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
I have unwittingly witnessed a new level of the absurd. Behold, the AI-generated equine anatomy models.
Ah yes, my favourite parts of the equine body. Paster and... *looks at the smudged writing on hand* boob. At least this one looks purely decorative and the being actually looks like a horse. But don't worry, it gets worse.
If we completely ignore the hipopotamus musculature of this one, there's still a lot of things that don't make sense in this one, like a tail that ends in a series of bone spikes and a complete lack of molars. You could make a cool pokemon on the basis of this, but it's not even in the realm of being an actual anatomy help.
I'm firmly convinced this is not a horse, this is something that really, really wants you to think it is a horse. The more you look, the more things look... wrong. The more details turn out to be shifted, bones crammed in to fill in the familiar form, its shape merely implied so that the human mind fills the gap. Of course the text seems like gibberish, because its anatomy is incomprehensible. it's either a parasite or a monster and in each case, it's an eldtrich body horror. I'm kind of angry at how well this joke writes itself.
7K notes
·
View notes
the thing is that they're so fascinated by sex, they love sex, they can't imagine a world without sex - they need sex to sell things, they need sex to be part of their personality, they need sex to prove their power - but they hate sex. they are disgusted by it.
sex is the only thing that holds their attention, and it is also the thing that can never be discussed directly.
you can't tell a child the normal names for parts of their body, that's sexual in nature, because the body isn't a body, it's a vessel of sex. it doesn't matter that it's been proven in studies (over and over) that kids need to know the names of their genitals; that they internalize sexual shame at a very young age and know it's 'dirty' to have a body; that it overwhelmingly protects children for them to have the correct words to communicate with. what matters is that they're sexual organs. what matters is that it freaks them out to think about kids having body parts - which only exist in the context of sex.
it's gross to talk about a period or how to check for cancer in a testicle or breast. that is nasty, illicit. there will be no pain meds for harsh medical procedures, just because they feature a cervix.
but they will put out an ad of you scantily-clad. you will sell their cars for them, because you have abs, a body. you will drip sex. you will ooze it, like a goo. like you were put on this planet to secrete wealth into their open palms.
they will hit you with that same palm. it will be disgusting that you like leather or leashes, but they will put their movie characters in leather and latex. it will be wrong of you to want sexual freedom, but they will mark their success in the number of people they bed.
they will crow that it's inappropriate for children so there will be no lessons on how to properly apply a condom, even to teens. it's teaching them the wrong things. no lessons on the diversity of sexual organ growth, none on how to obtain consent properly, none on how to recognize when you feel unsafe in your body. if you are a teenager, you have probably already been sexualized at some point in your life. you will have seen someone also-your-age who is splashed across a tv screen or a magazine or married to someone three times your age. you will watch people pull their hair into pigtails so they look like you. so that they can be sexy because of youth. one of the most common pornography searches involves newly-18 young women. girls. the words "barely legal," a hiss of glass sand over your skin.
barely legal. there are bills in place that will not allow people to feel safe in their own bodies. there are people working so hard to punish any person for having sex in a way that isn't god-fearing and submissive. heteronormative. the sex has to be at their feet, on your knees, your eyes wet. when was the first time you saw another person crying in pornography and thought - okay but for real. she looks super unhappy. later, when you are unhappy, you will close your eyes and ignore the feeling and act the role you have been taught to keep playing. they will punish the sex workers, remove the places they can practice their trade safely. they will then make casual jokes about how they sexually harass their nanny.
and they love sex but they hate that you're having sex. you need to have their ornamental, perfunctory, dispassionate sex. so you can't kiss your girlfriend in the bible belt because it is gross to have sex with someone of the same gender. so you can't get your tubes tied in new england because you might change your mind. so you can't admit you were sexually assaulted because real men don't get hurt, you should be grateful. you cannot handle your own body, you cannot handle the risks involved, let other people decide that for you. you aren't ready yet.
but they need you to have sex because you need to have kids. at 15, you are old enough to parent. you are not old enough to hear the word fuck too many times on television.
they are horrified by sex and they never stop talking about it, thinking about it, making everything unnecessarily preverted. the saying - a thief thinks everyone steals. they stand up at their podiums and they look out at the crowd and they sign a bill into place that makes sexwork even more unsafe and they stand up and smile and sign a bill that makes gender-affirming care illegal and they get up and they shrug their shoulders and write don't say gay and they get up, and they make the world about sex, but this horrible, plastic vision of it that they have. this wretched, emotionless thing that holds so much weight it's staggering. they put their whole spine behind it and they push and they say it's normal!
this horrible world they live in. disgusted and also obsessed.
28K notes
·
View notes
[Day 283]
:DDD GUESS WHAT ITS GIGGS BELOVED!!!!!!!
(the roles will be explained soon please hold *2 LMAOAOS ILL BE WORKING ON THE PROFILES!!)
+ all the design tries under the cut ⬇️
first of all GEMINITAY THE ONE THE ONLY. FINAL DESIGNS BY @kunehokki SHES SO RAHRHAHRA!!!
AND THE BOIS!!!! idk why i always end up taking the middle one LMAO (grian doesnt need a whole ass design line up. siffrin is too iconic HASDJKHWHE)
this is so much fun fr LFGGGG
1K notes
·
View notes