowing of deifnition of what it means to be _____, even though this is exactly the kind of group that knows what it’s like to be excluded for not being “normal.”

Also, on a personal note, I’m not mad at all about the whole quandary about the trans label as it relates to my personal situation. While I can’t in good faith claim to be cis, I honestly don’t care if people see me as trans or not. While it makes me…reluctant to talk about it in fear of accidentally stepping on the toes of people I care about, what label applies to me isn’t something I really care about. It just helped bring about the thoughts I had and provided a clear example of what I am talking about.

That was fun. Two big blocks of text in a weekend. I wanted to write something about Valentines day too but I’ll hold off on that one. At some point I need to return to reality and work on my project again.

Time for some good old fashioned babble

Like my previous entry, life has been good to me this week. The steering committee for the project I am involved in went surprisingly well. I thought we were going to get slaughtered but we were complimented for coming as far as we had in the time we were given. That and other things have been going well for me (February is usually the cruelest month for me, and it had been until last week). To reward myself, I am going to indulge in some random babble about what’s on my mind (I want to do this much more often, but I don’t have the time; hence the use of such as a personal reward).

Where to start…I’ll go with what’s been going on back home in the US. The primaries on the far right…well honestly, their campaigning scares me. The stances of the more moderate republicans that made it this far (Romney and Paul) are what SHOULD be the extreme stances. However, we have had Perry and Bachmann showing how much farther we have slid. Heck, we still have Santorum, whom at this point is looking to finish with the silver medal.

The thing is, I sincerely doubt either of them will beat Obama. First of all, the incumbent wins ~2/3rds of the time IIRC. Secondly, the fact remains that the Republican party has moved to the far fringes. While Amanda Marcotte and I don’t always see eye-to-eye, her comparison of the far right moralists of today to the pillars of the regime during the french revolution is dead on. They’re blaming themselves and their lack of “true conservative values(tm)” for letting society go in the direction it has. The only solution is to take an absolutionist moral stance and crack down on the idea that freedom is bad and dangerous.

Also, the fact that the Republicans have moved to the right isn’t just a function of the party in and of itself. The entire United States has moved to the right in the last 30 years. What once was the dominion of the moderate republicans is now the domain of the moderate democrats. The leftist party in power in the US is further right then it is in the rest of the world. I would speculate that this is a result of the government essentially being “bought.” The most important thing for an elected official or political party is to get their people in power. In order to do that, campaign funds are an absolute must. In order to furnish this, they must appeal to business X or conglomerate Y. Those in power owe their financial success to the (failed) idea of supply side economics, the trickle down theory, etc. The widening of the gap that has grown exponentially ever since the rich became politicized. Naturally, policies like deregulation, upper class tax cuts, promotion of “light-touch” economics and the acceptance of bonus culture would appeal to these people. Since it requires an immense amount of cash to reach people, convince them you are awesome, and equally convince them that your opponent eats babies and worships every devil ever known; politicians are effectively beholden to those who control their purse-strings. The “soul” of the nation has effectively been bought.

What strikes me as amusing is this weird source of pride various people in the nation have about having moved further right. I’ve heard several USians say it’s what makes the US better then Europe (despite having never been there). As an isolated country that was also arguably the most powerful country in the world since second to last major global shift (the end of WW2, the last major shift was the end of the USSR), there is this source of isolated superiority I find more often then I would like. This is compounded in that the last major superpower whose military as a single entity could rival the US’ and took an antagonistic stance toward them collapsed under its own weight.

At any rate, the nation has, for the above and other reasons, slid to the right. I used to take pride in the fact that I was policially in the middle. However, the nation slid to the right and I simply refused to move with it. What once rendered me in the middle now renders me on the left. The Republican party has less of its “traditional” territory associated with soley it anymore, so they have to appeal to a harder core group. Deregulation and states rights seem to be peripheral topics despite the fact that they make up traditional conservatism. Wars on contraception, abortion, and coming this shy of saying that the US should be remade into a theocracy is seemingly the conservative voter base now. 15 years ago, people saying things like “freedom of speech is all well and good, but we’re at war” or “freedom isn’t whatever you want to do, it’s what you ought to do” would ruin their political career.

I would speculate that the conservatives are trying to do what the IP industry, the nobility of old, and every group whose power and beliefs are based on an older model try to do when they see progress that undermines their core position. They seek to wind back the clock. As I said earlier, they blame themselves for not being brutal and punitive enough to those who would dare defy them in allowing things to come this far from their ideal position. Here’s a funny paradox for them. I believe that the Pharasees and roman government thought the same thing about Christ and his flock being heard and gaining prominence. I am genuinely convinced if someone like Christ came today, the people who claim in their hearts to believe in him would be the first to spit in his face and call for his re-execution. However I digress.

This was a lot of fun to write. I have other things too (Valentines day thoughts and more babble about sex, love, and gender), but I’ll save that for whenever I remember it probably never, as it will slip my mind as my workload picks up

Excessive babble part 1: Stereotypes on V-day

It’s nearly Valentines day. Depending on ones situation, it’s stereotypically treated in one of two ways.

1. Let’s celebrate our love with some over the top romantic gestures. Such as overly expensive dates, gifts (I’ll get into the specifics later), and possibly sex, depending on who you are (the stereotypical heterosexual married couple usually only has sex on 2 days, the husbands birthday and V-day. It’s a stereotype I hate immensely FWIW).

These gifts can be one of several things.

A. Jewelry.

I have nothing against shiny things, ways to store large amounts of money in a “solid state”, or stones that can cut glass. All of those things are A-OK by me. What does annoy me is that in terms of marriage (which is peripherally related, since V-day is supposedly the most popular day to get married), the size and cost of the diamond ring serves as a metric for how much a (male) person loves and appreciates their (female) partner. I pretty much think of this when I see diamond ads (luckily, the magic of the DVR and minimizing Hulu during commercials has kept me from those). If you buy her something practical, or something you know she would like as an individual, then it apparently means you don’t truly love her and/or understand how the “female heart(tm)” really works. If you are planning to buy a ring within a reasonable budget, you are given a long “you need to think long and hard about this, are you sure you want a ring like this?” from the sales clerk. After all, nothing says “I love you” like “I just spent enough money to ensure our financial security for a year on a ring for you.”

However, I find it best not to bring this up outside my circle of friends. Every time I tried I just get written off as a male and therefor incapable of understanding (not unlike my debates about twilight). Supposedly, most girls grow up dreaming about and hearing about the day that they will be a blushing bride in a white dress, married to “the one” ,etc. They are invested in “that moment” that they were given an unspoken promise of should they find someone to get hitched to. The ring is a status symbol about whom they are getting married to. A huge ring is basically saying “my man loves me and has enough alpha male power to get me THIS.” To deny that is to deny everything their hopes and dreams stood for. THE ring, THE wedding dress, THE day that their lives were leading up to until this point. It may as well be the culmination of their entire existence (which makes me hurt inside).
It’s ironic that this is a stereotypically female bragging rights thing, because I swear it’s like a “wedding status penis.” They compare size and get a sense of inflated pride being able to say “mine’s bigger”

While I am trying to stop this digression into wedding territory, there are 2 things I want to quote (well, one’s a video) that sum up my point well.

The wedding dress represents the hopes and dreams of every girl -Sailor Moon

You only need watch up to about 1:00 or so (although you can watch the boss fight if you want to, I am all for SaGa frontier). Emilia (although this person renamed her “nei”) feels the need to put on her wedding dress before the final confrontation (which she JUST HAPPENS to have with her) so she can feel at peace with what might have been. She endangers the entire group, and when Roufas calls her on it, he is just written off as “not understanding women.” But I guess it’s all worth it since she got to wear “THE Dress(tm).”

Anyway, I’ll end the Jewelry thing with Sarah Haskins interpretation of things (these videos rule, and there is probably going to be a lot more of them here).

http://current.com/e/89614245/en_US

B. Chocolate

I have nothing against chocolate (in fact, I think it is among the most awesome of flavors). I’ve been told it is a valid aphrodisiac. Advertising seems to be telling us that all women secretly want to go where Homer did. While I am all for the consumption of tasty food, it isn’t exclusively a “if you love me you’ll get me this in a heart shaped box” kinda thing.

Sarah Haskins made fun of this too
http://current.com/e/89789741/en_US

C. Flowers

While I’m sure they smell pleasant, I have NEVER EVER understood the idea that dismembered pretty looking plant genetilia(sp?) make for a valid bribe gift. It looks pretty, smells pretty, therefor the ideal gift for females 9_9. I have nothing against plant life, but the idea that this is one of the key gifts to win over “the female heart(tm).” In trouble, flowers will set you free. Want to win her over, flowers are they key.

D Lingerie

This usually really ends up being a present for the male. While I have no problem with this per se, it does reinforce the idea that V-day is THE day to relive the dating years when a (male) person gives the (female) person various bribes and in exchange gets sex (why yes, I do hate the typical “dating” dynamic, why do you ask).

You will notice that these gifts are generally not practical or attuned to the specific indivudal. Instead, she is given typical “you have a vagina so you must like this/these” gifts.

Tune in next time whenever I get around to it and remember it, when I talk about how popular TV shows do episodes about love.

The spectre of tragedy, so close to home

Yesterday, a school shooting happened at my old High School (Millard South High School). The victim was 2 principals (one in critical condition, the other dead), and the killer offed himself afterward. What I’ve noticed is the reactions of the event are very sharply divided.

Camp 1: “He was a murderer and a monster and deserves nothing but hate.

What he did was terrible, but I find that reaction to be a knee-jerk reflex. Sure, he is by definition a “murderer”, and should be acknowledged as such, but people are basing their entire opinion based on one (admittedly rather major) wrong thing he did. Who here knew him before he killed people and still think he is a super-monster…that’s what I thought. I am not without sympathy for the victims (even if my views on death are…different), but people are treating him like the illegitimate spawn between Hitler and the devil.

Others argue that they wish he didn’t kill himself because there is no justice. Frankly, there is NEVER any justice. If ones definition of justice is seeing someone get hurt for what they did, then they seriously need to redefine the word. Legal justice would probably have (directly or indirectly) lead to the same conclusion anyway (I have no doubt because of the publicity and severity of the crime, they would try him as an adult), and police would risk taking stray shots from angry parents and people who in getting too caught up in the moment, take things too far for the sake of “justice.”

I can see how the outcome wasn’t satisfying. If my mom (whom works at that school district) took a bullet, I would want to rip this person apart with my bare hands (and that’s putting it…extremely mildly). There is no satisfaction in finding a corpse when wants to naturally place all their anger on a living person and exact revenge (not justice) upon it. However, people need to take a step back and realize something. He’s dead, and that means he’ll never do it again. There is a risk of copycat shooters, but the kid who did it is gone for good. This would have happened anyhow, and it saved the woefully overstrained and underfunded judicial system a farce of a trial with an obvious verdict complete with a media feeding frenzy. While not satisfying to the victims, in a twisted way it was for the “greater good” IMO.

Next we have…

Camp 2: “I feel sorry for him, I’ll take his side, etc etc”

I’ve heard his claims about the motive. While I am not without understanding considering the passive indifference the school has to the real problems that cause this sort of thing, saying that society “made” him do this is a leap I will never accept. While again, my views on death are…different in a number of ways, one thing I can’t justify is claiming their actions aren’t thier fault. I deeply believe in taking responsibility for ones actions. Claiming that people “made them do this” infuriates me. I’m not talking the whole “I was just following orders” argument, I’m talking about “society made me this way.”

I was a troubled kid in my youth. I did things I am not proud of and had I taken a darker road, I may have done much worse. However, while I do think the school system needs serious reform, and that some parents should be sterilized to prevent them from doing their damage upon kids, it was me and me alone that controlled my actions. I knew that then and I know it now. Nobody “made me” do those things, I DID THEM. I’m not proud of it, but I did it, and I accept that. Even when I felt justified in what I did (example: assaulting someone who was consistently sexually harassing a dear friend of mine to the point where they were in tears), I never said that something or someone else “made me” do it. I DID IT and I would take full responsibility for it. Of course, like any kid, I’d avoid getting caught if at all possible, but if I did get caught, I wouldn’t claim that other people or things made me do it. That’s no better then the infamous Twinky Defense, or people trying to get off the hook for their actions by blaming the “hated target of the month” (be it pr0n mags, games, comics, etc). I’m sure anyone who knows me knows how much that kind of crap pisses me off (if this paragraph didn’t spell it out enough already).

Now, if you genuinely knew and like the guy prior to this, then sure, you can elicit sympathy. After all, someone who was your friend did something stupid and is dead and generally hated for it. However, as far as I am concerned, if you don’t know him, then please don’t make such claims. Furthermore, don’t absolve what he did. If nothing else, do NOT CLAIM SOMETHING ELSE MADE HIM DO IT. You can feel free to point out contributing environmental factors, but the fact remains that HE DID IT!

I don’t think the reason behind these stark divisions of opinion has anything at all to do with the person at all. The fact of the matter is that the crime reminds them of death, and forces them to look at their own mortality. They are projecting the victims death upon themselves or their loved ones, and are freaking out about it. People try so hard to ignore that death is a reality that they sublimate it. They see their fear and resulting outrage for having that fear awoken as righteous indignation. They will remind themselves that this anger is proof that they are a good person, pat themselves on the back, and go on their way. Even when the reaper stares them in the face, when the reality that they will die (like we all will) is woefully apparent from the death of someone else, people generally refuse to acknowledge it. While what the guy did was a tragedy, and he shouldn’t be absolved of his crime (and if nothing else, HE DID DO IT, NOBODY “MADE” HIM DO ANYTHING), people are making him into a scapegoat. The moment someone died, the killer stopped being human in their eyes, and became an evil monster from the bowels of hell.

This is a natural human reaction. A movie about 9/11 (without conspiracy theories) was going to be made, but people were concerned that making the antagonists (Al-Queda) 3-dimensional characters and “human” would be disrespectful to the victims. It would humanize a monster and people would see it as a slap in the face to those who died that day because they made the people who did it out to be less then the absolute evil they “have” to be. To make the enemy human is viewed as “taking humanity” from the victims (and the moral dichotomy in favor of them as well). People just need a scapegoat to push all the absolute wrong on, and it would be viewed as a disservice to the victims to take that “right” away from them.

However, IMO, that’s running away from reality. Despite what various religions say, I don’t see ANY absolute morality in anything. Despite the tales we tell, there is no absolute good or absolute evil in any situation. We are all humans, for good or for ill. There are some twisted and depraved people out there that I can’t justify anything good about (such as the various abusive parents my doctor friends have to effectively clean up the messes they make), but I’m willing to admit I only know them in that context.

Like I’ve said before, my views on death are…different (and somewhat unpopular). Net paranoia prevents me from summing that up here, but if you want to know, ask me in person or E-mail or something (warning: I’ll only tell you if I know you). Suffice it to say that I am in neither camp, and see either forms of undue indignation or sympathy as a waste of time. It won’t bring the victims back, it won’t help me understand the situation better, and it won’t alter time and prevent this from happening. I’m not saying people who fall into these camps are automatically wrong. I’m just saying I really have no personal reason to get so worked up.

Well, I said what I wanted to say about that. I’ll go back to happier adventures like getting actual progress on FF12 (I started my data 3 years ago this month, and I have no doubt progress will slow to a crawl once the school year gets underway).

The “new” Scott Scholarship managers ideology should be renamed “powered by pretentiousness”

The beautiful and awesome Anna is intelligent enough (and knows enough about how the ACT generally works) to have received the prestigious Scott Scholarship (judging by some of the other people who possess that award, she is intelligent even among that crowd, but I’m obviously biased). This is an award shared by some friends of mine as well. As of this year, the program changed leadership (not contributors however, it is still the scott scholarship). The man who leads it has some rather…let’s call them “incompatible” ideas.

Before I go on, let me provide a bit of background info.

The Scott Scholarship is a university fellowship funded by a philanthropist (and Nebraskaphile) named Walter Scott. I believe it was started in the year 2000, but I’m not sure (it was during the dot-com bubble). The nature of the scholarship is that IS&T majors (including engineering) get a completely funded education so long as they fulfill certain requirements. They must complete school as an IS&T major of some kind, they must do it in 4 years (5 for engineering, since it was designed to be a 5 year program), they must be enrolled in the honors program, they must maintain a certain GPA (I’m not certain as to what, my guess is 3.0 or greater), and they must attend some functions on behalf of the scholarship. There are probably other things I am unaware of, but that’s the general gist of it. Scott Scholars get a free laptop as part of their agreement (which is a good idea, computers are an obvious and key tool for IS&T folk).

What this new guy wants to do is make the Scott Scholars into the “movers and shakers of the world” or something like that. He seems to believe that Scott Scholars should be the leaders of tomorrow. He has had the following ideas for the scholarship.

-He treats it like a group of “the elite to be.” He believes that those who recieve the scholarship should socialize and associate with each other because they are recipients of that same university fellowship program. To faciltate this, he is instituting various required social events (an idea I find exceedingly abhorrent).

-In this same vein, he is encouraging mentoring the freshman recipients. Thing is, I don’t see how that would really be productive. One has their advisor for what classes they need to take, and there is no real “hidden program” at UNO that one needs to grok.

-”We need to show the freshman the [scott scholar] traditions.” This fellowship never had any traditions AFAIK, unless you count being an IS&T major.

-He is instituting a “manners class” to teach people how to be “proper ladies and gentleman.” Presumably to train people to dine with the social elite. What is particularly flawed in his strategy is that he is offering it only once a year at one time (presumably to encourage more meeting and networking among scott scholars). He was going to hand out these “how to be a lady” or “how to be a gentleman” to all scott scholars for the same reasons, but he retracted that (good thing too, the “lady” one was particularly offensive IMO).

-He thinks all people should finish their degree in 4 years (remember how I said that engineering generally requires 5). Furthermore, engineering majors in particular will have a hard time doing this since the manners course is required, and some of their other required courses are offered only once every 2 years, and there may be a serious conflict because of it.

-He is trying to induce a sense of competition by saying “we should prove we are better then other schools.” One of the things I find is unique about UNO is that it is largely immune to school-identity groupthink (there is virtually no “college culture”). While UNO is a (surprisingly) good school, that whole “we’re better then school X” mentality is virtually unheard of here (I have NEVER seen anything associated with school spirit related events or ideas unless you count the fact that we do in fact have athletic teams). I think this guy is trying to induce the whole “must be competitive, do everything, and prove you and by association those associated with you are better then everyone else.”

-He seems to be under the general impression that Scott scholars don’t have (or have never had) jobs, and have literally no interviewing skills. He was pretty condescending in general too (“I know more because I’m older then you”).

-He seems to think that apart from the few Scott Scholars in athletic programs, that none of the others are involved in anything apart from school (anything that would take their time up anyway). The previous thing about jobs applies here as well.

He doesn’t realize who this scholarship is ultimately for. While there may be some IS&T people in high level corporate management positions, they are probably the exception and not the rule AFAIK. IS&T majors aren’t corporate barons, they are skilled workers. At best, I would liken Scott Scholars to (medical) doctors. Highly skilled and indispensable workers, but few if any ever climb the corporate ladder beyond in whatever hospital they work at and possibly lecture in (I am unaware of any MD who became a CEO). This guy doesn’t want “doctors”, this guy wants business leaders and politicians. He doesn’t realize that IS&T is not the ideal focus for that (that would be business or pre-law). He wants to transform a scholarship that takes the “best and brightest”(tm) and trains them for the “skills of tomorrow”(tm) into what is basically a scholarship version of Omega house from Animal House.

The thing is, he is (or at least appears to be) the kind of guy who isn’t likely to realize this. He isn’t one to “get with the program”, he is one with an agenda for the program. He wants the program to “get with him.” However, this won’t happen. UNO is not the kind of place to produce the results he wants, and the Scott Scholars are basically like any other student, but with high entry test scores. This, combined with his general underestimation of the students in general, makes him not qualified to decide the course that this scholarship should take. Here are some scenarios that might happen.

1. A possible enforcement of a dress code. This seems relatively likely, since this man has a condescending and somewhat low opinion of the students. He would probably say that students need to learn to dress for success, and people need to associate the Scott Scholarship with class (or something like that).

2. Other attempts to harbor a culture of passive elitism in the Scott Scholars. Possible events only accessible to Scott Scholars (may or may not allow a “+1″). Another possibility is the decreased allowances of non-scott scholars to things that they would normally have access too (for a price), in an attempt to artificially create a separate culture.

3. Adding requisites of extra curricular activities. With his “we must compete” and “an athelete and a scott scholar the ideal Japanese high school student this is what you should all be like” rhetoric, this seems likely. These may include non-athletic things (student govt), but not non-major classes (such as music).

4. Having increased restrictions on allowed student behavior even when off campus. Since this guy seems like the kind of person who drills in to your head that everything you have or will ever do will reflect on you forever (admittedly true, but he has a distinctive “I know what you want better then you do” vibe to him when he says it), he will probably greatly restrict behavior if at all possible. Not just for people caught in crimes, but people who say and do things that might seem less than “elite.” This may be instituted by curfews. While I doubt he has QUITE that much power (even if he does control the course of THE scholarship here), he will probably try something like that.

In the end, this guy reminds me of a rich father figure who insists on pushing their child as hard as they can. They believe deep down that they are helping them, but all they’re doing is denying them a childhood (or in this case, an independent college experience) in the process. They justify it all by saying “this is for your future.” That is not a bad philosophy, but the way they are defining that is WAY too narrow. They are victim to the same mental trap typical psychologists are. A “one size fits all, all people should be like this” mentality. It’s almost like he is turning the Scott Scholarship into a religion. While he did make a passingly implied statement on “increasing spiritual growth” (aka “becoming a christian”), his is not deism, but has all the other trappings. An attempt to make a seperate culture out of it, an attempt to shape people in to a very specific archetype, and the idea that all the things you lose and sacrifice in an attempt to be this person (and living your life as this person) are ultimately best for your future.

There are 3 courses of action that may occur after this guy sees that his ideas are incompatible with what Scott Scholars (and by extension, IS&T majors) ultimately are.

1. Recommend that the scholarship be switched to the business and pre-law colleges (THOSE are the kinds of people his ideas are meant for).

2. Increase the requisites of the scholarship, so only the kinds of people he thinks are best can get in (possibly factoring results in things like a personality test).

3. Last resort, recommend the termination of the Scott Scholarship, since “these people” are clearly not “leaders.” Probably not going to happen (walter scott is a nebraskaphile), but since the school will bend over backwards to avoid even that possibility, there may be major (and sickening) changes at the school proper.

While I’m no Scott Scholar (I heard about this from others of that kind, including the awesome Anna), I know how this kind of person thinks. This does not bode well for the program. I’m more worried about what it will do to the IS&T dept. and the school then anything else. Oh well, the only thing I can do is ride this all out I suppose.

More babble about my views on religion

I recently came across this during my insomniac net-diving (and am writing this under similar circumstances -_-;). What scares me the most about it is that I can easily see the logic in it. Heck, in many ways, it represents what the ideal theological mindset is (there are some definite holes though).

The initial freedom of religion thing was in part an effort for puritains to escape from the psuedo-theocracy of the british church. However, when they tried to enact exclusivistic policies on their colonies, it didn’t work so well. I forgot which colony was “puritains only.” It would be hilarious if it was Roanoke, considering what happened to it, but I digress.

Anyways, all the major religions I know of have one thing in common; requisite of belief in order to get into whatever their version of heaven is. If you are a true believer, then all other religions are wrong (or “missing the most important part”, see also Jews Vs Christians) by default. Because I know Christianity the best (for a number of personal reasons), I’ll focus on their view of the situation. This is not an attempt to single out one religion, just use the one I know best and can therfor represent most accurately as an example.

Anyway, why this sadly makes sense (I even linked it again for emphasis XD). Note, all quotes are sic.

“Congress shall make no laws.prohibiting the free exercise thereof (i.e., of religion).” [...] When those words, however, are carefully examined in view of God’s moral law, which commands mankind to perform his supreme responsibility to love, honor, obey and worship only the true God, and to abstain from idolatry, we see that the first amendment actually insolently violates God’s moral law and brazenly gives America’s inhabitants the deceptive “right” and “freedom” to honor, obey and worship whatever false gods they desire. It prevents congress from making laws against the inhabitants practicing agnosticism, freethinking and atheism, from making laws against them honoring, obeying and worshiping satan and from making laws against them even blaspheming the true God.

Let’s break down this argument.
-The first commandment is “I the LORD am thy GOD, thou shall not have any other gods besides me.” This is an admonition against Idolartry.
-Several times in the bible has it mantained that YHVH “…is a jealous god.”
-In both the Pentateuch and the era of the nation of isreal (judges, the davidian era, etc), YHVH had ordered the complete destruction of various places of idolatry (to the point where someone received divine punishment for NOT killing everyone down to the last baby).
-Deuteronomy states that if someone tries to convert you to any alternate religion, you are to publically execute them by stoning them to death.
-King Solomon was punished for allowing alternate religions to exist in Israel
-The bible states the law is as true today as the day it was written (Mat 5:18).
-One of the things Christians strive to do in their goal of godliness is learn to hate sin. While there is some debate whether or not certain sins have a greater weight then others, Idolatry seems to be among the most detested. It seems to be the one God took the most extreme action against.
-While christians are obligated to obey the laws of the nations they are in, this is nullified if the law goes against god (and the previous examples show that societal tolerance of idolatry does just that).

Conversely, this part of that argument has several holes
-Christianity is at its roots the seeking of salvation through the sacrifice of Christ. This is something someone comes to by choice (or predestination, if you are a Calvinist), not by legal mandate
-All governments (with the possible exception of biblical Israel) are effectively a part of “the world”, an entity which christianity must be detached from
-No figure of the new testament, including Jesus, EVER openly challenged a nation because their laws allowed what would be considered idolatry. Instead, the great commission was to “save people” from within.

One later part of that manifesto states the following

The inhabitants of a society should never be given idolatrous freedom. Such evil “rights” should never exist and be protected by the laws of the land. It’s the solemn responsibility of the lawmaking body of a society to make an unmistakable distinction between the holy and unholy, while discouraging the unholy. By so doing, the government performs its proper role of perpetuating the proper values a society should embrace, and lays the foundational principles that promotes the true good of every inhabitant of that society. The legislative body of a nation should embrace laws commanding the honor, obedience and worship of the true God alone, while also outlawing the existence, emergence and importation of idolatrous religions, customs, ideologies, philosophies and opinions and sentiments which tend towards the same. There should be a heavy penalty against anyone who performs anything that dishonors the true God.

This is biblical isreal in a nutshell (the “severe penalties” were often execution). In fact, on various levels, I’m sure the true believers still wish for this. Tom Short once said that “…it would be ideal if homosexuality was illegal (it still is in many states) and the laws were enforced.” While I’m not entirely convinced on the bible’s banning of homosexuality as the intended message of the oft-quoted passages, that’s another article. The point is that this is an example of a “man of god” who wishes for what he perceives as divine mandate to be U.S. law. People claim that the laws of the United States were formed off of the biblical standards (including Tom Short), but if that were true, then freedom of religion would not be there AT ALL. I am assuming that if “both” are true, then that law was put in place to prevent another church of england like entity from springing up by separating church and state.

However, like with the previous part, there is a counter point. I forgot which epistle it was, but Paul himself said something to the effect of “the law is holy, but if we only needed that (or could keep to it), then there would be no need for Christ to die at all.” In my opinion, it was trying to do something very similar in Rome (the enforced christianity of emperor Constantine) that took a lot of the “essence” of it out of the church and caused many schisms within (despite the fact that they are all supposed to be a part of “one service”).

There’s no way that a government can exist and function to any degree apart from that government being established upon some type of philosophy or ideology, which amounts to religion of some sort. Since government should function apart from corruption, it would have to do so properly according to the righteous laws of God. If it doesn’t, it will do so according to the laws of another god – namely Satan – regardless of the philosophy or ideology upon which it is established. Therefore, in the truest sense, government cannot be separated from religion whether it honors God or not.

[...]Since those who believed in democracy prevailed over all the other beliefs, democracy became the religion upon which America was established.

Like with his previous rhetoric, I can see where he is coming from. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t agree or support his ideas, but I can follow the logic. He is advocating an old testament ideology, a nation built upon the bilbical laws. One where attempts at conversion lead to execution. While I honestly doubt he has the love that is supposed to be the guiding force behind the laws, he does have a starkly similar logic framework to the ideas of the laws established in the pentatuch.

However, like I said last time, if that were really what being godly was all about, the whole “blood of the lamb of god thing” would never have come to be. Incidentally, would this persons laws command animal sacrifice? It was stated in the bible (and the law has not been annuled, so sayeth Matthew 5:18).

Because of the vast array of heathenism, varying values are embraced by the inhabitants of the land. Practically everyone defines morality for themselves according to their own deceptive sense of right and wrong, or according to their value system. Although everyone differs in their beliefs, they are all right in their own eyes. Each of these differing value systems produce groupings among the inhabitants, which cause competition, disunity, disagreements, quarrels, hatred, fights, ongoing wars and schisms of all types. This discordance produces broken families, broken marriages, severed relationships between friends and associates – which produces much hurt, harm and even death. All of this in turn results in much litigation and needless petitioning of the government for redress of the grievances produced by the schism. But it is the government which allows the schisms to take place through the varied and foolish religions, philosophies, ideologies and etc., it allows the inhabitants to practice. Thus a foolish cycle of evil is produced by the first amendment.

It shouldn’t be difficult for the leaders, the so-called educated and the so-called experts of America to perceive the simple fact that an homogeneous society is better than a heterogeneous or pluralistic society. A society whose government imposes all of the moral laws of God upon its inhabitants is better than a society that allows heathenism. Righteous unity in a society is crucial to peace and harmony in a society.

Now we come to the meat of the argument. In all honesty, this has been the law of the land until the time of Rome. “Limit one religon per tribal society” was how things went. It is true that many schisms in society are caused by variations in religion attempting to coexist, when their very nature makes them a “follow us or [literally] go to hell” organization. In the eyes of YHVH, anything apart from Judeo-christianity is idolatry. One of the things YHVH seemed to be consistently trying to do is insulate “his people” from alternate faiths.

However, Jesus did not challenge rome in doing something similar despite the fact that the dominant temples at the time were to entities like Cybele. At least not in any of the gospels I know about. One of the things that always threw me (and no doubt, much of the Jewish community) for a loop is that YHVH is “written” VERY differently in the new testament. While I honestly doubt my human mind is capable of comprehending anything close to understanding what a deity even truly is, the way that YHVH is anthromorphized did greatly change. Maybe the coming of Christ marked the decentralization/de-anthropocentricism of “gods elect.” Going from a nation of people with the bloodline of Abraham (bloodline was important to the Jews) to people who surrender their identity and self for the sake of salvation. Possibly a shift in strategy after places like Rome with more then one religion within it were established and had clear military and technological superiority.

The reason why I equate this last part in particular to christianity (albiet, more old testament christianity) is that I’ve always seen the bible as a book of order. God tells people how to live, establishes laws, and gives people a clear guiding purpose. YHVH also tolerates no deviance (particularly toward rivals) in the old testament, and makes what can and cannot be done quite clear. There are no alternate truths, no possibilities of the universe, no “what if” scenarios. It is what god says, PERIOD! Humanity has a singular purpose, to glorify god (it’s in Isaiah(sp?) somewhere). All commandments must be kept. This is not just order for the sake of surface obedience, this is the submission of even “inner freedom.” Right down to the depths of the metaphorical heart until nothing of “you” remains. Christians are supposed to be a “new creation,” who will be “reshaped in gods image.” All character traits and uniquenesses will slowly be whittled out. One person who had experienced this in the past described this as “having the part of the brain that things for ones self switched off.” One is “a slave to christ, purchased at a price.” A slave has no rights, only duties to be carried out. In short, while the face has changed, the bible is unabashedly a book of order.

Conversely, that makes the devil a creature of chaos. What is chaos if not freedom in its purest form. Freedom will always stand opposite to order (which I just established was what the bible preaches). Various forms of “rebellion” (as in, going against the laws) are deemed grievous sins. Heck, sometimes sin itself is defined as “rebellion against god” (aka “breaking the law”). One of the requisites of christianity is to give up ones free thinking mind (and that is precisely what emulating Jesus entails, although not even he could do this 100% of the time). The devils motives are unclear, but one thing he desired was freedom from under gods rule. Whenever an old jewish ruler took matters into his own hands (instead of reliance on YHVH), that person was punished (and deemed “prideful”). Things that go against the established hierarchies (people acting outside of gender roles, for example) are contra-biblical. In short, while there are various metaphors that make it SOUND like freedom is biblical (mostly by people who deny the context that it is “freedom from sin”), freedom and self determination in the sense of leading ones life is contra-biblical. That is among the things the devil sought, and what he still represents.

Of course, nobody can agree 100% on what being godly truly entails. One of the weaknesses of having what the christians call “a teachable heart” is that it is susceptible to the variances of “faith” by the differing subsets of leadership. Honestly, that state of being, empty and being filled with the rhetoric of another (right down to a certian intepretation of it) really REALLY scares me, but I digress.

I’ve heard arguments about the following things being sinful, and my inevitable opinions of them

-Swearing: This is relatively common. While I think excess cussing in leiu of anything more relevant or worth saying is the mark of an “idiocracy” dolt, I don’t see anything inherently wrong with the words themselves. I’m more fond of esoteric words like “vile” anyway, they’re more fun to say XD.

-Going against your parents: According to Pentateuch law, kids should be killed for this. While parental discipline is expected of children, I think a certain degree of willfulness is natural in kids (I am a perfect example). What christianity desires is docile obedient sheep without minds of their own (instead, letting god think for them). Hence the “spare the rod, spoil the child” rhetoric (that is often abused, ironically in the form of abuse).

-Murder: It is easy to see why this is there. Even without the 10 commandments, a law similar to this would have been instituted. The fear of death is a very real thing (to the point people go to stupid lengths to pretend death doesn’t exist), and the laws against killing are a natural cause-and-effect result to make the inhabitants feel safe. While like any society, killing is allowed when the leader (in this case, YHVH) says so, murder in general is forbidden. While I have…different views on death then most, this one is probably the most obvious. While idolatry appears to be the most brutally punished in YHVH’s eyes, this one is probably most detested by people (the easiest “sin to hate”).

-Coveting anything that you don’t have: This is hard for modern society to truly accept. We are conditioned to believe the sentiment that “nobody went to jail for what they thought about doing.” The common sentiment is that “as long as you don’t let it control you, it is healthy to aspire for certain things. These things may already be had by another.” While this passive-aggressive competition and pride thing common to so many people (particularly in various subcultures, including some churches) can easily be contra-biblical, most people be oblivious to it happening or see it as simple “innocent” thoughts. The whole passive-aggressive “I’m better then you” competition thing being denounced is one thing the bible and I agree on. Again, I’ve heard of some christians falling in to this trap (trying to one-up each other with their childrens accomplishments, or going out of their way to “display” how they are obeying the laws by wearing head coverings or making such a big deal out of avoiding “the world” that they won’t even get professional medical attention since hospitals are “of the world” and “god is the ultimate healer.”)

-Women preaching in church: Christianity is inevitably about hierarchy. Most fundamentalist churches separate the men and the women. As a result, they develop completely separate cultures. This is enforced by laws written from a culutre in which men and women never had friendships. All interaction beyond incidental encounters was within the family only (whether that family is “husband and wife”, “father and daughter” or “mother and son”). The men are leaders, and the women are followers who embrace the full spirit of the leadership. The reason for this is that the old jewish covenant with YHVH was modeled after a marriage contract. This is also the reason “virgins” and the proverbs 31 woman was considered a good thing, while “whores” and women who took things in their own hands were considered a bad thing. The way a woman is to act to a man (an inferior in the heirarchy of god, thanks to Eve) is how all are to act to god. It is just one more parallel. Of course, I don’t believe in or embrace any of this. I am DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to anything that aggregates gender roles in any way.

-Women in church buildings without head coverings: See previous statement. In addition to that, the whole point was “not to stand out.” Nowadays, head coverings have the opposite effect. Then again, it’s not up to me to determine which laws are valid…

-Pornography: This is something that I’ve heard arguments about this from all walks of life. I can easily see what christians would think is wrong with this (it aggregates lustful thoughts, which is “leading people to sin”). I just never understood what was wrong with this (or any of the whole “sexual sin” things, but I’ll get to that when I cover adultery). It aids the libido with either visual, audio, or text based stimulation. Oh, on a side note, there IS porn for girls. While females are attracted to things visually to an extent, the female libido is driven by different things. This is why text-based porn is more popular. Heck, romance novels (including twilight) are basically porn for girls.

-Lying: This one is probably the most contrary to how our modern society works. We are conditioned that honesty is only ok when it doesn’t hurt anyone. Lying is deemed the polite thing to do to avoid conflict and hurt. Our electoral system encourages the best liars to become our leaders. We are encouraged to lie in order to protect any groups that we have (be they social or occupational). Some view information as power, and honesty would only hurt their position. Others use lies as a means to power.

Power comes from lying, lying and getting the whole world to play along with you. Once you got people believing what they know in their hearts aint true you got ‘em by the balls. [...] Everyone would lie for me, everyone who counts. Otherwise all their own lies, everything that runs Sin City, it all comes tumbling down like a pack of cards -Sen. Roark from Sin City

I value honestly very highly, which makes me a minority among the populace. While I am far from perfectly honest (I’ve lied several times, and have gotten rather good at it), I embrace it as best I can. While it probably doesn’t take a form the bible would seek it to, this is where the bible and I conditionally agree (then again, “conditionally” is just the same as “not at all” in the eyes of any trule believer. It is all or nothing.)

-Stealing: This has become somewhat ambiguous in recent years. What defines stealing? This question isn’t as straightforward as it used to be. Some would use the old taking of physical property definition. However, with the ability to near-perfectly copy data (thus preserving a copy while “taking” another, where nobody loses anything they own), the people who own intellectual property rights say that’s not enough (since they supposedly lose money with pirated copies). Others would go further and say that fanfiction is effectively stealing (warning, the article is biased and…lacking a certain grounding in reality). Am I a thief because I used to write (a considerable amount of) Transformers fanfic back in the day? As you can see, with intellectual property rights, things aren’t so clear.

-Abortion: I never completely understood this one. I can’t find any biblical basis for this. The scriptures quoted are usually the admonitions against murder as well as the whole “quiver full of kids” thing. Honestly, I think all of this is just rooted in the fear of death and the belief that “sex should have consequences, the fear of unwanted pregnancy can save people from the sin of adultery.” I have no doubt that at least some of the supporters are simply projecting their own death upon the whole idea of the unborn being killed (although it speaks to an ambiguity of definition whether or not it is truly “alive”). I could go into this one forever, but that would warrant an entirely separate article.

-Adultery: This is probably the most “major” sin that I fail to see any problem with. In fact, apart from the aforementioned valuing of freedom and self determination; all of my problems with the bible are rooted in how it handles sex, gender, and sexual orientation.

The bible implies this is as bad as murder if the way it is talked about is any indicator. This is one of the easiest sins for americans to hate, since that hatred is ingrained in our culture. I simply broke free of it when I realized it was completely irrational. Paul spoke of excommunicating people who were adulterers from religious fellowship (among a list of other major sins). Since a detachment from the world usually (but not always) involves cutting everyone outside of the “fellowship” off (otherwise you would be “loving them more then him” which makes one unworthy of being a christian, or so he said in the gospels), the people cut off usually have nowhere to go and don’t know how to survive without the fellowship to fall back on. I think the idea is to feel “what it is like to be abandoned by god” so that they are so shaken by the experience they see how serious was and repent. This reflects on how dire the sin is viewed by christianity.

However, I have never NEVER understood why. I know to the hebrew mindset, sex is considered impure. I would speculate that one of the reasons the virgin birth was so important is that the mother was “more pure then is possible.” Paul disliked marriage, but he thought it a “necessary evil” to combat adultery to those whose urges are too strong. Heck, I hypothesize that one of the reasons the gospel according to Mary Magdeline was rejected was because a woman being closer in fellowship to Jesus then Simon Peter would imply a sexual attraction (even if none truly existed). One thing that the separation of male/female cultures bring about is an implication that male/female “fellowship” is implicitly with psuedo-romantic intentions. Only same sex, non-romantic fellowship is “pure.”

Anyway, digression aside, I can’t think of any reason why this is. As long as you don’t have kids you can’t take care of, what is wrong with sex in and of itself? The issue of bloodlines became moot when YHVH was no longer strictly “of the jews.” I say as long as you are responsible about things, I don’t see the problem with it. I deeply love sex, and not just for some cheap physical thrills. With someone I am truly close to it is a deeply emotional experience for me, someone I can trust to really let myself be myself with. Not have any hangups over self-conscious whatnot and just concentrate on her. I don’t see why a contract stating the permanency of a union is required before one can even BEGIN. In fact, that path seems rather dangerous and susceptible to abuse. I could go on about that all day, but that’s a different article.

-Homosexality: On purely issues of value systems, I stand most diametrically opposed to the church on this then anything else. I honestly think that the whole thing is a misinterpretation of the bible. It is an easy “mistake” to make. That’s how the verses “sound.” Furthermore, it involves sex and doing something that doesn’t conform to the norm. Sex is considered “impure”, and christianity is about conforming to a certain path (difference is implicitly frowned upon). It is an exceedingly easy “sin” for (some) americans to “hate” but that is changing.

This is something that so long as this interpretation holds, it will be irreconcilable between them and I. They think of it as only the sexual act. It is “homoSEXuality” to them. They see it akin to any other sexual deviancy, like having sex with children (which the bible does not speak against). They always say “you can deeply love someone without having sex with them.” This is true, however they get confused about the use of the term love. Love is a very broad term in the english languague, and people who know the bible (like any serious christian would) would realize that there are 3 different greek words for different kinds of love. Therefor, they of all people should realize that the “you love your dog, but don’t have sex with it” argument is invalid, since it is a completely different use of the word.

What they do not see is the other aspects of it. Homosexuality isn’t any more or less about sex then heterosexuality is. The bond of romantic love, that trust, that deep and power bond that can’t ever be duplicated. They claim that fellowship should be about a similar bond (minus the sex), but I can’t see that as possible. I have a tight and powerful bond with all of my close friends, each one unique to them. I care about them all very deeply. However, the bond I have with Anna is different, and it isn’t just the sex. In a way, I love them all. However, the very nature of “what that bond is” is simply too different to really call it the same thing. I am not downplaying the importance of my friendships, just saying that there is enough of a difference between close friends and romantic love that you really can’t claim that super close friends are “lovers without(?) the sex.” IMO, it doesn’t work that way, at least the way I feel love (there are 6 different kinds of love, some people feel different kinds then others).

This goes back to how frightening being “blindly teachable” is to me. Leaders propagate THEIR VERSION of the bible to their followers. These followers all claim that theirs and theirs alone is inspired by the holy spirit. If it is “more legalistic” in their view, then it is akin to the pharisees (blind legalism without submitting to the true spirit of the law, another weakness that followers may be susceptible to). If it is less legalistic, then the church is “too soft on sin” and is “lukewarm” (as revelations warns against). However, I digress. I’ll cut this off here so this can be under a terrabyte of text (there is plenty more on this I have not covered).

-Masturbation: Yet again, an easy “sin” to “hate” by americans (it involves sex after all). However, I do not see any clear scriptual evidence against this. Some say it automatically denotes “lust in the heart” (that is possible, but not automatically true). Others make the classic argument that it takes away from the “one acceptable form of sex” between the maried (this usally rolls over with the contraceptive argument, which I’ll cover later). Others say it is “self centered” (not any more then eating, IMO). Some use the story in Genesis about Onan to condemn masturbation. However, the point of the story not that he was wicked for masturbating, but that he was wicked for not fulfilling his duty for his own selfish reasons. Like with the lust in the heart argument, it is “motivation versus deed”, and they got crossed over.

For more information on the subject from christian sources (which I used in my research for this particular topic), see this and this (the latter is particularly informative. It is a site for wives who wish to explore their sexuality with their husbands in a godly way).

-“Sins of the heart”: This is probably the most difficult kind of sin for people to hate. The reason people “hate” sin to begin with is not just that they think it is wrong (although that is definitely a factor), but because they feel they are being judged. It is easy to see things as wrong when the results are physical and obvious (which makes the ambiguity of stealing I mentioned earlier all the more crazy, but I digress). However, as I mentioned earlier, we live in a culture of “nobody went to jail for what they thought about doing.” There is no surefire way to read peoples minds. So long as it is concealed and private, “evil thought” is considered harmless, so long as it does not lead to evil deed. The christian doctrines claim otherwise, stating that evil thoughts equate to evil deeds. A common theme of the bible is “god judges the heart.”

I frankly can’t see what is wrong with this either. Sure, it is good to guard ones self against ones dark side (but not trying to destroy it, you can’t get rid of your shadow), but I think suppression isn’t the answer. Acceptance that it is a part of you, and making sure you control it (rather then it controlling you) is what I’d do. Then again, I’m guilty of so many “sins of the heart” that there is no way to keep track of it all (all societal value systems would conclude me a grossly evil person).

-Anyone under alternate religions: And now we come back to where we started. While it is debated whether there is any difference in weight between sins in the eyes of the lord, the reactions against idolatry were by far the worst. We live in a culture so immersed in tolerance of different viewpoints (which I am thankful for) that “hating” this (or at least acting on it) is literally criminal. This is aggregated further that one of our cultural enemies (Iran and the like) IS a homogeneous theocracy. Whenever an enemy does things one way, the other will do things the opposite way to distance themselves from that. Communists were anti-deism, so we became more religious then we had ever been. Now are enemies are religious fanatics, and we are more secular then we have ever been AFAIK. I know one person who left the christian coalition because they fell in love with a Muslim (and was told that was “a grave sin” and to “cut [that person] off”).

Of course, this depends on where you live. While tolerance is lauded, various permutations of christianity are usually the dominant force. While there is this whole “most of them aren’t true christians” rhetoric, in a general sense, christianity is the most priviledged group in the nation. One of the primary factors that people choose in electing our leaders is their religious background. While Mitt Romney seems to think this worked against him, that was because he was Mormon. The whole “Obama is a muslim” thing proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt (I don’t know whether he is or not). Heck, 60 years ago, it was considered “shocking” that a president was catholic (as opposed to protestant). Anna once showed me some statistics that said that the one thing that would turn away people from a presidential candidate more then any other is that they were an Athiest. Heck, the movie based on Darwin was denied screening in the U.S. because “it might offend people’s religious sensibilities” (and yet, they showed Passion of the Christ). I know one person whom was thoroughly abused because that person was an Atheist. I know of another person who was abused in the U.S. Army because they were Jewish. Here is another bit of rhetoric by one who thinks this is a “christian nation” (I wonder what thus guy would think of the manifesto above?).

I personally am indifferent to all these major relgions (except scientology, that can FOAD). They have their good points and their bad points. Each one is sure that they are the one true way. Whether through subititutionary atonement, good karma, etc. They provide an interesting window into human psychology and cultural differences. In the end though, I can’t bring myself to believe that one is any more valid then the other. The great paradox that always rolls in my mind is “did god(s) create humans or did humans create god(s).”

-A wife being willful (as in, not submissive) toward ones husband: This is something I have a personal issue with. One of the things that I am most drawn to is someone with a force of will (and Anna has that in abundance, man do I love her). The idea of a docile-sheep wife is vile to me. I don’t deride people’s choices, if they choose to live this way that’s their business. However, I fail to comprehend why it is necessary. This just goes back to the whole “covenant with god is akin to a marriage contract” thing (with a sprinkling of the whole curse of eve for good measure). I once heard of a newly married wife who asked me to pray with her to help her learn to be more submissive to her new husband. Again, if this is the kind of life she wants to lead, I am all for it, but I will not embrace it.

I’ve heard the argument that “god simply put order into equality.” Sorry folks, it doesn’t work that way. Placing “order into equality” MAKES it inequality. Arguments like these consdier the “usurping of mens right to rule” heresy. There was another one that said something akin to “women complain that it is ‘abuse’ when their husband demands to know where she is, or commands who she can and cannot be friends with. It may seem unfair, but god gave man dominion over woman, and that is simply exercising that as a responsible head of a household.” By the way, both those previous examples are categorized as abuse (of course, this is “the world”, so it is still “godly” and therefor permissible and encouraged). I have heard some of the stupidest anti-feminist arguments in my research of this part (including “it increases pedophilia”), but I’ll stop here. I could babble about this one all day.

-Not desiring to have children (or avoiding having children): This is the whole quiver-full of children idea. To go against it is to go against god’s plan (or so the argument goes). From what I’ve gathered, the entire purpose of marriage/attraction/sex/etc. is supposed to be for having children. Each one a blessing, and you can never have too many. Getting married without having kids is spitting in the face of god and goes against the very reason he allowed marriage in the first place. Having sex without the intention of procreating is heresy. There is an implicit attitude throughout the bible that sex is ONLY for procreation. Sure it is a fun, enjoyable, beautiful thing. However, if you are going to do it, you need to do it for the purpose of having a child. The joy, emotional healing, bonding, etc. are just god given benefits to fulfilling his plan to reproduce. To not have children despite being married is “selfish” (although I would argue that the motives for most people who do want to have kids are often equally as selfish).

I for one don’t desire to have any children. I have my (many) reasons for this, which I won’t go into here. If Anna does want kids, I will discuss it with her. However, I don’t think I should, and it is hardly for “selfish” reasons (if anything, part of my motivation is a sense of responsibility to the human race, but I’ll not go into that). This transitions well to the next topic…

-The use of contraceptives (including among the married): Whenever I think of this, I think of this. As I said earlier, there is an implicit attitude in the bible that sex is solely for procreation. A man is only to have sex with his wife, and must always be ready and willing to accept the babies. Some see this as making adultery more accessible. However, among the married, this argument is null and void. I find it ironic that children are seen as a blessing to the married and simultaneously viewed as a just punishment for an audulteress (quite the contradictory view on what the baby is there). Most of the other important points abut this one I mentioned earlier.

-Harry potter: Man oh man, this one amuses me. The common argument here is that Harry Potter is promoting witchcraft. Most people dismiss magic of any kind as fantasy. However, since it was present in the bible (particularly the Pentateuch), some christians treat it as VERY real. There is also the whole “alternate relgion” thing attached to it (wicca). Combined with idolatry, I think this pretty much sums it up the biblical admonition against witchcraft

It’s difficult to take this kind of thing seriously. Especially when supporting views are like this, this, this, and CAP alert’s take on every single harry potter movie (here, here, here, here, here, and here). However, people like Jack chick (referenced in the first link on this paragraph) seem to think that it is as real as it gets. I frankly think this whole thing “hate harry potter” thing is so stupid it’s its own satire.

-Rock music (including christian rock): This one is another among the WTF trinity of this first section. The argument as I understand it is that the basis of the music is evil. The name “was meant to describe fornication.” I’ve even heard one go so far as to say that any music apart from the songs in the bible (psalms, song of songs, etc) are innately immoral (they are “of the world” after all). Here is how Jack Chick tries to explain it. A more in depth explanation is here.

I frankly find this whole anti-rock sentiment stupid. They would make a better case if people like in that last link weren’t insane. I mean, I can see why people like them would hate Bad Relgion (whom are one of my favorite bands, and not just because of the subject matter). However, they go to the stupidest extremes. I wonder what they would think of Steele Croswhite, recognized pastor and chrstian musician (who is in the same group of churches as the aforementioned tom short).

-Dungeons and Dragons: The third on the trinity of things I can’t take seriously. The argument is similar to Harry Potter. Imagining doing these things is akin to “doing them in the heart.” Role playing is justifying the sins of the heart, or something like that. Others think that D&D is the gateway to wicca. Here is another explanation (in the form of a comic-tract). Here is another argument supporting the anti-D&D rhetoric.

Like with the Harry Potter or Christian Rock admonitions. It’s hard to take this seriously when the supporters are generally insane. Having played my share of penci-paper RPG’s, and having DMed a good many campaigns, I don’t know what version of D&D people like this are referring to, but it’s not the one I know about. Many of these things are the fault of the players or DM, not the game itself.

In addition to these commonly held views some…more legalistic sects of churches have have also claimed these things are sinful

-Bilingualism: This is probably the stupidest one I am aware of. The argument I read was that the babble of confusion was meant to separate humanity. Learning another language is supposedly challenging god. If that is the case, then what of the people who translate the bible? They know several languagues (including dead ones).

-Eating fruit from a tree less than 5 years old (Lev. 19:23): I’ve never understood levite law. Then again, all the law is as valid today as it was when it was written, no matter how crazy it seems (or so sayeth Matthew 5:18 anyway).

-Growing 2 different plants in your garden (Lev. 19:19): Wow, this is utterly innocuous. Another crazy levite law that makes no sense to me.

-Getting a tatoo (Lev. 19:28): I’ve seen christians with tatoos. I don’t see any problem with this. Then again, I’m just a mere human 9_9.

-Getting your beard trimmed (Lev 19:27): This is jewish cultual. Ones beard is a sign of pride and status among the jews. Most christians don’t really follow this. Then again, the argument is always “who are we to say what laws can and cannot be obeyed.” This is the fracture point that lead Paul and Peter on different paths (in this case, it was circumcision). Either way, I fail to see what’s wrong with beard trimmery.

-Reading horoscopes or consulting psychics: This is another levite law. I assume this is akin to idolatry (consulting an oracle or someone other then god for divination). Frankly, I think both of these things are idiotic and useless. However, some people like it.

-For men to have long hair: Cultural like the beard things. I don’t understand what hair length has to do with godliness. Then agian, what do I know.

-For women to have short hair: See previous

-Any sexual act that is not male-initiated missionary position sex (including among the married): Assuming a heteronormative, married couple dynamic; I can’t find anything scripture based to make such a restriction. People invoke the various versus of women submitting as examples. If a woman initiates sex, even to her husband, she must be some sort of diabolical jezebel. The attitude of it has changed over time (in fact, I have a great excerpt from a book that explained just how it changed over the years perfectly, but that would take too long). This is also coupled with the gender dynamics of the time it was written (which doesn’t make sense, since one of the keys to “walking with jesus” is detachment from “the world”, it would explain the lack of scriptual evidence). In greco-roman cultures, the man (vir) was always the “giver/pitcher/seme.” Everyone else, be they boy, woman, or slave of any kind, was the “taker/catcher/uke.” While christian doctrine restricts this to “man and wife”, and gender normative ideals (combined with a stereotype of the asexual woman) reinforce this dynamic, this is nothing better then a cultural stereotype. Even evangelical sex advice manuals (“advice for the married” and all that) usually play by this. For example …the secular world says that we women are allowed to tell our husband that we don’t want sex. However, through the love of Jesus Christ, we can be warm and receptive to all our husbands desires. Notice a conspicuous lack of desires on the part of the “wife.”

Another avenue this takes apart from the initiator is the varying methods. I’ve heard pastors decry “new positions” as an excuse, and are not needed. “If you truly love eachother and have jesus in your heart, there is no need for that.” While from their perspective that may be true, but there is no need for coffee when one can drink water. That doesn’t stop people from wanting it. Furthermore, using the drink analogy, there is no reason one cannot explore different “flavors” of drinks, despite there being no “need” to deviate.

This idea also extends to how non vaginal-penetrative sex is inherently evil. One example is oral sex. Some pastors think it is just a sick act of “the world”, allowing adultery (whether or not it is only “of the heart” is up for debate) and circumventing the consequences (see entries on contraception and having children). Again, I can’t see any scriptural evidence to support that (and these girls whom all appear to be true believers, would agree with me). Same with anal sex. While the lattermost is not my thing, there is nothing wrong with it (again, I have support on this). I can’t find anything of scripture to say these are evil.

The reasons ultimately lie in that it involves sex. It is THE forbidden topic. Something parents cant bring themselves to educate kids about but should, something that people think that common people shirk away from like a plague. Conditioning that gets so severe (especially among some women) that once they are married, they get confused since they spent so much energy avoiding even thinking about wanting it. Certain churches have the complaint that “softer” parishes have learned to love as god loves, but not to hate as god hates (hating sin and all that). In this, it seems to be just the opposite, people in the U.S. hate and fear sex like it was a package of space AIDS that will damage children for life upon the slightest bit of exposure. This is compounded by the loveless pseudo-asexual “no sex, we’re married” dynamics that are so common in this country (that are, frankly, alien to me). Parent’s don’t care about any violence or physical abuses (like their kids being punched) when there are sex things to worry about (at least not in this country). I often ask people “what would be worse, your 15 year old son or daughter being beaten half to death, or that same child having sex wtih someone.” The general sentiment was that those were equally bad (which REALLY perplexes me). I have already babbled about this one for far too long, so I’ll cut it off here.

-The celebration of “religious holidays” (christmas, easter, etc): These holidays are a real schism point. They were all created by the roman catholic church with the intention of converting pagans and outsiders. Christmas was initially a pagan winter festival, that was “absorbed” and granted legitimacy by saying it celebrated Jesus’ birthday (despite the fact that he was born around march/april or so). Easter was just passover, but since that is when Christ was crucified (admittedly a powerful collection of symbolism. The lamb of god being sacrificed for sin on the day celebrating god delivering the jews from egypt), they incorporated that. I believe it was combined with some pagan springtime festival (the whole easter bunny thing was jammed in there from that I think). These holidays are not really religious unless you make them that way. They vary greatly with culture (for example, Xmas eve is THE “date holiday” in Japan), and are just that, cultural holidays. In fact, one the the reasons for the reformation and the reasons the puritains left the old country was because of these holidays “of the church of rome.”

However, there’s nothing WRONG with celebrating them. There are all these arguments that god hates these things, and that they shouldn’t exist in a “judeo-christian world.” The holidays are cultural, and that’s fine by me. They don’t have THAT much meaning to me (and I reject a lot of the cultural presumptions of them), but there is no reason it must be abolished. It makes my family and some of my friends happy and brings people together. That in itself seemed to be a “blessed” thing, but then again, what do I know.

I was going to babble on where I stand personally with christianity after this (and I did say some of it already), but I’ll save that for another time (and I would just be repeating earlier entries anyway).

Later y’all

An old stereotype, where it lead us, and why it’s false.

I was kicking back after getting my discrete final done (I’m pretty sure I did well, but probably not as well as I would have liked) and I was doing some net diving (it’s relaxing and I can talk to the beautiful and awesome Anna simultaneously, so it is tied with gaming as the ideal post test activity I can do at home while physically alone). In some…deliberately different searches (I don’t even remember what they were anymore) I pulled up this incredibly stupid thing. It would offend me on a number of levels, but it had reached that level of stupid saturation where it stops being annoying and offensive and starts being its own satire. Parsing it a bit, it seems like an over-educated person who is bound by old and unnecessary stereotypes.

Among others, the one I noticed most (or rather, the one that was most easily found by me) was the whole “women are asexual and don’t want sex that badly, they only use their ability to give it to further their agenda.” This was a stereotype that was very prevalent in high school. I suspect the majority of the menfolk and a good deal of the ladyfolk believed it. Furthermore, the girls who DID know better stayed complicit in their silence, so as not to give up the social advantage they are afforded. At one time, I believed this too (anyone who knows me now knows that is FAR from what I actually believe to this day, which is really what this is all about).

I didn’t have any reason NOT to believe this at the time. Being a creature with a Y chromosome (albiet, one who was utterly disgusted with gender based culture even then), I had no idea what sex was like from the female perspective. Furthermore, at the time, I had NEVER heard any girl openly say anything about liking it (while I knew plenty of menfolk who did, although I suspect it was overemphasized). Since experiencing the wild thing from the female side of things was literally impossible for me to do (potential elective surgery aside), there was no way I could learn or understand by experience. I asked several of my galpals (tried to focus on those who were sexually active), and only one or two of them (both of whom were sexually HYPERactive) had a favorable opinion on it. I’m not sure if it was social pressure to downplay lest one be considered a “slut”, but I know them well enough to know that at least at the time, they believed their words.

I took my search to the land of the interwebs (IRC rooms I knew and AOL chatrooms [the latter I disliked, but they had a more...typical crowd to gather data from, which is what I sought]). Of the 100 or so womenfolk surveyed (counting the people I asked in person), only 20 tops liked sex in any way. The majority of the answers were that it was “boring”, “painful”, and similar echoes, along with senses of relationship (or marital, in a few cases) obligation. One answer that really echoed the sentiment was “if I put up with doing it with him, he buys me stuff” (I…was not pleased at this idea). Another that amused me a bit was “why did god make us attracted to men if all they want to do hurts.” I know some of the OL folks were around my general age, I don’t think there as anybody over 30 (not sure how young the youngest is). Also, I have no knowledge of what most of their sexual orientations was (the few I did confirm were ladies saying they like ladies, possibly a byproduct of it feeling they have to clarify that they aren’t heterosexual). Most of the answers apart from the ones who confirmed they were gay had a (rather strongly) implied heterosexual tone (“…his dick in me…” etc).

Let’s review the data gathered.
-The general sentiment among the locals (my highschool classmates) was that girls generally dislike sex
-Sex stretches the female body in a way it (probably) hadn’t experienced virginally, plus there were echoes of pain from the crowd (to this day I am not sure if that was consistent or first time traumas)
-There is a much higher risk going in to things for females then males (as in, the getting pregnant kind of risk)
-Only 20% of ladies surveyed, including all but 2 people around my relative age (I was 16) actually liked sex.
-Among the majority who didn’t like sex, it was primarily viewed as either an exchange/payment, or an obligation (possibly both). Thus confirming the general stereotype

With only that data to go on, is it any wonder I believed that more often then not, women were somewhat asexual? I mean, I knew heterosexual attraction was present (mostly for Leonardo DiCaprio), but it didn’t seem like many females were really letting it effect them as strongly (and in a minute you’ll see the “damn was I wrong about that” part). I just figured attraction to men from women was driven by something other than sexual desire (I knew it was there, I just didn’t know what its basis was, less physical).

While I was somewhat right about the last part (proven by the fact that girlporn is mostly based on emotional stimulation), I was wrong in that I assumed sexual desire wasn’t present. After I met my net galpals a bit later, they pretty much destroyed the notion that girls aren’t physically attracted to males in a sexual sense (and thus, don’t desires sex) like a brick through a glass window. Shoujou (and by psuedo-extension, bishounen) was their bread and butter, and they were unashamed (and very forward) in saying how hot some male or another is. I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard “…and my GOD is he hot” about a game character. I remember saying “I doubt you would react as favorably if me and my male pals said something about lady game characters” and I was simply told “we hear it a lot, and as long as they aren’t stupid about it, we don’t care.” These are the same people who had watched pr0nz with men (and bought it for them, in the case of their younger brothers/guypals), both for a female opinion on the subject, and because it was both fun and fascinating.

Where I’m going with this apart from an aside down memory lane is I am wondering if this stereotype was just “the one of my time” and it is gone now, or if it is solely in high school (and a little beyond, kind of a baggage you initially take with you when you leave). Most of my friends now, whom are considerably younger than I (the oldest one is 3 years younger than I am) don’t seem to have that mentality and I don’t think they ever did. Since the sample space there is nearly all women though (in fact, 5/6ths of them are female), it may show skewed data. However, since one of those SAME ladypals I met on the shadows of the net believed this a year before I met them (or so an old chatlog a mutual friend of ours showed me had implied) believed this too in her first year of college, it still stands to reason that it was the order of the day back then.

On the other hand, there was a line in Glee (a show I am amused by yet indifferent toward, Anna loves it though) where one of the girls revealed “the secret” that girls want sex as much as guys. While you can’t gather THAT much from a show based on high school, the media and pop culture is a mirror for the societal mindset of the time (not the most reliable one, but it does work in a general sense). If this “reflection” is accurate, it means that stereotype is alive and well in that era. While there has been evidence of social change in terms of gender and sexual orientation equality (which I would think would diminish this kind of stereotype), it may still be present all the same.

It may just be the difference of the environment of college versus high school. In school, you pretty much grow up with and knowing people in your general “grade.” Even if you transfer/move, the isolated and contained environment is enough so that it doesn’t take that long to get a general sense of who people are after a few months. College is considerably different. Things like friendship ages “cloud off.” While UNO is somewhat unique (as it lacks “college culture”, which is probably why I have heard more then a few complaints on how lonely things are here and how “quiet” this place generally is), college in a general sense is a time and place of transition. It is clouded off and dispersed, while people in certain programs get to know each other due to taking the same classes, usually at a similar pace (some departments/degrees more then others), I’ve gone through entire classes never getting to know a single person, but I’m an introvert who has no interest in strangers. My point is that it is not a self-contained, sectioned off and enclosed environment. It is a place of freedom and growth (which is as it should be). IMO, that (and the movie Animal House) is where the whole “sexual liberation in college” stereotype comes into play (I know a number of people whose first time was in college).

Anyway, what I am trying to get at but digressing thoroughly from is that I don’t know if this idea is still present in high school. Anna’s little sister (whom is a somewhat typical girl) seems mortified that her brother masturbates (which also implies that she doesn’t), which seems “typical” and supports the “glee theory” (ok ok, I just wanted to call it that XD). Furthermore, the people I know are hardly a typical slice of society (one of the reasons I like them so much, they are smart and individualistic, which are qualities I value both in myself and in other people). However, among the acquaintances I’ve run across, I haven’t seen that much sentiment of the old stereotype (except in the case of the christian coalition, but they are…different in a number of ways). However, this may just mean that they didn’t take it with them (I’ve heard several tales on how different people were back in high school).

I dunno, this kind of stuff fascinates me I guess, now it’s time to mind-grind to prep for my final…erm…final of the semester (my bio final)
-Demios

The psychological flaw in the majority of psychologists

Looking back on my life, I can say…a lot of things.  However, one semi consistent influence (for good or for ill) was my psychologist.  My parents took me to see him when I was about 8 or so.  Being autistic and perpetually angry probably had something to do with it.  Frankly, I didn’t want to go, but like any doctors appointment, I had to.  Now, I don’t fault the man, he meant well in the decisions he made.  However, he has a flaw that every psychological doctor I’ve ever spoken to has.  He makes the assumption that people are a “one behavior pattern fits all” kind if thing.  I’m not sure of his psychological approach, but I know his methodology was rather orthodox.  This is probably the primary contributor to his overgeneralizing of patients (it probably usually works well enough, so he continues) and insitance on a certain approach.  I could go into what he was responsible for in my life that I ultimately feel was detrimental all day, but I don’t fault him.  He was a professional whom, while not doing the correct approach, was simply doing what he thought was right.  I’m not exactly happy about it, but being pissed at him isn’t going to change things.

After speaking to some close friends of mine, I realize that his is not an isolated incident.  My current running hypothesis is that the majority of psychological professionals all run by these generalized assumptions.  It is a reason why these particular people have had trouble with therapists and the like in the past, or why psychological counsuling does little for them.  Generally, psychologists believe that their goal, if appointed, is to make someone “normal.”  They jump to conclusions and go by what they believe works, not taking the time to view the people individually.  Approaches differ, but they have an assumption of who someone should be, or worse, who someone should WANT to be.  I’ll admit for some people it works wonders, but for me (and others like me), it is ultimately detrimental.

Another possible reason (particularly for the MD’s within) is their educational circumstances.  I know there are several doctors who are pretty much corerced into their post (I happen to be friends with one).  With this in mind, their general understanding of certain things people go through are ultimately skewed because they either didn’t go through them or they had it drilled into their head that they do things this way.  An example is people watching a video of someone saying they didn’t know what they were gonig to be.  Someone I knew whom was working toward a pre-med at the time told me that the other students in there reacted…very negatively to this.  “How could s/he not know what they want to do?” etc.  It would be different for them who either had to decide a career in their teens, or had a career thrust upon them.  Educational systems and the working world all seem to think you should find something you want-to/can do early and make your entire life focused on getting that.  Now, that’s not always a bad thing, but it is fundamentally flawed in that people (and thus, their interests) aren’t static.  Furthermore, circumstances might come upon their life and all their work would be rendered worthless by, say, a hertofor unknown condition that was dormant until recently, or a car accident.  Most people only have a passing interest or knowledge at what they want.  It’s advantageous to truly know what you want to do (so long as you are aware that a backup plan may be required), but it’s unfair to call someone psychologically defective simply because they haven’t determined a career path in their teens.

Interestingly enough, for each of the friends whom psychotherapy has been relatively ineffectie on, I make an “apt therapist” for.  Maybe it’s because I don’t assume normalcy is the goal, maybe it’s because I am more like them, I don’t know.  Being close to them helps, but I have always been a natural at decyphering peoples thoughts and motives.  Normalcy is abhorrent to me, and while there are some extremes that I would deem mentally ill, I find what “psychologically healthy” truly is to be an ambiguous term.

I’ll not claim that in a general sense I could do any better at their jobs, but I do see that as a flaw the psychological professional community has that can lead to very bad results if it isn’t in check.  The irony of course is that they may never know it happened.  Oh well, nothing to do now then let myself learn from my experineces I suppose.