I expect simple behaviours here. Friendship, and love. Any advice should be from the perspective of the person asking, not the person giving! We have had to make new membership moderated to combat the huge number of spammers who register
It may be that only those with theological backgrounds or religious leanings care about textual criticism and related research, but it is the foundation upon which doctrines are rightly or wrongly derived. In the Judeo/Christian sphere, many are from the Old Testament, and the most significant, such as the Ten Commandments and the Clobber Passages, are from the oldest books written in ancient and difficult to translate Hebrew.
There's always been debate about some things. When I was in seminary, the subjects being hotly debated were the ordination of women and homosexuals, but what was not questioned was the traditionial understanding of the translation of Leviticus 18:22, the central biblical passage condemning homosexuality, and the one upon which all the others are built.
Well, the times they are a changing, and Jonathan Poletti just published a superb survey article of recent scholarship that is titled: Leviticus 18:22 is a Christian hoax!
And it's subtitled: The religion made up its favorite verse.
Even if you didn't grow up in a church and don't recognize the reference, almost everyone will recognize the verse itself. Here's how Poletti's article begins (he's given me permission to quote extensively):
It might be the #1 verse of Christianity--the sacred words that center the religion for millions. But there's a problem they don't tell you about Leviticus 18:22.
I've been going over a pile of papers by Bible scholars who say that the verse, in the Hebrew text, is different from the English translations. "And with a male you shall not lie the beds of a woman."
I don't remember that Leviticus 18:22. I remember this one: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman..."
What he's getting at is that the passage everyone is taught and on which most of the doctrine is based comes from bible translations and there are many problematic translations. Suffice it to say that the translations from old Greek and Hebrew texts was done by later clergy with access to limited old texts for comparative purposes. A key question: how fluent were they in ancient Greek and ancient Hebrew?
It turns out, not very. Poletti goes on:
I puzzle over this strange phrase.
I read it again and again. "And with a male you shall not lie the beds of a woman."
What does "the beds of a woman" mean? I thought I knew a little bit about the Bible, but I'm at a loss. The beds of a woman.
Do gay guys get into that? I learn new things all the time.
But then it turns out that "the beds of a woman" is an interpretation. The scholar Renato Lings notes that "the original Hebrew wording of this minuscule text is so arcane that the entire verse becomes almost untranslatable." He tries this: "With (a) male you shall not lie (the) lyings (of a) woman."
The Hebrew scholar Jan Joosten offers his very literal translation:
"And-with a male not you-will-lie 'lyings-of' a woman."
So we see that this text, like many others, not only has huge language challenges, but deals with cultural and religious concepts totally foreign to the mind of later translaters. This is true of the Latin Vulgate Bible and the English King James Bible, and what happened was they translated difficult words they way they thought they should be translated, and added words where necessary, as Poletti tells us the latest textual scholrs point out:
The familiar words of 'Leviticus 18:22' guide much of Christianity.
They are the origin of endless arguments, splits, wars of every kind. What everyone knows about 'Christians', very often, is just the religion's views on 'homosexuality'.
They never tell you that two words in the Christian translation were completely made up. The translation has "as with," so the reader thinks two kinds of sex--a good kind and a bad kind--are being compared.
But there is no "as with." In the Hebrew text, as Joosten notes, "this particle is absent."
Various "filler" words get added, and filters are applied.
To achieve coherence, a huge range of Bible verses and translations are invoked. Along the way, "lyings-of" is often thought to mean "beds."
Susan Pigott is an Evangelical professor of Hebrew at Logsdon Seminary, and she translates Leviticus 18:22 this way: "And with a male you will not lay (on) the couches/beds of a woman."
Looking at that, and Leviticus 20:13, she writes: 4
"Neither verse actually says 'Do not lie with a male as with a woman.' Instead, both say you should not lay with a male on the couches or beds of a woman."
What does it mean?
Pigott answers: "Well, first it means that translators have taken great liberties in smoothing out these verses."
She notes the verse is layered in a context of idolatry, so she thinks maybe that was the subject. One thing Christians never understood about the Bible is that a temple is called a bed.
In Isaiah 57:79, we see a "bed" on a mountaintop. They're not taking a nap. They're performing sacrifices, etc.
The most difficult challenge in textual studies and textual criticism is getting beyond one's own beliefs and understanding what the original authors intended and why. In this case that means understanding ancient Hebrew and what certain words mean in ancient times. There are a lot of different takes, but a key one is the early Jewish Rabbinic tradition. Poletti continues:
But a huge range of theories exist.
The paper in 2022 by Mark Preston Stone assesses the research on Leviticus 18:22. There are, he says, twenty-one major approaches to the verse.
Interestingly, Jews don't tend to read it as concerning 'homosexuality'--a fact I learn in David Brodsky's 2009 paper, "Sex in the Talmud: How to Understand Leviticus 18 and 20."
The rabbis focused on the "lyings-of" being plural. To be plural means there's at least two of something. But two of what? Bodily orifices in the area of the groin capable of having a penis inserted in them?
Such a wealth of orifices is not found on men. On women, it's another story. As Brodsky explains:
"The rabbis interpreted the plural 'lyings of women' to mean that when a man has sexual intercourse with a woman who is Biblically prohibited to him, both vaginal intercourse and anal intercourse are prohibited, and each carries the same penalty..."
So for Jewish rabbis, Leviticus 18:22 ended up prohibiting anal adultery with women. You'd definitely avoid that.
I'll stop quoting the article because Poletti has now peeled back the different layers of recent textual research to show where the problem lies and how the hoax was propogated. He's provided a Friend Link that allows you to read the entire article on Medium and bypass the paywall by clicking here.
Needless to say, everyone should read it. It has a very fun image of a gay Jesus that I won't reproduce here... because it's important to go read the entire article. It's well researched and has lots of references for those so inclined.
The most recent LGBTQ rights event was the Bishops of the Church of England voting to affirm that the C of E will not perform same-sex marriages. On what doctrine do you suppose this "traditional" decision is based? Yes, indeed.... It goes all the way back to Leviticus 18:22!
LGBTQ Today recently published an article by Alex Bollinger that summarized the most recent Gallup survey on sexuality among U.S. adults, focusing on how they self-identify. What they found was that the LGBTQ+ population has doubled in the last decade, rising from 3.5% in 2012 to 7.2% in 2022. That's a 105% increase and should be heartening.
However, 7.2% is still a small number when one thinks about changing political momentum in a partisan nation like the U.S., and the extreme anti-LGBTQ positions on much of the conservative side that also appears in authoritarian-leaning European nations.
Is it even possible without overwhelming majorities? A recent Public Religion Research Institute report showed that 64% of Americans say that abortion should be legal in most or all cases. Last year's Pew survey demonstrated that 61% of Americans support same-sex marriage.
So these numbers are hopeful? Change will happen in the long run. The long run here meaning as younger generations with more open and secular and rational minds replace the older narrow, conservative and partisan ones. The hope lies in the generational demographics. Consider the data from the Gallup study when viewed generationally:
The change in understanding of human sexuality in the past few decades, and the corresponding increase in acceptance, as well as the change in the legal landscape, has resulted in a new cultural dynamic. The Gallup data shows that not only are the older generations comprised of smaller percentages of those that self-identify as LGBTQ, but those older generations are dying off. They will soon be replaced by younger generations, the majority of which support abortion rights as part of female autonomy and women's health, and human sexuality as not limited to hetero-normative but acceptable in all its forms.
Data is one thing, but we should take notice when public commentators start talking about the social, cultural and economic consequences of these demographic changes. Here is Beau of the Fifth Column talking about "Rainbows, Markets and 1 out of 5 Gen Z-ers" on YouTube:
I have been ill since before Christmas and as a result, have not been able to write. Even now I find it challenging to spend more than about half an hour at a time at the keyboard. As a result my timelines on getting works finished are getting longer and longer. My apologies for this.
The passage of the Respect For Marriage act today by the House and its scheduled signing into law tomorrow by President Biden is cause for celebration. Thanks for all the Democrats in the Senate and twelve Republicans (those with a modicum of common sense or having LGBTQ friends and family), it passed the Senate and went back to the House for today's proforma vote.
The nationalist right-wing Christians that have the majority on the Supreme Court over-reached based on their religious beliefs, ignoring what the majority of Americans believe about personal rights and life in a pluralistic society. So now, in direct response, there is a law that makes same-sex and inter-racial marriage legal and repeals the previous Don't Say-Don't Tell law.
That said, it ain't over.
The religious right absolutely believes the right to same sex marriage along with the legalization of same sex relationships needs to be overturned and outlawed, and they won't give up. Consider how long and hard they fought to overturn abortion rights, with no concern about the damage the culture wars they fomented would inflict on American society.
The word of caution, though, about this bill and its limitations is well worthy understanding. Dorian Rhea Debussy, a public policy scholar with a focus on LGBTQ+ issues from The Ohio State University, has written a brief and clear piece on what is not in the bill and what risks still exist for LGBTQ people. These are the three key limitations she describes:
One key issue is that anti-LGBTQ+ laws in conservative states could undercut the Respect for Marriage Act. The act also provides an exemption for religious nonprofits. And finally, it does not fix a long-lasting problem that penalizes the marriages of people with disabilities regardless of their sexuality.
You can read Dorian Debussy's piece on The Conversation here.
Location: Worcester, England
Registered: January 2005
Messages: 1560
I'm currently re-reading the Foley-Mashburn saga by Brew Maxwell, which has prompted a few thoughts. I find it difficult to believe that it's now twenty years since it was posted in installments on Nifty! It was, in it's day, just magnificent - seven volumes of the life of a young gay couple and the group of adolescents they mentored and fostered. I'm really enjoying re-visiting it. It's still available on Nifty (author search Brew Maxwell, the series starts with "Tim"), and on crvboy, and probably elsewhere.
The thing is, though, it now strikes me as being "of its time". There's a caution about being out that feels a bit uncomfortable ... at least, to me, now, living in England, and where my nephew and nieces (now all grown up) had many out LGBTQIA+ friends at school and University. And although the author took considerable pains to show kids from unpleasant or difficult circumstances being assimilated into the group, the ethos of it comes across now, with hindsight, as rather over-privileged.
I guess that one of the major benefits of the past decade or so is that we as gay men (it may be different for trans, non-binary and so on) are starting to have some degree of "freedom to fail". Back when I came out in 1980, one of the massive pressures on me was that so many of my friends and colleagues had never actually met an out gay man. There was a realisation that they'd judge "all gay men" by how they found me, and that gave rise to an enormous internal pressure to perform at work way beyond expectations or reasonable demands. In my case, it led to a collapse of my health and disability retirement at 50. We worked so hard at establishing that gay men could be very successful at the full range of ordinary jobs (ie not musical theatre or hairdressing, as were the stereotypes) that we kinda lost sight of the fact that we also can be just as unsuccessful, unmotivated, and just plain ordinary as anyone else is. Perhaps it was a necessary stage in building acceptance and our sexuality becoming unremarkable?
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
Have you read the stories of the excellent australain author Gary Conder?
They are published on the Castle Roland website at this address: https://castleroland.net/author-stories/?auth_id=120
As he himself writes :« Gary's stories are all about what life in Australia was like for a homosexual man (mostly, before we used the term, "gay"). »
Just in case anyone needs the terminology, or finds themselves in discussions where confusion about the subject requires clarification -- or "nightmare of nightmares" you end up in a debate with the likes of Ted Cruz or Josh Hawly on the subject -- some definition may be in order, as made manifest in the Senate hearing last week for Justice Jackson.
This is not to infer most forum readers don't understand the subjects, but to provide clarity because as part of the CultureWars in the US and many authoritarian countries, the two terms are conflated for political and partisan purposes. You know, authoritatians are always looking for a group on the margins that they can demonize!
So, the basic definitions:
Sex refers to "the different biological and physiological characteristics of males and females, such as reproductive organs, chromosomes, hormones, etc."
Gender refers to "the socially constructed characteristics of women and men such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men. It varies from society to society and can be changed. The concept of gender includes five important elements: relational, hierarchical, historical, contextual and institutional. While most people are born either male or female, they are taught appropriate norms and behaviours including how they should interact with others of the same or opposite sex within households, communities and work places. When individuals or groups do not "fit" established gender norms they often face stigma, discriminatory practices or social exclusion all of which adversely affect health."
And if you get into a discussion with someone on the right wing or red neck side of the subject, here's a great video to share... and worth watching too, for the dry humor!
This song is beautiful is so many ways. I'm doing a paper on mental health for my English class and this song is one of my sources. I read in one article on the song that the national suicide hotline reached its second highest calling the day after this song was released and I just think that is so amazing. Its touching to see that one song reached and connected to a lot of people and helped save many lives! Thank you Logic for bringing me to tears and really striving to spread awareness.
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13771
At the request of the original poster, and after some considerable thought, plus sleeping on the request, I have deleted this thread. I have concluded that it served a different purpose from the original intent, and caused the OP some personal concerns. On the simple basis that the foum is for the greater good and that this post and thread acheived less than that, it has gone.
I anticipate that I may be accused of censorship, I suppose it is. In response to that though, the OP might have blanked his own posts, leaving the responses to be both interesting and irrelevant at the same time.
Location: Europe
Registered: July 2019
Messages: 104
Shortly after 335 B.C., within a newly built library tucked just east of Athens' limestone city walls, a free-thinking Greek polymath by the name of Aristotle gathered up an armful of old theater scripts. As he pored over their delicate papyrus in the amber flicker of a sesame lamp, he was struck by a revolutionary idea: What if literature was an invention for making us happier and healthier? The idea made intuitive sense; when people felt bored, or unhappy, or at a loss for meaning, they frequently turned to plays or poetry. And afterwards, they often reported feeling better. But what could be the secret to literature's feel-better power? What hidden nuts-and-bolts conveyed its psychological benefits?
Location: Worcester, England
Registered: January 2005
Messages: 1560
My formerly-niece P. rang me last night for a long talk. They've decided to come out as a non-binary person, and I'm the first member of the family they've told. It didn't come as much of a surprise to me: it's something that I've had the impression was on their mind for the past three years or more. They're now in their early 20s, and no longer living at home though still very close to their Dad (my brother).
Obviously, I have no problems with this identity, and hope that I managed to convey that my love and support remain unchanged. I did run through some of the things that I think there might be in common with coming out as gay, especially allowing friends and family time to adjust to the inevitable shock, and not being massively thrown if they take a while to get comfortable with it all. And, of course, said I'm available on the phone at any hour of day or night if P. needs me, and if they need to escape pressure for a couple of days at any point they're always welcome to stay here.
I'm pretty sure that P.'s Dad will be OK with it, though it may take a while for his emotions to catch up with his very liberal intellectual ethics. A bit less sure about P.'s Mum. I expect my sister and her offspring will also be supportive (though surprises can happen). But I am rather worried about how my own mother, P.'s grandmother, will take it. She'll be 90 next year, and although mentally mostly still there, is effectively housebound, reliant on carers, and hasn't altogether kept up with social changes for three or four years. She's also always been rather free in expressing her opinions on what she thinks family members should do with their lives (to other family members, not generally to the person themself) though most of us mostly tune this out. I'd really welcome any suggestions on how I might reassure my Mum when P. finally does come out as non-binary to the wider family - as the only out gay family member, I think I'm going to be the one that Mum leans on for this.
any suggestions or helpful comments gratefully received
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
We men have known about rape for a long time, and have resources here for those affected. Our needs for support have commonality with thsoe for ladies, but with huge differences. We can't get pregnant, nor do we have to fight for an abortion in unenloghtened places like ladies impregnated by a rapist do. But we can feel 'unmanned' by it, emasculated.
Location: Worcester, England
Registered: January 2005
Messages: 1560
World AIDS Day was introduced in 1988, thirty years ago. We've seen massive changes in that time! Indeed, many consultants here in the UK don't use the term "AIDS" any longer, but refer to stages of HIV infection.
Things to be grateful for:
HIV infection is not curable, but with proper treatment there's no reason for it to restrict or shorten anyone's lifespan.
With effective antiretroviral treatment it's possible the level of virus in someone's body will go so low it becomes 'undetectable'. If this is confirmed by their healthcare professional it means they can no longer pass on HIV through sex. Straight couples can safely try to have kids, for example.
Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) - taking medication routinely before having sex - almost completely prevents the possibility of catching the virus. In the UK, the NHS is dragging its feet over making this available, but organisations exist to help people safely buy decent product over the internet.
Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP) - if a condom bursts, or someone has had impulse unsafe sex, PEP within 36 hours of possible exposure massively reduces the chances of catching the virus.
Given all of these, especially PrEP, the rate of new HIV infections in the UK is falling (in London, falling very steeply). Sadly, the situation in many other countries is not as good, though it's in general improving.
On the down side, I remember far too many lovely guys - friends, colleagues, schoolmates, and a lover - who died from the disease before we had our current understanding and drug arsenal. I seek to honour them in the best way that I can, and one way in which I can do that is to minimise my own risk of catching HIV, or passing it on if I should happen to do so. For anyone sexually active (with the possible exception of long-term monogamous relationships with a very trusted partner), that means regular testing, so you know your status and can seek treatment if needed. My last partner was HIV+, and as well as regular testing while with him, I had (negative) tests six, twelve, and eighteen months after we split up. I haven't had sex since him, so no current need for tests!
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13771
This time it's about buttocks. I've noticed it for a long time while studying, alwasy on your behaf, porn, especially on Tumblr, a place where I keep gettin blogs nuked by the Tumblr Fairy.
In my innocence (look, I was innocent once!) I expected the buttocks to be a simple dividing zone between the port and the starboard legs. Imagine my surprise and pleasure when I noted a special divide, almost an elliptical aperture, to allow the anus to perform both its alloted functions!
I love the idea that a piece of (ha!) intelligent design grants access to pleasures untold except in non missionary position fiction!
I also love the way that access, once gained, proves that the penis fits the anus far better than it fits the vagina. "Like a glove" is the expression I was thinking of, but a penis divided into five is not really a thing. There are folk with twin penises, not not five. Google is your friend here. Search for Man with multipe penises and you come up with just two. Well, he does!
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13771
McAfee has the main site on its database. This morning, UK time, it was Pornography and unverified for potential harm. I doscovered this when someone told me why they were unable to follow a link to the site.
I asked McAfee to change it and we are now displayed thus:
I thought to compare us with Nifty:
I think the reputation column is probably the important one
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13771
I read this article following by this one today. I also am the proud owner of a small collection of dildos and vibtarors. And the thing that pisses me off is the fact that these toys are represented by the mainstream media as toys for women.
I own a prostate, and I get it checked out every so often to ensure it is healthy, because I want to keep it. And I love stimulating it with toys. As a young teenager I even invented my own electro-stim system from a toy morse code set and worked out how to use that anally. In short, the prostate is a glorious piece of male sexual anatomy.
Not for the mainstream media, though. Penetration is only for the girls in the maintstream media!
Caning women shows a certain kind of dominant mentality. It doesn't matter what their sexuality might be. What matters is that women are generally idolised by society, and making them suffer is part of the wonderful(!) dreams of porn sites. I'm not expressing this very well. Perhaps you might try to do better.
I see this in its own way as BDSM rape, backed by the full panoply of religion and some sort of stance with the law.
There are many other copyright infringements on this site, located on your servers. This is a formal CEASE AND DESIST notice. Your customer is in breach of your terms and conditions, and of my copyright, together with the copyrights of many people who use my site.
This content MUST be removed
DOMAIN INFORMATION
Domain:brooketoczylowski.com
Registrar:DreamHost, LLC
Registration Date:2010-04-03
Expiration Date:2019-04-03
Updated Date:2018-03-31
Status:ok
Name Servers:ns1.dreamhost.com
ns2.dreamhost.com
ns3.dreamhost.com
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13771
Today one of the boys I was infatuated with is 62! I still think of him fondly, though were were truly nothing to each other. He is the boy I was outed over in school. Though not flattered by the photographs he was gorgeous. He was also a huge flirt. He knew he was attractive, and knew I found him attractive. If I'd known him I might have come to love him rather than just finding him a hugely erotic and unattainable object of great desire.
Anniversaries such as this get me wondering about what might have been, yet I know they would never have been.