Link reblogged from As I Stumble Along... with 14 notes
Because weâve spent a good deal of time here discussing the harmful effects of a shame-based purity culture that treats people who have had sex before marriage as âdamaged goodsâ by comparing them to polluted water or chewed-up gum (see â Do Christians Idolize Virginity? â and â Elizabeth Smart, Human Trafficking, and Purity Culture â), some have wrongly concluded that I donât value saving sex for marriage. This is ironic, given the fact that I waited until I was married to have sex and have been known to shout at the TV when my favorite dramas take it for granted that characters attracted to one another with sleep together after the first date. Just the other day, a reader left a comment that began, âI know youâre against sexual purity and allâ¦â which I confess kinda made me want to bang my head against the dining room table. (Fortunately, there was a bowl of Honey Nut Spins in the way and I didnât want to ruin my delicious off-brand breakfast.) Perhaps the reader got this ide
stronglikealyon asked: You could write a love story about a demon who falls in love with an angel, and ultimately submits to the truth found in Christ. Of course, it might just come out as one grand allusion to humans falling in love with God.
Yeah, that would be the most likely scenario, but I’m wondering if it’s possible without either character having to change at all. I do have a redemption scenario in mind for a demon that is such an allusion… But it’s not about romantic love so much as learning regret and compassion/empathy for others.
burnthemidnight replied to your post: Writing about love and philosophy
Heh, ever read Preacher?
Why no! Though from the wiki entry, it sounds like it’s not about the relationship of the parents, but only what happens to the kid…
Photoset reblogged from DING DONG WHAT IS WRONG with 24,312 notes
The bitterness you see in a guy when this happens is such a reflection of their resentment for women who aren’t interested in them. Being an actual decent ‘nice’ guy/person means accepting that women will want people that aren’t you, and that its a valid option undeserving of negative judgement or bitterness.
Two biggest defenders of niceguyism that I ever met: One delighted in pointing out every ‘feminine’ thing I ever did as a way to prove that I was ‘feminine’ and thus inferior(because at the same time he mocked femininity and treated it like a disease)
The other was an admitted stalker who used a position of authority to harass women online. Then whined when they didn’t want to date him.
Yeah, women never go for the “Nice Guy.” And there’s always a reason why.
Source: supermans
Post reblogged from Die Male Doms with 1,076 notes
This is something that’s been on my mind lately. I’ve always been bothered by the way liberal / white / sex-postive feminism seems to revolve around exhibitionism of body and sex life. Specifically, I don’t like the way LOVING sex is portrayed as this ultimate feminist act because it shows how liberated and unashamed of sex you are. I get it! You’re giving the patriarchy the finger every time you dress sexy or talk about your orgasms, but you’re at the shallow end of the pool if you think that’s all there is to it.
Some things that need to be discussed:
- male sexual entitlement and aggression
- sex is not empowering for everyone
- sex work is not empowering for everyone
- talking about sex is not empowering for everyone
- reclaiming sexuality is different for everyone
This list could probably be longer…The last thing I want to say is that my sexuality and body have been subjected to harassment and trespassing. I reclaim both of those things by being private about them and telling people who ask me intrusive questions about either that it’s none of their damn business. Let ‘em think I’m a prude and sexually-repressed - really don’t care. We should be focusing on more important things than making sure feminism is sexy enough.
Source: backlash-blues
katybug87 asked: The Bible doesn't say they didn't have sex before the fall. Just that birth became painful. God created Eve to be Adam's companion, while he was lonely. Sex was created for more than procreation. It's part of companionship.
Well, no, it’s just that Genesis 4 is the first time it’s explicitly mentioned(after the fall). Companionship doesn’t always mean sex either, even if I agree that sex isn’t solely about procreation.
Link reblogged from Stuck in the Middle with You with 11 notes
Plus it sort of begs the question where of Cain’s wife came from, because she would have had to be a sister…perhaps one who was born before the banishment? Since Cain, Abel, and Seth and the other children are all mentioned being born after the banishment, but only after Cain and Abel.
There is also that issue. The best explanation I’ve heard for this(depending on how literally you want to take Genesis) is that Adam and Eve were the first equivalent of modern humans, in terms of a soul, higher level consciousness, genetics, or however else you want to define it. But Cain’s wife(and all those other people mentioned) might not have been what we consider homo sapiens, but close enough that procreation was still possible. And all their children were human(or also close), like Adam and Eve.
There is evidence that suggests neanderthals and homo-sapiens interbred, and that it was just the latter that became the dominant species… so maybe that’s what Genesis was implying?
Source: agentlemancallerhooray
windy-castle said: maybe they were too busy for sex at the time, haha. or maybe they did and it simply didn’t lead to kids yet and therefore wasn’t mentioned. we don’t how much time passed between the fall and eve’s introduction to adam in any case.
They did have all those animals to name. But the way I read Genesis 4:1 is that that’s the first time they had sex, or started having sex.
Question with 2 notes
windy-castle asked: hmm but god never told adam and eve not to touch each other. in genesis 1:28 he tells them to "be fruitful and multiply" which implies that filling the earth with their offspring was one of the things they were expected to do (along with taking care of the earth and other creatures that lived on it)
Heh. Yeah, I agree that does seem to be the implication. I’m not sure why they didn’t, but you’re right.
Page 1 of 382
