12 reasons to be happy

12 reasons to be happy December 30, 2012

Let’s ac-cent-tchu-ate the positive and take a look at reasons to celebrate.

1. The FCC’s new rules requiring TV commercials to quiet down are now in effect. “This might very well be the only thing Congress did in the entire year of 2011 to improve our lives.”

2. Koran-burning “pastor” Terry Jones vs. The Beatles. No contest. Singing is good in such situations. It works, even if you don’t quite know the words.

3. A follow-up on my favorite pic from marriage equality in Washington State. These guys clean-up pretty good.

4. Frank James owns a pawn shop in Seminole, Fla., where he used to sell a lot of guns. But not anymore.

5. Leah Libresco shares “Three Stories of Forgiveness.”

6. Elizabeth Esther lists “Seven Gifts of Fundamentalism” — things she’s grateful for, despite the “harmful elements” of her religious past. I’ll second No. 2 on her list in particular — an intimate and broad familiarity with the Bible. Esther calls this “biblical literacy.” I think that’s probably overly generous, since literacy entails being able to see the forest and not just the trees, and fundies aren’t even aware that there is a forest. But I am grateful to them for encouraging me to develop an encyclopedic knowledge of the trees.

7. Some much-deserved praise and recognition for Balpreet Khaur and Glenn Stassen. People like them are liable to start giving religion a good name.

8. So are the 260 clergy in Illinois who recently signed a letter calling for marriage equality.

9. Juan Cole shares another encouraging story from the often-discouraging world of religion: “Muslims of Liberated Saraqeb, Syria, put up Christmas Tree for Local Christians.”

10. Some hints of signs of possible indications of good news about a decline in the death penalty in the US, from Amnesty International:

In 2012, death sentences and executions maintained their historically low levels, and only nine states actually carried out an execution. In fact, the majority of U.S. states have not carried out an execution in the last five years.

11. Check out the Mine Kafon, designed by Massoud Hassani based on toys he made as a child in Afghanistan. This wind-powered whatchamacallit can find and safely detonate landmines at a fraction of the usual cost.

12. A researcher has developed a new “cheap, easy and highly accurate paper sensor for the early detection of pancreatic cancer.” Pretty awesome. Oh, and by the way, this researcher, Jack Andraka, is 15 years old.

"In "I invited my parents, Bob, and Alice, to my wedding." (if Bob and Alice ..."

LBCF, No. 251: ‘Section 4’
"Variants in my location include "This is Visa/Mastercard" (no it isn't, those are two separate ..."

LBCF, No. 251: ‘Section 4’
"It's Netanyahu's birthday. He celebrated by announcing he is giving up on remaining Prime Minister. ..."

LBCF, No. 251: ‘Section 4’
"http://www.msnbc.com/rachel...So, Trump, are there any other elements of the Constitution that you regard as phony?"

LBCF, No. 251: ‘Section 4’

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • EllieMurasaki

    I would like to direct you to http://archiveofourown.org/collections/yuletide2012/works/608134 “Three Shades of Steele”, a 50 Shades fanfic that fixes it. Canon knowledge not, as long as you’ve heard somebody ranting about the books, required, but it’s eleven thousand words so make sure you’ve got enough time to read before you start.

  • WalterC

    I would like to direct you to http://archiveofourown.org/col… “Three Shades of Steele”,

    Three shades of Steele? How revolting!

  • WalterC

     It almost worked before. I was still living in NYC when a whole bunch of people (mostly, in my experience, people from out of state) swooped in like a plague of locusts to shriek about the “Ground Zero Mosque”. They were repelled, but still, they managed to get a lot of media attention for their mini-Crusade against the Saracens…

  • Beroli

     The heroine of Fifty Shades of Grey is named Anastatia Steele.

    Of all the things to object to about the books…and there are many things to object to about the books…I don’t think that’s a good one. Jerry Jenkins does not own the surname Steele.

  • WalterC

    I don’t have anything against those books, I was just making a little joke about “Left Behind”.

  • XD Oh god, how did I miss that unintentional coincidence of last names?

  • Tricksterson

    Clicked on that and was informed that it didn’t exist.

  • EllieMurasaki

    That’s weird. Go to archiveofourown.org slash collections slash yuletide2012, click the Fandoms link in the left column, click 50 Shades of Grey, it’s the only one there, and it is most definitely there.

  • Isabel C.

    I’m a nonmonogamous introvert. I wouldn’t describe myself as poly, per se, because that implies having or being open to multiple romantic relationships, whereas I have or am open to multiple FWB arrangements. Basically, I don’t really pursue new people (I surf OKC sometimes, in the same spirit with which I examine dresses I don’t intend to buy) and I don’t want a boyfriend, but if some cute guy in my circle of friends takes an interest in spending some time together naked, well, cool.

    Which is also not for everyone, of course–almost nothing is.

    As far as being vocally whatever, that–as usual–depends on what you mean by “vocally”. “I never slept with anyone but my husband, and that worked out okay for me,” if it comes up in discussion, cool.* Sniffing loudly in unrelated circumstances about how *you* treat sex as sacred and *you* are “saving yourself” (Lord, I loathe that phrase) is going to make me kinda hate you, Girls At College Parties. 
    If really pressed, I’d say that I *personally* think it’s good for most people to have multiple sexual and romantic partners before settling down, if that’s possible, and keeping in mind that inclination, situation, and luck vary between individuals. By all means, if the first person you feel like sleeping with ends up being the one you want to stay with forever, go to–but I don’t love that as a cultural ideal. 

    *Although I have to say that, if someone thinks that not having had sex with anyone else beforehand makes a significant difference in their relationship, I’m going to be inclined to look askance at either them or their relationship. “It’s nice that we got to explore this together,” is cool, even if not my thing, but more than that does generally get into values that creep me out.

  • Isabel C.

    Goddamn lack of editing feature.

    Also, conflating “sex is sacred” with “wait until marriage” bugs me from a personal level and an anthropological level. I believe that sex can be sacred; I think that sacredness can take the form of marriage, temple prostitution, masked orgies, or bonds between similarly-mystically-minded friends. I also think that having nonsacred sex doesn’t make the sacred kind any less possible, any more than eating the occasional slice of cold pizza means you can’t participate in a Passover seder.

  • Guest

    Ahhhhh, modern feminism. Where saying: “Sex is a special thing that should be between people who care about each other.” and “I think people should take marriage vows seriously” makes you a bad person. 

    And for extra points- modern victim culture, where reading a link that disagrees with your moral stance makes you the equivalent of someone being assaulted.  

  • EllieMurasaki

    You left a couple bits out. Your two statements? Saying that they are true for you is perfectly fine. Saying that they are true for people who are not you, unless those particular people have asserted that said statements are true for themselves, is NOT FINE AT ALL.
    I don’t even know what your second paragraph is talking about.

    When you come back, do it with an actual handle, mmkay? ‘Guest41583’ or whatever will do, if you want to preserve anonymity, but conversations are much easier to follow when it’s possible to distinguish each party from the next.

  • GuestAgain

    Well, as regards sex, all she says it it was treated extremely respectfully. (with a lot of other blah blah about how much they loved babies and how special they were- she’s stuck up and snotty as hell, don’t get me wrong.) Which is pretty much what I’ve always been taught. Here, lets break down what she said, step by step.

    “A profound, sacred respect for sex and marriage permeated all we did.”

    The fundies thought sex and marriage were things that should be treated as important and treated respectfully. Which….um.  Yeah.  They should be. The sacred is a little stupid, but the gist is- sex is a thing that should be treated with care and respect. Thats not shaming casual hookups. That’s shaming people who treat their sexual partners as unimportant and disposable (IE: disrepectful) there is a difference between a  one night stand and a disrespectful one night stand. 

    ” Sex wasn’t a casual thing. It was reserved for marriage. This is why I was remained a virgin until my wedding day. ”

    These all reference the Fundie culture and there is no implication that her virginal status upon marriage is something she thinks everyone should do, just how she expressed those beliefs at that time in her life. 

     “Yes, a no-divorce culture had its downsides (ie. women in abusive marriages had a tough time getting out). “Acknowledges problems with no-divorce culture. 
    “But a no-divorce culture also had its benefits. We really believed in the vows we made. Marriage truly was for better or worse. ”

    Says that despite serious flaws, one good thing about that culture was that it made people take their wedding vows extremely seriously.  Which is a good thing, unless you think that standing next to someone and swearing that you’re going to be their lover and companion for the rest of your life is something to take lightly. 

    Overall, its a pretentious, holier than thou article. I don’t like her. But to say she’s slut-shaming is ridiculous. She’s saying sex should be treated with respect, and that marriage is a big serious deal. 

    And my second paragraph was referring to Lliira’s ongoing temper tantrum in which she has said, multiple times, that READING AN ARTICLE was like getting slapped in the face, was degrading, destroyed her trust in Fred and on and on and on, and that she is the victim here and so on ad nauseam. A culture in which reading an article that doesn’t cater to your specific beliefs is a degrading assault that destroys your trust in someone who posted it on their blog strikes me as quite the culture of victimhood. 

  • GuestAgain

    Hmmm….I apologize. I typed “GuestAgain” in the spot but it didn’t get posted. I will add it as a signature when I post again. 

  •  Ah, another misogynist. Misrepresenting what was said and outright lying to sper his hateful bile. Your douchebaggery will be fun for us to all look at and laugh at when the last of you throwbacks is behind glass in a museum where you belong.

  • Wednesday

    Guest, she didn’t even just say what you attribute to her.  She said “Sex wasn’t a casual thing. It was reserved for marriage. This is why I was remained a virgin until my wedding day.” There’s no “should be between people who care about each other” there, she’s explicitly saying it was reserved for people who were married.  Which excludes a lot of people who care about each other, and also includes some people who don’t care about each other (thanks to the no-divorce culture).

    She doesn’t say she thinks people should take marriage vows seriously, she says that she takes her marriage vows seriously because of her no-divorce-allowed-not-even-in-case-of-abuse upbringing.

    If it was meaningful for her to refrain from having sex until she formally married, bully for her.  We wouldn’t object. The problem is she’s conflating “waiting for marriage” and “viewing sex as sacred”, which is extremely shortsighted (and for some people, harmful).

  • Lori


    Ahhhhh, modern feminism. Where saying: “Sex is a special thing that
    should be between people who care about each other.” and “I think people
    should take marriage vows seriously” makes you a bad person.     

    Willful misunderstanding of issues like consent and allowing people to make their own decisions. Blaming “feminism” for things that are neither bad nor specific to feminism. Butthurt that people take offense when someone is offensive.

    Is this really how we want to start the year?

  • GuestAgain

     There’s no “should be between people who care about each other” there, she’s explicitly saying it was reserved for people who were married.

    Errr….no. She is not. She says that because of that culture, SHE waited until she was married. And she specifically uses the word “respect” multiple times in regard to sexuality. She also uses other fuzzy-positive terms like “Sacred.”  At no point does she say, “Sex is for married people only.” She talks about that being a cultural value, but does not endorse it. Given that she has rejected the culture, I’d say the implication is that she rejected that value as well. 

      Willful misunderstanding of issues like consent and allowing people to make their own decisions. 
    I honestly do not see what consent and decision making have to do with this article.  The article said, essentially, that sex is a sacred thing that should be done respectfully. I don’t AGREE with the sacred, I think she makes sex into more of a Big Deal than it is, but that’s hardly a reason for some of the comments I’ve seen.

    Also-“modern feminism” was a poor choice of words and I apologize for that. I meant to refer to certain overzealous trends I’ve seen in some areas, but conflating that with a massive, important movement was stupid and i retract it.


  • Lori

    Consent and allowing people to make their own decisions. 

    Sex is a sacred thing that should be done respectfully.

    You really don’t see the connection there?

    If she had said something along the lines of “I think sex is sacred and should be done respectfully and I define respect as being married” we wouldn’t be having this conversation. We might be having a different conversation about it, but we wouldn’t be having this one. That’s not what she said at all, so we are. People have a tendency to take it amiss when some holier than thou PITA shoulds all over them. Funny that.

  • Lori

    And my second paragraph was referring to Lliira’s ongoing temper tantrum
    in which she has said, multiple times, that READING AN ARTICLE was like
    getting slapped in the face, was degrading, destroyed her trust in Fred
    and on and on and on, and that she is the victim here and so on ad
    nauseam. A culture in which reading an article that doesn’t cater to
    your specific beliefs is a degrading assault that destroys your trust in
    someone who posted it on their blog strikes me as quite the culture of

    I’m not going to participate in turning this into a debate about Llirra’s reaction, but it does occur to me to wonder how you justify bringing up the (supposed) culture of victimhood because one poster says something with which you disagree?

  • No-divorce culture – oh, come on.

    A no-divorce culture treats a marriage as though it were a decision arrived at by perfect people – people without flaw.

    That’s not true in real life and everybody knows it.

    People make mistakes. They falter. They change. A decision made in one stage of a person’s life may be wrong at another stage.

    Marriage, unfortunately, is like any other decision in that not all decisions work out for the best, so being able to at least cancel a decision, once made, is a good thing. And this is why we have divorce as an option for a married couple.

  • Lori

    A no-divorce culture treats a marriage as though it were a decision arrived at by perfect people – people without flaw.   

    IME this isn’t exactly what they say. They say that marriage is supposed to be a decision guided by god (never forget the ever-popular God’s Plan For Your Life), who is without flaw. Even if you screw up and pick the wrong person (by ignoring GPFYL) god can fix it and give you a “godly home” if you just do exactly what he says.

    It’s still doesn’t actually work, but that’s what they say.

  • banancat

     Why should sex be a special thing that is reserved for people who care about each other?  Nobody has ever given me an explanation about that except for appeals to religion (I’m an atheist), appeals to risk (but it’s less risky than many other moral activities), and weird pseudo-scientific appeal to evolutionary psychology (no, sex doesn’t make me fall in love or get jealous because hormones do not work that way).

    If you can come up with a good reason why sex is some weird magical special activity that is just somehow completely different than everything else, then I will start listening to you.  Until then, your unexamined assumptions are your own problem.

  • banancat

    I’ll go out on a limb here and guess that both Elizabeth Esther and Guest Again are ok with marital rape, at least in some instances.  And that’s why their view is reprehensible.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Historical artifact, I think. Part is the perceived need to ensure that all of a woman’s children are the genetic children of her husband. Part is the definite need to ensure that a woman with children has a stable relationship with someone able and willing to do half the child-raising and the family-supporting. (Even if it does seem to mostly shake out to one of those apiece.)

    The first we no longer need, if we ever did which I am not convinced of. The second grows less necessary with the increase in uterus-people’s economic self-supportingness and reproductive freedom: if one is quite confident that one is not going to get pregnant from sexing a random person and that if one does get pregnant then one has easy access to abortion or will have no major roadblocks in the way of raising the baby (according to personal preference and other factors), and one wants to sex the random person (note: one’s personal preference to restrict sex to marriage counts as one not wanting to sex the random person, regardless of one’s attractedness to the random person, though one may of course change one’s mind) and the random person in question wants to sex one, why the hell not?
    (The paragraph changes rather if ‘one’ refers to a penis-person, but historical double standards. Which can go fuck themselves running.)

  • True, but the effect of a no-divorce culture is to assume all marriages are fundamentally motivated by correct decision-making, and that anyone who wants out just isn’t trying hard enough.

  • You really don’t comprehend the difference between “caters to my specific beliefs” and “slut-shames and treats domestic violence with a hand-wave”, do you?

    That’s really sad. It also shows just how used you are to everything catering to your specific beliefs. Further, I did not say Fred linking the article is what destroyed my trust in him; I said him linking said article and claiming it would be all happiness is what destroyed my trust in him.

    I’m an atheist. I read Fred’s blog. Try again.

    (I don’t actually expect you to engage with me in anything like good faith, mind. But I thought I should clarify in case anyone who would engage with good faith was confused.)

  • Daughter

    My experience is that most people who get married take their vows seriously, no matter what their background. One might argue that marriage vows are more serious today, given that, unless you need health insurance benefits in the U.S.  or to stay in a country where you’re a non-citizen, there’s no reason to get married unless you really want to spend your life with that person.

    Furthermore, evangelicals have divorce rates comparable to the general population. I’m not sure how fundamentalists compare, as a subset of evangelicals.  But “sacredness of marriage” is taught pretty strongly in most evangelical churches. The culture doesn’t seem to have prevented divorce.

  • weird pseudo-scientific appeal to evolutionary psychology (no, sex doesn’t make me fall in love or get jealous because hormones do not work that way)

    I see that EVERYWHERE. Concern trolling about how if a female person has sex, she will fall in love with her partner and let us now commence with the woe and rending of garments. I have to wonder if people who say that have ever known more than one or two female people. Or do those of us who do not work that way not count as real female people?

    My experience is that when I want sex to be a bonding experience, it is. When I just want it to be a fun experience, no bonding, that’s what it is. I tend to like men more when I have sex with them, but it doesn’t make me fall in love or jealous or anything like that. (And that liking can fade awful fast.) It makes me fall more in love when I have expectations of it doing so. Otherwise, it makes me go, “whee, that was fun.” Full stop.

    I don’t know why the fact that sex is different depending on circumstances is such an impossible concept for so many people. Nor do I know why they refuse to understand that having more sexual partners would be an evolutionary advantage for women and the species as a whole. You don’t know which kid has your chromosomes? You help protect and care for ALL the kids. 

    And evolutionary psychologists know bupkis about history and anthropology and sociology. If something were necessary for our evolution, you’d think it would be a human universal, right? But this supposed need to know which kid comes from which sperm is very, very far from a human universal. (Of course, evolutionary psychologists also know bupkis about evolution and psychology.)

  • elizabethesther

    Thank you so much for including me! I loved your corrective, too! An encyclopedic knowledge of trees, indeed! :)

  • WalterC

     I think the problem a lot of people have is that they assume that, just because they don’t understand someone’s reaction or emotions, that means that those reactions/emotions are somehow incorrect or even dishonest. That’s probably one of the worst things you can do when talking to someone — just condescendingly dismiss their feelings. It’s bad enough doing it to a stranger on the Internet, but it’s even worse (as in — divorce-causing, custody battle-causing, family-shunning) when you do it to someone you know in your personal life.

    This is way outside of my place to be telling anyone, but please — if you’re ever having an argument with someone you care about even a little bit, don’t dismiss their emotions. You can disagree with the person or argue with them — even heatedly — but don’t try to tell them that they don’t really feel what they say they feel. It never works.

  • banancat

     As I said earlier, I sort of view sexual relationships as analogous to friendships.  So to me, sex isn’t much different than any other activity.  I saw The Hobbit with a friend on opening day, and then I saw the same movie again with my mom on Christmas day.  They were both completely different experiences because of the person I was with.  And sex is no different.  Sometimes it’s giggly and funny with maybe a little sarcasm and some wine mixed in.  Sometimes it’s awe-inspiring and super serious.  And those are both great experiences.  I don’t see how having both of them diminishes either and I wouldn’t want to miss out on that.

  • banancat

     But I don’t agree that it’s an historical artifact.  History has not been homogeneous and the set-up of a man an woman raising children alone together has been historically rare.  There’s no reason at all that a woman’s children need to be genetically her husband’s, and there’s no reason at all that a woman needs a husband.  Plenty of cultures work out fine with a women having no husband, or having multiple, or having a main husband and a several lovers who all are considered the father of any resulting child.  Sometimes it strengthens communities to have unclear paternity.  It is also incorrect to believe that a husband or father of a child will be the primary carer or resource-provider of a woman’s child.  Her own parents and siblings are just as likely to provide for the child as the perceived father.

  • Wednesday

    @ Daughter. Yes, exactly.

    There’s also a difference between taking wedding vows seriously and taking one’s marriage seriously.

    My spouse and I married in a courthouse and had no choice as to what vows we said. (We couldn’t really even find out what they would be in advance.) And then I was too distracted by the judge randomly informing us that marriage was universally about One Man One Woman and a fire alarm going off to memorize the ensuing vows. 

    I know that sounds awful and heartless to some people, especially people for whom making pledges before their deities of choice is important, or who find meaning in making sharp delineations in the timelines of their lives and relationships. But for us, getting married wasn’t about transforming our relationship between us, but instead saying to society that we already had made mutual pledges of love, respect, and support through hardship, and getting society and the law to recognize that.

  • EllieMurasaki

    There’s no reason at all that a woman’s children need to be genetically her husband’s

    There is if you’re a man who wants to be sure that all the children you are providing for and all the children who will inherit your property are genetically yours.

    Like I said, we don’t need that.

  • banancat

     Like I said, it has been historically rare for a mother and father alone to provide for their children alone together.  Most men throughout history have provided for children in their community that they knew weren’t genetically theirs, especially nieces and nephews and grandchildren, but also other children of the clan who may have been distantly related at best.  Most societies have been communal so there has rarely been a connection where a man’s work directly went primarily to his own children, even when paternity was known.

  • Isabel C.

     Gnah, this.

    It’s especially annoying coming from sexual partners, too. I’ve had a couple incidents where a friend and I slept together and then he wigged because he thought I was going to go all Exclusivity and Kids and White Picket Fence on him. Aside from the general feeling of being stung because dude, I thought we were friends, and disappointment because I’d have liked to fool around with him some more, I found that somewhere between insulting and amusing: um, we’ve known each other *how* long? And you still think Generic Stereotyped Womanhood is going to override my personality because we fucked?


  • Isabel C.

    It’s contextual.

    Saying “sex is sacred and should be for people who care about each other” in the context of a post discussing your abstract feelings about sex, unrelated to a specific culture? Okay, although “should be” would still bug me, personally:  “I only want to have sex with people I care about” would be fine.

    Putting that statement in a post about what you’ve taken from fundamentalism provides much more troubling shades of meaning. It therefore behooves you, if what you’re saying is *not* “wait for marriage, you dirty sluts”, to be very explicit about that. She didn’t. And I’m not going to bend over backwards to excuse her for that.

  • DorothyD

    I’ll go out on a limb here and guess that both Elizabeth Esther and Guest Again are ok with marital rape, at least in some instances.

    I fail to see how you extrapolated this from anything that either of them said. 

  • In the early days of missionaries to North American tribes, a certain Jesuit was at his wits’ end because he just could NOT convince the men to beat their wives. He thought he had a real zinger when he pointed out to one of the men that if they didn’t beat their wives, how would they trust the women not to have sex with other men, and if that happened, how would they know the wives’ children were theirs? The man he was talking to responded with (paraphrase), “who cares who the father is? Children belong to the tribe, not to individual men.”

    (I wish I could remember the names of the people involved, or still had the book the letter was in. It was years ago, and for a class.)

  • I’ve had a couple incidents where a friend and I slept together and then he wigged because he thought I was going to go all Exclusivity and Kids and White Picket Fence on him.

    Oh gods, that happened to me in a longish friends-with-benefits relationship. He would periodically feel the need to remind me he didn’t want to marry me. Yes, I didn’t want to marry him either. And he would periodically feel the need to remind me we weren’t exclusive. I felt it would be somewhat rude to  rub in the fact that I was having sex with another guy — he knew, of course, but he seemed to think it didn’t matter. (When the other guy was someone I did get pretty seriously hung up on, but that started with our first conversation, not with sex.)

    Then he told me he loved me. So… in that case, I think he was seriously projecting.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    Yeah, what the hell? Anti-kitten burning coalitions are everywhere these days.

  • While I don’t see the evidence for this particular point of banancat’s, that isn’t a good comparison. Very many people do not think it is possible for a man to rape his wife, and say so often and without shame. Most of these people are Fundamentalists. And if a woman’s husband rapes her, the likelihood of him being charged, let alone convicted, is even tinier than if he were anyone else.

    There are people who burn kittens, but they are incredibly rare, and everyone pretty much agrees that it’s absolutely heinous to burn kittens. Men who rape their wives are not incredibly rare, and there are tons of people who deny that it’s even possible, because tons of people think husbands own their wives sexually.

  • Liralen

    This issue made me think of a passage from Frank Herbert’s “The Dosadi Experiment”, which is a science fiction where an illegal experiment was conducted that placed millions of people on a very small plot of safe land on a poisonous planet.  Conditions were harsh and the death rate unthinkably huge – only the most ruthless survived.  The passage is as follows:

    “But she did not really consider herself an angel or her weapon a sword.  Her real weapon was an intellect hardened and sharpened by the terrible decisions her planet required.  Emotions were a force to be diverted within the self or to be used against anyone who had failed to learn what Dosadi taught.  She knew her own weakness and hid it carefully:  she’d been taught by loving parents (who’d concealed their love behind exquisite cruelty) that Dosadi’s decisions were indeed terrible.”

    In a later scene, when Jedrik encounters a man from the outside universe (who was a special agent sent to investigate the Dosadi atrocity):

    “He recounted a few of the love stories he knew, fighting all the while to stay awake.  It was difficult to stifle the gaping yawns.  She kept punching his shoulder.”I don’t believe it.  You’re making this up.””No . . . no.  It’s true.””You have women of your own there?””Women of my . . .  Well, it’s not like that, not ownership . . . ahhh, not possession.””What about children?””What about them?””How’re they treated, educated?”He sighed, sketched in some details from his own childhood.After a while she let him go to sleep.  He awakened several times during the night, conscious of the strange room and bed, of Jedrik breathing softly beside him.  Once, he thought he felt her shoulders shaking with repressed sobs.”

  • DorothyD

    Lliira, can I ask. In the whole scheme of things, which is more relevant and worthy of attention: 

    A) banancat insinuated that GuestAgain and Ms. Esther likely approve of marital rape, based on no evidence whatsoever

    B) Sgt. Pepper employed an inappropriate metaphor to describe banancat’s infraction

  • Liralen

    “anti-kitten burning” is a meme here, if that’s what you are referring to.  It’s not gonna get a rise out of any of the regulars because it’s kind of like an old joke.

  • DorothyD


  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    I still think my metaphor was fine. It’s fundamentally about making up that someone believes/does something horrible then condemning them for said horrible thing.

    And I wasn’t trying to get a rise out of the regulars, I was trying to make a point. One that I’m finding myself needing to make a lot recently.

  • DorothyD

    I think we’re both trying to make the same point.

    As I understand it, the kitten-burning meme refers to when someone actually burns a kitten and people then somehow feel the need to speak up about how truly awful kitten-burning is, as if it’s really necessary to spell that out for fear of people just assuming you’re all for the burning of kittens if you don’t come right and say that you aren’t.

    So yeah. Maybe you’re onto something. 

  • EllieMurasaki

    The thing is, the belief that sex is only for (heterosexual) marriage is very often comorbid with the belief that once one has said yes to sex with someone, one cannot then say no to sex with that someone. Not always, but very often.