Category Archives: Sexuality

Shame on the New York Times

Everyone who knows me knows that if you like homogeneity in your Facebook friends list, you just shouldn’t connect to me. I have a Muslim charity and Israeli new sites in my feed; I still maintain contact with my college friend who became a preacher as well as the high school friends who are wiccan or viking neo-pagan leaders. I have heterosexuals and homosexuals and just about every kind of sexual being in my list.

So it’s not unusual for me to read pieces from different viewpoints. Like this article in the Op Ed section of the New York Times (last accessed 8/14/2016, should my piece stir them to remove it *snorts* or should it be a very special kind of bait-and-switch hack *snorts again*). The title of the article is “Is God Transgender?” and was written by Mark Sameth.

The argument was based on the idea that the feminine pronoun was used instead of the masculine. And I was irritated for I knew some of the very references and I knew that whatever version was referenced it probably was in error or the editor was an incredibly lousy theological editor.

For my source, I used BibleGateway. I pulled up four or five different English translations or versions, and I compared them side by side.

First, Mr. Sameth claims Genesis 3:12 that Eve is referred to as “he.” Going to my source, the New International, New King James, Orthodox Jewish Bible, and Complete Jewish Bible all use “she.” The dissenting version, the Names of God, takes a very Bill Clinton approach and calls Eve, “that woman, the one you gave me.”

Next, in Genesis 9:21, the author states that Noah retired to her tent. Now, this isn’t the daughter named Noah that I referred to in an earlier post. This is the man Noah who built the ark and got the animals to safety. And… *trumpet fanfare* all five sources say “his tent.”

In reading Genesis 24:16, Mr. Sameth claims that Rebekah is referred to as a “young man.” In this case, I must remove the Orthodox Jewish Bible because it uses distinctly Jewish words and vocabulary, probably to express that translation will not be good if possible at all. All four other versions refer to Rebekah as a beautiful or attractive virgin who had never been with a man. Perhaps the author of the Times piece just misread this passage; we’re all human and make mistakes.

For Genesis 1:27, the author claims that Adam is referred to with the plural them. Again, I must remove the Orthodox Jewish Bible. However, all four other versions use mankind, humans, man, humankind. I suspect the New King James used the more global version of the word man, that is, it refers to all humans by having just the one stand for them.

*pulls knife out of heart* Esther is one of my favorite stories. To see how Mr. Sameth treated Mordecai is absolutely deplorable. My four sources–New International Version, Names of God, New King James, and Complete Jewish Bible–all use not nursing words, but words of adoption, rearing, or parenting. The Orthodox Jewish Bible uses the word bat,  which is the word for daughter.

As for the Isaiah 49:23 reference, it is kings who are serving as foster fathers; the queens do the nursing. Now, perhaps Mr. Sameth was using the modern definition of queen; I can give him that. However, that use of queen is pejorative and very beneath the argument he was trying to build.

I appreciate that this is a multi-cultural world. Not everyone will agree with me. More than likely, I will be in the minority. Yet I am open minded enough to at least hear you out and try to see things your way even if I don’t agree.

However, if you expect me to seriously consider your position, you really need to do your homework and have your facts straight. If I already disagree with something, I’m not likely to change my mind if you don’t check the facts.

Advertisements

Please Explain…

Author’s Note: This is going to be one of those controversial adult topic posts. I’m struggling and confused.

I understand, just barely, the whole transgendered thing. You feel in your mind and spirit that you identify with the opposite gender of the body you have. That’s hard.

But what I don’t understand is why those who are transgendered with male bodies and female minds and spirits have to push on the whole restroom thing. These individuals are not physically female so why should they get to use the female restroom.

Personally, if they are so wound up in the feminine mind and soul, why can they not understand that some women have been so horribly treated by those who are totally male that the presence of anything physically male in the restroom with them could trigger flashbacks or other negative reactions?

And why can the government not just make a simple rule: go with your biology? If you’re physically male, use the male restroom. If you’re physically female, use the female restroom.

Why are women once again expected to yield privacy and safety and comfort to physical males, regardless of gender identity of mind and spirit?

And how would men feel if the most unseemly, hard-featured women started squatting on their urinals during “that” time of the month? The women may be transgendered, or they may be feminazis claiming to be transgendered in an effort to teach an object lesson through extreme performance art.

And yet, I’m now running into the question of what do you do if someone has been abused and molested by someone of the same physical gender?

Maybe, instead of fighting over idealogies, businesses could consider redesigning restrooms. Instead of rows and rows of stalls, businesses could create individual, private restrooms with locking doors. Keep them clean (translate sanitized and disinfected), and keep them unisex. We’d have fewer numbers and we might have to wait more; however, privacy and safety would be uncompromised.

But who knows? I don’t. I’m just a simple country girl. I can use an outhouse. 🙂

Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh… Stayin’ the Same!

Recently, the news has been sensationalizing.. er, reporting about sexual scandal within the denominational pew of our Latin Rite siblings in Christ. They blame the rules about celibacy and chastity, they blame the traditions and ritualistic trappings, they blame the structure of the hierarchy.

Everyone acts like this ungodly behavior is so new it should shock and appall. And indeed, it should shock and appall.

In reality, this behavior is older than Greece and Rome. In fact, it goes all the way back to the garden when humankind as represented by Adam and Eve first told God that His rules sucked and they’d live their own way.

Even with the advent of Jesus and His all-sufficient death on the Cross followed by His Resurrection, misbehavior (or sin as it really should be called) continued. As the Gospel spread, some changed their wicked ways; others continued to perpetrate wickedness and just got more clever about hiding it.

Enter Boccaccio in the middle of the 14th century. He writes a book that is a collection of 100 stories about all the problems in his era. It’s called the Decameron. Ten travelers tell stories each day for ten days. Each day has a different leader for that day, and the leader picks the topic for the day.

I read it aons ago, and only one story ever stayed with me. It’s told on the third day as the last story. And I still feel great nausea to this day.

A non-Christian girl who is incredibly naïve decides to seek God in the desert as a hermit. She runs into a monk. The monk tricks her into allowing him to rape her by convincing her she will greatly please God if he (the monk) is allowed to help her “put the devil into Hell.”

She truly enjoys the “exorcism,” almost to the point of the monk’s physical destruction. But since she’s an heiress, she is kidnapped and forced to marry her kidnapper. She is devastated at her loss of the ability to please God through “exorcism.”

The village women are very concerned about the girl’s emotional health. So they get her to talk. When they learn of the “exorcism” routine, they reassure the girl that she will soon be able to please God following her marriage.

Well, now, isn’t it special? I believe those of you in the Latin Rite pew aren’t “allowed” to read this book as it’s “morally offensive.”

For those of us in Protestant denominational pews, it is a cautionary tale. We need to live authentic, open lives living up to the standard of God’s Word, which won’t pass away, and the life and choices of Jesus Christ, Who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. We need to not carry tales when we hear of Latin Rite issues.

We need to be in prayer for our Latin Rite siblings. Pray for their shepherds to remain true to celibacy and the other high ideals they seek to live as they lead and guide God’s people. Pray for parents and children to be filled with the Holy Spirit and His discernment to be able to avoid the false shepherds with their empty promises and deceitful actions.

For those still Latin Rite, what can I say? The more things change, the more they stay the same. Your devotion to centuries of tradition and ritual, while at times not contrary to the Word, leaves you open to deception and maltreatment.

Be open to the leading of the Spirit to seek and support your good shepherds. Challenge the deacons, priests, and bishops to review the situations that have happened to find newer, more world-conscious ways of doing Confession, altar serving, and any other occasion that the enemy of our souls could use to destroy your future faithful.

If an idea, book, or topic is forbidden, find and explore it! Review it against the standards of God’s Word to find what your response should be (yeah, I guess you could use Tradition too–just don’t expect Protestant siblings to follow suit).

The secret things should be brought to the Light and explored. Further secrecy only leads to tragedy and perpetuation of abuse.

Let’s Think about Sex

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about sexual orientation and gender identity. I mean, it’s hard not to with all that’s happened with the Supreme Court decision to usurp state’s rights over gay marriage.

I get heterosexual orientation. That’s easy. Two people of two different biological genders come together.

I (vaguely) understand homosexual orientation. For whatever reason, a person is sexually attracted to people of the same biological gender. It’s sin for me, but I can’t control you so if it floats your boat I’m not going to stop you; however, I also don’t want to be asked to applaud you. (Don’t ask and don’t tell is probably a pretty good policy on many things, not just sexual orientation.)

I don’t completely understand bisexual orientation. In effect, every biological gender is fair game. No one is off limits. Also take into account gender identity–women feeling that their biological identity doesn’t represent your emotional identity of male or men feeling that their biological identity doesn’t represent your emotional identity of female.

My head is already reeling. Who can blame me? Yet, I wonder if there is a component that’s missing in the whole sexuality and gender component. I wonder if there isn’t a sexual orientation based not on biology but based more on personality and ways of reason and logic.

This would best be summed up as the FB meme once suggested: sapiosexual. Sapiosexuals struggle because they don’t identify sexual orientation and attraction based on gender. They identify sexual attraction based on who the person is, how the person thinks, and how the person acts and expresses him- or herself.

While a component may be biologically based, the rest is up to how the person responds to nurture and the environment. In this orientation, body doesn’t come into play until the person in the relationship is well known and an emotional connection–yes, even emotional intimacy–has developed. They are attracted to the mind, the wisdom in the partner.

I suspect this would explain most people who choose to identify as bisexual. I also suspect because sapiosexual is a higher, more intellectual form of attraction that it will never truly exist.

PS: Even if I were sapiosexual, as a Christian I would have to then add the prism of what does God’s Word say about sexuality–one man and woman in a mutually exclusive marriage for life. I would then have to choose to express my sexuality in alignment with the Truth of God’s Word whether I like what I read or not. And no, we’re not dealing with gender identity in this post–the feminazi in me needs some rest and she won’t rest if she starts.

Love, Ninefold Challenge Week 1 Catch Up

Author’s Note: I found this challenge about two weeks too late. It involves a different kind of poetry style. I honestly don’t completely understand. It’s 3 groups of 3 lines, with 9 syllables each line. The first group is to describe the physical. The second group the mental or emotional. The final is to describe the spiritual. I struggle because groups 2 and 3 always seem to get muddied. I’m also sometimes struggling with counting syllables. You’ll see what I mean in my responses to future challenges. I do need to link back to Ninefold Dragon’s blog to the first week’s challenge.

His thumb brushes the nape of my neck
As his hand strokes the curve of my hip.
I melt relaxing in his embrace.

I write and yet my words are hidden.
I cannot express emotion’s depth.
I lose my meanings in your deep eyes.

Joy explodes as souls become enmeshed.
The union of flesh so long denied
Brings peace that cannot be wiped away.

Kittie’s Littered Musings, #3

Hippopotamus

In the weeks leading to Christmas, my husband has been singing bits and pieces of the song, “I Want a Hippopotamus for Christmas.” While we girls gave him some symbolic hippos, I would argue that he already has what he needs. Come with me as we meander down the mental tangles that allow me to make this assertion.

The roots for the word hippopotamus mean “river horse.”

I often argue that he has to consider me a skittish Arabian mare. That is, I’m fine and true, but you’d best watch for my hooves if you make the wrong moves. Wrong moves are easy when you deal with survivors of abuse and/or bullying.

I am also a charismatic devoted to the Holy Spirit. Jesus often said that the Holy Spirit would be like rivers of living water flowing from our belly.

Therefore, his skittish Arabian mare who moves and grooves in the Holy Spirit can be considered a hippopotamus. He’s had what he wanted all along; he just didn’t know it.

Stats on Blogs

I question the value of keeping stats on blogs. Sometimes, the purpose of a blog is to put ideas out there. I don’t necessarily care how many views I have, how many have liked a piece, or how many have visited the blog.

I would rather see things like a list of my followers and which pieces they’ve liked or a list of the best categories in which I’ve written pieces or a cross-analysis of length of pieces versus number of likes.

Although, that said, I’m not sure I’d want those kinds of numbers kept on me. I’m not sure I’d want that kind of granularity in the data on me. Perhaps, the whole numbers game, especially on a blog written for pure enjoyment, is a bad thing and too much like Big Brother.

Gender Benders

My current denominational pew is working on revising its position on marriage. It won’t declare wrong is right, but it will try to further define and solidify its stance Biblically.

I’ve seen some drafts being done by individual churches or pastors. They tend to be vague and high level, perhaps to offer some protections against lawsuits for individual cases.

Unfortunately, I don’t think they are quite ready for the complexities they will face. For example, let’s say a person with a female body and female gender identity wants to marry a person with a male body and female gender identity. Do you define marriage based on the biological body, which in this case would be Biblically permissible? Or do you define marriage based on the gender identity, which probably would not be Biblically permissible?