hi! I always find your takes on things really interesting and mentally stimulating, so I'd love to know your opinion on this one: recently I came across the take (from some generally very conservative and reliable Christian theologians/bible teachers, not reddit crackpots or anything like that) that the concept of "friendship" is not biblical, but that the only really biblical structures for human relationships are within a family context, specifically marriage and siblinghood. (now, a caveat: the people discussing this were doing so within the context of a greater conversation about some odd things that have happened within the side-b movement, but I still think that's a pretty extreme claim to make at any rate?) would you have an opinion that you'd like to share about this? personally I think it's a little weird and extreme to denounce friendship as a whole amongst Christians.
Sorry I got caught up in watching this video. I consider the 3 people in it to be very decent sources, indeed, though I'm much less familiar with Christopher Yuan. I had planned to read his book but haven't read it yet.
Mrs. Butterfield has a very interesting perspective on SSA issues given her background. I don't necessarily agree with her on everything, she has a few strange takes, for example she also espouses a view on "exclusive psalmnody", that is, claiming that Christians shouldn't sing hymns or other christian music, but ONLY the psalms because they are in the Bible.
Ironically, she HAS written a lot of stuff on the need for closer Christian community and relationships, so it may be that she is here attempting to "balance" this stuff or something.
So... looking at this video they start off addressing not "friendship" as such but a very specific concept called "spiritual friendship", which is a terminology used by specific groups. Now, I hope these guys are misunderstanding what's going on here because I would love to believe the best of the folks who are a part of this movement. But what they're attacking is actually this idea promoted by an organization called ReVoice that it's a good idea for SSA people to form these "covenental" relationships with a person they're already same-sex attracted to. He also mentions that the book says some people in these relationships "embrace non-sexual romance". It's also been described by some as a "sexless marriage".
Before I get into it one other thing I like about the video is that Rosaria makes a really great point about Gnosticism and "secret knowledge". The idea that there need be this new terminology or "neologisms" and concepts whose spiritual meanings are known only to the initiated and that they can only be understood because by those who have unique personal experience is a very gnostic idea.
And one thing Christopher Yuan is very correct about is that from this (Side B) movement there is a great deal of messaging ambiguity, which is a major complaint of mine as well about that movement.
Then they get on to this part of the video where it's discussed how some people think intersex conditions existed prior to the fall, which is a bizarre claim on its surface since these people are frequently very sick from their condition, as well as obviously the "He created them male and female" line. But that's not as relevant to your concerns.
But I understand why you feel concerned about aspects of the video & the messaging.
That's because isolated from the context of SSA, none of the things mentioned are actually bad things to do with your friends. Cuddling. Celebrating important dates. Even living together, or in communal settings (as much as they dunk on it because it's inspired by the monasteries) or moving from place to place together. So when does this become unhealthy? I don't wanna give an "I know it when I see it" answer but. I think it's when a person has a temptation and they're not fleeing that temptation, instead they're trying to see how close they can get without going over.
So like yes. Individuals called to celibacy can struggle with community and need to form strong communities, and I feel like it's adding to the Bible to arbitrarily condemn the forms this takes. (That is, to condemn communal living would be adding to the Bible.) Again I feel like also this conversation is missing an honest look at pre-20th century norms which might include unrelated adults called "Uncles" or "Aunts" living with a family (surprising number of cases of unrelated household members getting, "adopted" as it were or at least that's my impression). None of this stuff should be considered intrinsically related to sexuality in my opinion. By contrast, the concept of "romance" is intrinsically related to sexuality.
(As an aside, Yuan totally butchered the term "bromance" - this is an older term that actually has nothing to do with homosexuality, it's an ironic/humorous term for an emotional or close friendship. It's fallen out of general use now because people take the idea of friendships becoming gay too seriously and therefore the ironic intent is lost.)
Then later Rosaria Butterfield gets to the part about excessive androgen production in people with XX chromosomes, and her response to this is, "Or maybe the fall just caused us to desire things that God hates". My response to this is really, "does she even know what the word intersex means"?
To me those last two points contribute to my general sense that the commentators are willing to speak without fully knowing what they're talking about.
Back on the topic of "friendship", you have to realize that even if all Christian relationships ARE to be defined in a family context, we ARE family. All Christians are brothers and sisters. So I don't see that as limiting. [maybe this is the closest thing to an answer to your original question]
Personally my views are marked by the fact that I do NOT see a smooth continuum between "friendship" and "romance", as it is not a matter of degree but of nature. That's why I say "I know it when I see it." SSA creeping into a friendship will corrupt its nature in a way that any degree of closeness will not. I don't see any way of policing this by policing people's actions. It is not an external sin, it is a sin of the heart.
However, you can often realize people's intentions based on the words that they speak. I would urge people to distinguish their conception of close friendships from this terminology related to sexuality, marriage, or romance.
24 notes
·
View notes
Sometimes I think about Urianger's role in and feelings on the Thancred-Ryne dynamic and I think watching it kills him a bit inside. For several reasons.
Like, to begin with there's the guilt he's been carrying with him since he ushered Minfilia to the first, how he effectively killed the person Thancred cared about the most in the world and who's "death" ended up causing Ryne's entire Situation. He looks at what's happening between them and can only think "I caused this" even though that's not really true. No one person is responsible for this outcome, it's a culmination of several circumstances and the consequences of them. Logically, Urianger knows this. But it doesn't matter, because his guilt is overpowering his logic.
And also, like. What Thancred is doing here, the way he's knowingly letting Ryne be and stay hurt because he literally cannot bring himself to tell her his feelings, is the exact same mistake Urianger made with Moenbryda. Of course, the circumstances are vastly different, and the potential consequences to Thancred telling Ryne the wrong things or her misinterperating it is far greater (being a matter of literal life or death), it's still the same sort of paralysis they are trapped in.
And he knows it. He sees it. But he can't say or do anything about it, he doesn't have the right to. He acknowledges the mistake, but he hasn't really improved upon it yet. He still doesn't voice his thoughts and feelings as he should. He's also non-confrontational by nature, he doesn't argue or try to change peoples minds, he probably doesn't think he has any place to.
So, he tries to help in what little ways he can. Because he doesn't want it to become Monebryda again, he doesn't want to know he stole not one but two people from Thancred. So he does what he can. He tells Ryne little tidbits about Thancred, things that help her understand him but are safe to share. Nothing too deep, nothing too personal. Just small things, things that are purely factual, because he can't afford to give her a false image of who Thancred is. He teacher her fun and interesting things, because Thancred isn't in the mindset to provide her with non-essential skills.
I like to think Urianger has brought it up with Thancred at least once, during one of his stays. But nothing would've come of it. Not really. Unlike Y'shtola, Urianger isn't pushy, he'll bring it up once or twice and when he sees this won't go anywhere, he gives up. He wants to help, but he knows that persistance only does do much, and he is not the person who has the resiliance needed to push and push until Thancred finally budges (because he won't budge, it won't help anything but to sour things further by adding aditional stress to an already strained dynamic).
And like. Urianger gets it. He gets it because he's been the same way- not saying what he should to someone he loves more than anything else because she was meant to figure her life out herself, and 'steering' her in any direction by telling her his feelings (regardless of if the 'steering' is intention or not) will go against that. He gets it. He gets it and it's all the more painful for it. He knows it can't just be fixed by acknowledging it or with encouragement, something needs to happen to break the stasis.
I think this is probably why he stayed behind while they went off to Nabaath Areng. This is the very last chance they have to say what they want to, and he can't afford to be the anchor anymore. This is about them, not him, he can't let their resolution be buffed by his presence, so he stays behind. Which was probably for the best. Ryne got nervous when Urianger said he's staying behind, probably not too excited about being alone with Thancred (well, not alone, but WoL doesn't count) so soon after she had ran away crying. But she needs to be nervous. For anything positive to come out of this Thancred and Ryne both can't afford to be too relaxed. As sad as it is, the stress is necessary for anything to happen. He knows it. Does he like it? Absolutely not, but nor does he like his other plots. At least no one dies this time if it goes right.
344 notes
·
View notes
I will say this once because I'm tired of seeing stupid discourse: anti-transmasculinity is not about being treated bad because we clock as men, it's about being treated as stupid little girls because transphobes think we've been tricked into this.
It's kind of the opposite of transmisogyny- instead of fear and revulsion, it's constant condescension, the implications that we've been whisked away from femininity by scary bad guys, that we're going to cause 'irreparable damage' because we don't know what's best for ourselves, somehow. People fearmonger a lot about the "ugliness" of transfem people, but for transmasc people that 'ugliness' is used as a warning- you'll look like THIS! You'll go BALD! Your top surgery scars will leave you MUTILATED! A lot of aesthetic concerns. Worry about our 'beauty'. Because it comes from that same stupid reactionary 'we gotta SAVE the WOMEN' shit, but this time they have to save them from getting 'stolen away', as if we're being seduced or pressured into this. As if we can't make our own decisions.
For TERFS specifically, they're losing one of their own. We're 'gender traitors', willingly aligning ourselves with the half of the population they consider unilaterally dangerous and evil.
We aren't REALLY trans, we just want the benefits that men get. You don't actually want to transition, you're just trying to avoid misogyny.
You aren't actually a man, you're just a self-loathing lesbian.
Why can't you just be a butch girl? Why can't you just be a tomboy?
Why can't you just be something that I don't think is icky?
Anyway. Like all things, it boils down to misogyny. Women stupid and gentle, dont know what best for them, evil men trick into taking man juice, must save because lady stupid and dont know what best for them (having babies and being Feminine).
Theres like. Obviously more to this but I'm just a Transmasc Rando explaining this from my perspective, and I'm not the best with words. Anyone is free to hop in and add on to this
2K notes
·
View notes
im confident that part of The Stobin Bond™ comes from them having impeccable chemistry which means they would've probably gotten along really well even before the whole Russian torture thing BUT Robin still had a pretty strong grudge against him from highschool so she just really really doesn't want to
so imagine: Steve and Robin working one of their firsts shifts at scoops together. During a small break between customers Steve gets her attention. makes unbroken eye contact. holds up one of their little spoons, and says "poon". then immediately breaking into a goofy ass smile. maybe even a giggle. and robin is trying so so so hard to look unaffected. annoyed, ideally.
then later that night while Steve's on break or maybe went home, shes waiting for the inevitable rush when the latest movie lets out. She wanders up to the register. sees the "poon" again. and laughs
525 notes
·
View notes