We could pass moral judgment on BDSM right here at the beginning, and it might be a relief
But why would that be the case? To make people more comfortable. It's so easy to condemn those who are different. This is no different.
We could pass moral judgment on BDSM right here at the beginning, and it might be a relief
But why would that be the case? To make people more comfortable. It's so easy to condemn those who are different. This is no different.
. BDSM occupies a dark space where sex and violence meet, and while it may be seen as a “ game, ” the pain that sometimes occurs is not pretend.
....ummm.....no? If the subject of BDSM is going to be discussed then please use sources beyond 50 shades of gray. That is not a valid source to base a claim on.
Fifty Shades of Grey,
Fifty Shades of Grey is not BDSM. The guy is abusive and takes away the girls rights and people call it kinky. (dramatic eye roll)
brought out of the closet
Hahaha nice, I get it. Nice LGBTQ pun.
Yet the formulation of the headscarf as both a choice and an obligation remains unintelligible to a secular public.
Why is it in the christian faith individuals feel that they shouldnt have to explain why things are done. Other faiths are supposed to find christian history to understand. Yet other faiths have to explain themselves to the mainstream christian faith.
After all, in order to deal with religion — either to regulate it or to protect it — secular authorities must fi rst identify what constitutes religion.
This is an incredibly hard thing to do as all faiths are different.
Real religion takes place in the private sphere, either within the realm of individual belief or in designated religious spaces like the mosque.
I don't think this can actually happen. I dont think religion should harm another individual but i dont think it's the type of thing that anyone can truly to in the midst of their own home. People of faith lives and breaths that faith system. Its apart of them. So its impossible not to implement it in an outside setting. The true harm of religion is when those faiths force others to confine to the understandings of a faith that they do not believe in. With that being said I think faith practices can live within a unity that does not force others to conform to a set understanding.
Religion in the halls of government
That's a frightening concept. Ultimate power ultimately corrupts. That understanding is not excused in regards to religion.
proper religion and proper sex
What is proper? This class has shown that there is no true meaning within that expectation. Nothing is true within our understandings of what is proper and what is not.
Muslim women are compelled to speak about their religious beliefs and practices and to justify various forms of “ aberrant ” religiosity (wearing a headscarf, praying regularly, fasting at Ramadan
Compelled? or mandatorily expected to explain themselves by those of other religions and faiths.
“ I ’ ve given you everything, but there ’ s one place you need to stay away from. ” Well, they chose not to stay away from it. Well, this is a consequence if you do. “ Not because I don ’ t want you to have fun or because I don ’ t want you to eat of all of the trees of the fruit of the garden. I ’ ve given you lots of fruit. ” Same thing in sexuality, I think. People tend to think, “ If I follow after what God says in marriage only, I ’ m missing out. ” Same thing as with the fruit of the tree.
But in that understanding God gave a wide variety of fruit but told God's followers to reject one. So wouldn't it make sense that a God who gives many options in one category also give many options in another? What if the metaphoric "bad fruit" in marriage is not sexuality but how you to treat your partner.
The act of conversion is centered on this recognition in oneself, confessing one ’ s irredeemable sinfulness to Jesus, and accepting the gift of salvation that Christ offers to fl awed humans unable to achieve it by their own efforts.
Is it bad that I have trouble buying this in main "christian" culture? I understand the creeds and the admission of faith. But why must the focus be on shortcomings?
The moralization of homosexuality has been a major stake in symbolic struggles both within religious traditions and between religion and secular society. Within Protestant Christianity, the question of whether and how homosexuality should be understood in moral terms has been deeply fraught, leading to divisions in many Protestant denominations. Those taking a more liberal position argue that homosexuality is not a sin and that the ethics of homosexual relationships are best thought within existing frameworks of Christian sexual ethics. Some even suggest that homosexuality gives Christians a valuable opportunity to test those frameworks and rethink aspects of Christian sexual teachings that cannot encompass ethical homosexuality. More conservative Christians insist on homosexuality ’ s sinfulness on both biblical and traditional grounds. Identifying authentic Christian faith with a literalist biblical hermeneutic, they argue that biblical passages condemning homosexuality cannot be ignored, and compassion for those struggling with homosexuality, while possibly laudable, cannot be extended to the point of condoning sin.
I struggle with this, not because I'm set in my own point of view between faith and stances but because of the harm it does to those who are queer. I understand and push that this conversation is important, however when faith dictates the lifestyle of someone who is not apart of the practice then it's unethical no matter what side your on. So for example, a Wiccan lesbian shouldn't need the blessing of a christian liberal to get married nor should it be stoped by a christian conservative.
Mammy
To be honest "Mammy" means a lot more then i thought it did. I started reading thinking of a women with many children, but I was wrong. "Mammy" means survivor.
But oftentimes she was perceived as a sexual threat and was the victim of her mistress ’ s violent tirades
Really? Why is this? If a relationship is deemed monogamous, then dump the cheater, don't blame the victim. Especially if the person has no say in the matter.
Mammy was an older female and thus conformed to the image of being maternal and asexua
So she was "safe." She wasn't a threat sexually, in fact the "family" didn't have to worry about her being a temptation at all to the men in the house.... How is it that women are often depicted as the faulted in lust when it wasn't asked by them in the first place. And once women get to a certain age they are deemed safe because...why? They don't look a certain way. This is wrong on so many levels.
Many Black females were bought and sold based on their reproductive potential. As Willie Coffer recalls, “ A good young breedin ’ ’ oman brung two thousand dollars easy, ’ cause all de marsters wanted to see plenty of strong healthy chillun comin
I respect and value the fact that those who experienced this first hand are being herd, but I wonder if the people writing down these quotes were white. If so i feel uneasy about it and i don't know if I can explain. Does it encourage racism when quoted in an attempted accent? Is there a better way to do this? And due to the fact that there asking someone to recall abuse, is it done with care?
She has been described as having an insatiable sexual appetite, being extraordinarily passionate, and being sexually aggressive and cunning.
I find it funny how this was thought of as a bad thing. Oh no! A female likes to have a lot of sex, is passionate, and knows what they want. Yet somehow, if you change the pronouns to he/him its a complement.
hrowing herself into passionate prayer, Wilgefortis beseeched the Lord to come to her aid, to somehow stop the marriage.
All this to save her virginity? You can be devoted to a faith even when your partner is not. This just strikes me a strange, but I guess all gender roles and expectations are. There had to be a million different solutions to this problem without all this happening.
Early Christians, for instance, told stories of other cross-dressing saints, such as Pelagia of Antioch, who dressed as a man so that she could enjoy the monastic life.
I like this, but I also see the beginnings of this societies concept of masculinity being more ideal. I know this is just an example they are using to make a point, but its more socially acceptable for a "women" to act like a "man." Or at least, its more accepted after the fact. Those who "cross-dressed" in the past may have been shunned at the time but those who dress masculinely are accepted later. For example Mary Read (a pirate) was more welcomed in history books for dressing as a man then Chevalier d'Eon was for dressing as a women in order to arrest individuals for harassing women on the streets of France in the 1700's. Its the same for early Christian saints.