I flipped through the pictures until I came across the one I saw before.
In all the vividness and splendor of black and white, I peered at a woman on the edge.
There, in a moment, she is nude, rear facing the camera, front facing danger and destruction, turning away from the tantalizing passion and desire of man at the risk of the free fall below.
The girl with her arms stretched above her head; her hands are in the “salute” pose I’d often seen in gymnastics.
Those beautiful, slight, fragile hands are pointed toward the heavens in much the same way as thousands who had been tied to crosses before, but these ropes seem gone, cast away, if just for a moment, and now these two features—the features that give us so much advantage in this world and that cause so much pain—are positioned to cut through the air and thus the water in desperate hope to limit impact.
In a moment, her long hair is wild and free, as is her body.
Free of clothing, free of the concept of nudity, evil, and humiliation. Her mane pours over her shoulders not in an attempt to hide her nakedness but rather to highlight her natural beauty.
I saw her dark wet hair kiss her spine. The two are glued in matrimony of being.
The spine slowly crawls to the buttocks. They are firm, muscular but feminine. I felt elated. I felt good. Looking at her made me love being human, and I think the human body is beautiful. The hips join in to create a beautiful harmony.
I can still recall the diamond-shaped light sifting between her legs, where the buttocks, thighs and crotch meet. Dark skin against the light of the sun; water, the giver of life, running down the flesh; the woman, in the moment, and the viewer moved in time.
There, in a moment, my eyes moved further down to see the form of her legs, her hamstrings, the back of her knees—that are so fun to tickle—and her wonderfully shaped calf muscles.
It finishes with the soles of her feet blinking at me, “dirty” but not so and even so, I would not mind them dirty at all, for all of her is so beautiful in this moment. She brings me into her experience and I forget all about the photograph.
From: Random Patriarchal Interpretations (aka: society)
It has come to my attention that several wenches under our employ are wielding wrenches–some physical and others the virtual equivalent. I personally understand how such desperate and wanton women would desire to forcibly twist and pull the nuts off those that make their lives ever more difficult and fraught with fear, even when, often, for their own good.
As one that has been both on the receiving end of such violence and that has enjoyed his male privilege extensively, I ask our ladies to think back to simpler days and their “lady ancestries.” Be nice to men.
If only she would come to work and look more young and make her bosses coffee when they ask that of her, as well as any other errands or favors that men fancy. Serving is the best way to a promotion for young servant girls, and even if one is not so young, she should try to fool her boss with wantonness for him–not being miserable, base, and mean. Such little-girl behavior will lead to her defamation. I am interpreting Shakespeare’s meaning here, and we all know that he was quite the feminist of the 1600s. Women could not be feminists then, nor could they be tastefully employed. Those were surely better days.
Women, I find, cannot help it. It’s in the nature of a wretched wench. In other words, she should aim to fool us where youth dies but experience lives. She probably won’t fool us for young ladies always take initiative to be noticed and are less self-conscious than the older she. They are less clever too, therein notice men’s advantage? I am giving the plot away!
Don’t you know that for women experience is a demotion not a promotion? Since being young and virgin (and stupid helps) is a poor long-term plan, giving up is the best advantage. So from now on, smile instead of frown, be pleasant instead of mean, and never seem desperate, even with the customer (or your bosses) for you will scare them away, even if you are not wielding a wrench. To be ladylike is to be pleasant and young-looking, at least in spirit. So wrenches are forbidden as no woman should ever defend herself against a man, either physically or psychologically. That is unladylike as is giving into a man and getting caught as a result of her desperation. Desire is never a man’s fault. I believe it says so in great books?
No more twisting off nuts, please, or such a wench might find herself in HR. Let us protect her, but then again we don’t protect violent wenches, do we? Oh, sorry. My bad?
Let me rephrase all of this. In the end, no matter what happens to a “girl,” we reserve the right to enforce the negative connotation over the positive. No matter how she looks at it, it’s her fault and men’s privilege. A man can do no wrong when with the lesser sex.
(From the Author) Actaully, I don’t know what to think of this. I wrote it a while ago. I kind of like and hate it, so I will let you decide.
Jean Phillipe Rameau (1683-1764) wrote music that had the clean lines of early Classicism as well as the flowery ornamentation of the late Baroque period: one need only listen to his ballet suites to hear Classical lines overlaid with the perfect amount of embellishment. In this sense, Rameau’s music was both brackish and beautiful.
Unless one studies and reads widely, he or she will never truly know Art. The verb “know” is particularly important here because it has multiple senses; “Know” as I here use it means to fully experience and understand a work of Art as an entity. So move freely, widely, and eagerly among the offerings of the art world, be they literature, dance, drama, music, painting, sculpture, furniture design, or architecture. To experience is to know.
[Love What You Love.]
Here is some pragmatic advice: allow yourself to love what you love. If you think the music of Dmitri Shostakovich ugly, so be it. But thinking his music ugly does not preclude the fact that he made a major contribution to Twentieth-Century musical form. One need not care for a work of Art to acknowledge its place in the art world. For Art can only exist within context. That context is usually cultural. Shostakovich produced music within the political context of the Soviet Union.
It might be helpful, in terms of understanding the significance of context, to introduce two major schools of criticism: New Criticism and New Historical Criticism. The former arose out of Yale University during the Twentieth Century, its principle proponent being M. H. Abrams. New Criticism simply asserts that a work stands on its own and requires no external context for one to appreciate or understand it. New Criticism is most often applied to literature; indeed, it was created to better understand literary texts as self-contained texts.
New Historical Criticism is a revival of Historical Criticism, one that has primarily occurred in the Twenty-First Century. New Historical Criticism, unlike New Criticism, emphasizes the importance of context; specifically, in order to fully appreciate a work of art—be it a poem, sculpture, or building—one must know something about the creator of that artifact, that person’s beliefs, and when that artifact was created. Quite obviously, New Historical Criticism has a broader application than does New Criticism. Both approaches have their merits. The times usually dictate the popularity of any given approach to the world. Use these critical theories as you will. I argue that context is essential, but that is far from fact.
As properly understood within the Judeo-Christian tradition, sin is any act that offends God. Sin is inherent to all people because Adam and Eve chose to freely eat of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden.  And while the sacrament of Christian baptism washes away the sin of concupiscence—original sin—we are still inherently sinful, or so goes Christian teaching. Atonement theology asserts that Christ was the Son of God, who died on a cross as expiation for our sins, making all right with our Father. Christ is called the Lamb of God because Hebrews, once a year, would lay hands on an unblemished lamb and reflect on their sins, then cast the animal out into the wilds where, presumably, it was devoured by some ravenous beast. But, unlike a helpless lamb, Christ rose from the dead on the third day; Christians celebrate this resurrection on Easter Sunday. And so you have the basic tenets of Christianity.
Except for one problem: Sin is a loaded term, one that makes people squirm. Sin is not a bad thing. Yes, you heard me correctly: Sin is not in and of itself bad. Simply put, we sin, and that is a fact, but that does not mean that people are either good or bad, wicked or angelic. Rather, we do things to others that we would not want done to ourselves because we are people–people acting like people, and that is all. So since “sin” is such a loaded term, I would propose that “trespass” is a better word. But even “trespass” is off the mark. So what do we mean by “sin?”
I would assert that God is love. Period. It’s that simple. You can read all the theology you like, but God is love. Jesus himself taught that the Greatest Commandment was, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment.” The second follows: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets” (Mt. 22:35-40). The moral underpinnings of the theological concept of sin are simple: When we sin, we are not loving God. Ours is a feeling God. We hurt or offend Him. On the face, this seems to make sense. It made sense to me, until I had children.
My children love me very much. They also hurt me, but they do not hurt me because they do not love me. They hurt me because they love me. More specifically, they hurt me because they can. I let them. Why? They have a deeply meaningful relationship with me, their father. When people are close to us, as we hopefully are with God, they hurt us. We are vulnerable, and we make ourselves so because we love them. We are human. Children, clearly, are also human. They screw up, and life goes on. I love them despite the fact that they hurt me, as I always will. And so, by way of the God-as-Father analogy that Christians constantly employ, He, too, loves us, even when we “sin” and hurt or offend Him. But just because we hurt or offend Him does not mean that we do not love Him, nor He us. In short, God allows us to hurt Him. It’s called free will, a gift he freely gives us out of love.
Truly bad people could not love, at all. I would challenge you to find one person completely devoid of love.
And God will always love us, regardless. He said so when He made a covenant with Noah. He showed us this fact by humbling Himself and becoming Emmanuel, sending His beloved Son, to walk among us, God and man, hyopostasis, the Word Made Flesh.
So if sin is not that big a deal, why did Jesus come at all? Jesus, the Messiah, came out of compassion, as well as to more closely unite us to our Father. Compassion is a side of a coin, opposite love. Every coin has three sides (think Holy Trinity). Yes, He died for us as expiation for sin because we are flawed, but Jesus also died for us out of love and compassion, just as a parent accepts a child’s cruelty because he or she loves that child very much and realizes that their son or daughter is just being human.
I have never, in all my fifty years, ever met an evil person, a truly malevolent person. I new one young man who suffered from anti-social personality disorder, formerly known as sociopathy. But even he cried. I saw him cry. I also thought him capable of doing some scary things, though he never did them around me. Oh yes, I’m sure truly evil people exist out there, for there is, as the weary adage goes, always an exception. But, with grace and protection, I hope I never meet one.
As a Roman Catholic, I have suffered crippling guilt. No longer. In my twenty years as a Catholic, I have come to see Christ’s Church as a beautiful gift freely given. Without the Sacraments, I wouldn’t stand a chance. Go ahead, call me a sinner; it’s okay: God loves me. I know he does, especially in still moments. “Be still and know that I am God” (Ps. 46:10). So rest easy, dear reader, for, if you are a believer, know that God loves you, too.
The Cult of Virginity has three primary sources: The early Christian Church, birth control, and the transference of property.
1: The Early Christian Church
My long-standing theory about human sexuality—and the Church’s erroneous teachings about it–has now been proven valid.
I was reading some theology today that dovetailed with my theory about human sexuality and God. This is my theory: We best know God through interaction with others. This idea originates from a sociology course I took in college, which taught that how others respond to us shapes our identity, our very sense of self. So I take that idea one step further and assert that we know God best–come closest to Him–through interaction with others, be it through family, or everyday contact, or at church, work, etc. Even monks and nuns, who are devoted to the religious life, live in communities. Our very lives are prayers.
Now if my theory holds true, then we also know God, come closer to Him, through physical intimacy with a partner, or even oneself. I turned to the Church fathers for theology on asceticism (i.e., practicing strict self-denial, including an abstinence from all sex) and celibacy (literally, the state of not being married).
A 4th Century monk by the name of Jovinianus argued that virginity–meaning never having had full sexual intercourse—and celibacy were not superior to marriage, which early Christian ascetics rejected as, at best, a pagan ideal, and, at worst, a distraction.
Specifically, the idea that asceticism and celibacy were preferable to marriage—and certainly fornication–arose from early Christians (followers of The Way) who reacted against the Ancient Roman, pagan notion that the individual was of no consequence, that one lived to serve society and only society and that marriage was in high service to society because one had offspring, which contributed to society itself. This was one’s fate, and this social ideal came from the Ancient Greeks, particularly Socrates.
These early Christians went in the opposite direction and renounced marriage and sex, asserting the primacy of the individual, as taught by the Hebrews in Jewish scripture.
Jovinianus reasserted the notion that one need not be literally solitary and individualistic to best know God; rather, one could marry and have children and worldly cares and still be close to God. One could even indulge in luxuries–be they food, wine, or nice clothing–since these gifts came from God. St. Jerome freaked out. He called Jovinianus a heretic. Notably, to prove Jovinianus wrong, St. Jerome transposed two key passages of Hebrew scripture when translating it into the Vulgate Bible. He placed marriage as an institution ordained by God after The Fall. In reality, marriage and sexual contact occurred between Adam and Eve before The Fall according to Hebrew scripture. Jovinianus was excommunicated and Saint Jerome’s teachings became Church orthodoxy. Interesting how that happened.
What’s the point? All of this means that, as argued, when we root experience in the flesh–which is one of its primary purposes–we know God through others, even through sex, either alone or with a partner. Sex is, therefore, not wrong, dirty, disordered, or intrinsically evil, as long as it is done between two mutually consenting adults. After all, it feels good. Really good. That’s why people have sex. If sex were excruciatingly painful, the human race would be greatly diminished in number.
2: Birth Control
Now on to the second principle origin of the Cult of Virginity: birth control. Until quite recently, birth control was unavailable. The best way to avoid getting pregnant was not to have sex. The earliest form of birth control, aside from plant abortives, was the condom, which was fashioned out of a sheep’s intestine. Supposedly, the condom was invented in France, hence its name, the “Frenchy.” These early condoms were unreliable and expensive. Thus, the best way not to get pregnant was not to have sex. (People did anyway, lots of it.)
3: Transference of Property
Money dictated a need for true physical virginity. According to traditional English law, all property went to the next male heir. Preferably, that heir was a male son. Were there no male heir, the property went to the next closest male relative, like a brother or cousin. Women could not inherit property. Period. A wealthy man’s worst nightmare was to marry a young woman and, eighteen years later, have his wife’s bastard son knock on the door and demand part or all of his mother’s husband’s property. Victorian English literature is full of this kind of thing. I know: I read a great deal of it in college. The bastard-son idiom was more than prevalent in English novels, as were impoverished widows and ineligible daughters. So we see that the third main contributing factor to the Cult of Virginity was money.
Thus, the Cult of Virginity is not only bogus but entirely based on man-made (literally) moral code, practicality, and greed.
 Interestingly, Jesus never uttered a single word condemning sexuality, even at the well at Bethesda, where He merely observed that none of the woman’s male partners were her husbands.
 Cf. Elaine Pagels’s Adam and Eve and the Serpent: Sex and Politics in Early Christianity, Chapter 4
 English erotic Victorian literature often makes reference to the Frenchy.
 Jane Austen heavily favored this narrative, whereby poor daughter’s of widows made good marriages based on their virtue.
We want truth. The truth scares us, generates fear. So we create a life-myth that is perpetuated by fear and rage. Those that challenge the myth are called out as dangerous. Myth reinforced.
Just scroll through CNN or Fox News or just about any news media outlet in the U.S. There you see it, fear and rage. What is missing? Actual facts of the event. Just enough information is given to keep us all in a state of emotional chaos.
Even the “good” media outlets like the Washington Post and New York Times are tightly controlled by gatekeepers of this myth. We see almost nothing of the real world. Big social media platforms, often quoted by these “creditable” news outlets, spread fake news or fear and rage that is often absent of factual information. The war on “fake news” may actually be a war on real facts. Have you been following the kids in red hats and the Native American story? What’s the truth? How many assumptions do we make? Are we a free people?
Outrage first, death threats second, actual facts may never happen.
I looked at CNN a few months ago and scrolled down. There were three “mass” shooting stories (not all were actually mass shootings), then just underneath was an advertisement for a horror film. The woman actor was covered in blood!
Is anyone actually seeing this?
What Really Matters:
In sum, whether you believe in God or a spiritual being, we cannot know ourselves or a higher power if fear keeps us in a constant state of fight or flight. We cannot be happy. We can only be in emotional and psychological slavery.