You know, fisting can be fun, but the fisting / Christiantiy combination seriously icks me out. I may now be scarred for life.
Yeah, but that Caravaggio is still pertty sexual. It looks like Thomas is playing wih his nipple.
Ah, the goatse man. No matter how many times you see it, it still gets ya right there.
I'm pretty sure the site is fake. Check out the oral sex page.
John, you are evil. Just because you feel you've been cast out of heaven, you want to take the rest of us down with you. But I reject you, and all your works.
So it's actually fingering that echoes Thomas's doubt. Fisting is still good because of the Fist of Might, though.
4: I meant about finger vs. fist.
You can't just haul off and sock your fist up there, jeez, eb.
Jesus was a feminist:
(1) To avoid the impropriety of male homosexuality, a heterosexual couple should not under any circumstances form a threesome with another man.
Ben si so converting to Christianity:
A BDSM relationship between a dominant husband and submissive wife is actually the ideal of marriage set out in Ephesians 5:22-26 taken to its logical conclusion!
Baudelaire has a poem - one of the banned - where he takes a similar analogy to sickening levels.
14: I suspect that that quotation actually pretty much nails it. Fuckin' fundies.
Check out the question-answer section.
EWWWWWWWWW
Fisting period is pure ICK.
(I know that 19 is obvious. I'm just drunk enough that I figured I needed ot say it to remind myself.)
If there really were a type of Christianity like this, though, I would totally be in favor of other people practicing it.
It's not too off the wall though. i mean, is their "oral sex is OK as long as she swallows" really all that different from the Catholic "oral sex is OK, but only as foreplay"?
The woman doesn't have to swallow, though; read the first question and answer in the Q&A page. If the man swallows, that's cool too.
Ah, i missed that. Just don't get any on your clothes.
22: Yeah, it's really not, and a lot of it is actually nearly identical to traditional Judaism. So like I said, I would be okay with Christians following these rules.
27: I think that by and large these rules do sum up a lot of unarticulated Christian practice. They're sexist, though.
Becks, your typing has improved dramatically.
#23
Just one of those things that for me scores too high on my arbritrary plot of dangerous vs. gross.
i'm starting to sober up a bit. I still have to pack tonight.
Vaginal fisting is gross? I can see the fear of danger, but the yuck factor?
I think that by and large these rules do sum up a lot of unarticulated Christian practice.
Perhaps. They do seem to go against a lot of traditional Christian teachings, though.
They're sexist, though.
Well, duh. If you want non-sexist religion, you're looking at the wrong tradition.
Just seems to be a disturbingly large object to be cramming up there.
Yeah, but on the sexist grounds I'd have a problem with (do have a problem with) people practicing them.
34: Okay, fair enough. I was just wondering.
35: Sure, but they seem like a definite improvement over the status quo among practicing Christians. Still bad, but not as bad. It's kind of a moot point, though, since no one's actually doing this stuff.
Bah. You all sure aren't commenting fast enough to help me procrastinate from packing.
And maybe it's because I'd feel like I was crossing the line from lover to puppeteer.
39: Y'all are determined to just ruin everything, aren't you?
(Come on, Becks wants us to pick up the pace.)
There's a "puppet master" joke around here somewhere but I can't find it.
Well, you're the one saying you've got no problem with sexist sex rules.
For my next trick I will make a woman orgasm while I drink a glass of water.
Well, you're the one saying you've got no problem with sexist sex rules.
I don't recall saying that.
Like most commencements, mine was pretty unremarkable. Except for the class poem about fisting.
Oof. I'm going to bed and am going to pack in the morning. This is probably a Very Bad Decision.
This is the night of Very Bad Decisions. Don't mix gin and tonics, dark and stormys, Burgundy wine, and sketchy, ill-gotten absinthe.
Basically, all my statements are made in comparison with the sex rules contained in Christianity as it is actually practiced right now, and my conclusion is that these rules would be better. Not much better, but better.
This is the night of Very Bad Decisions. Don't mix gin and tonics, dark and stormys, Burgundy wine, and sketchy, ill-gotten absinthe.
Words to live by.
52: You may have a point, but that fails to justify being "okay" with those rules, no?
(I'm really just arguing out of idleness. In case that's not clear. I don't actually have much of a dog in this fight.)
I'll concede that my phrasing in 27 was suboptimal.
Right. Well, neither am I, depending on who you ask.
Not to, um, ruin your fun, but I can't resist the temptation to relate what is my favorite interpretation of this doubting Thomas business. I have a friend who, as a student of religion, was aghast that everyone takes this as a reproachment to doubt. I.e. "Doubting Thomas!" is a epithet of disdain and dismissal. His interpretation is that it should be one of honor, and that what Jesus was saying was, "Yes, if you doubt, test your doubt as the opportunity presents itself and see if the faith that is asked of you holds up. Don't be an unbeliever when you have the opportunity to be a believer who has come by his faith honestly." So yes, sometimes you have to take faith on pure faith. But when the opportunity is offered to you, test it---don't miss out on the chance.
I'm afraid I know nothing of fisting, and so cannot add that to the equation, but I always liked my friend's interpretation.
Don't worry, I was just about out of things to say in that conversation. Your friend's interpretation is interesting; is there a lot of support for it in the exegetical tradition?
If there really were a type of Christianity like this
Actually, you might want to check out the Free Spirit heresy.
My father -- a non-believer but who was raised as a Catholic -- has always been quite proud of his name (Tom) for precisely the reasons given in 59. That Thomas, the doubter, is a figure to be admired rather than disdained.
The interpretation of Saheli's friend might not be orthodox one (and I really wouldn't know whether it is or is not) but it's not a totally uncommon one either, it would seem.
A wife may even anally penetrate her partner with a strap-on dildo if he enjoys this, and if their respective roles as husband and wife are secure outside of the bedroom.
Wisdom of Our Fathers and Words to live by.
When a woman performs oral sex on her partner, she is symbolically enacting drinking the living water of Christ.
I'm going to church Sunday, but only so that I can catch the rest of you there.
i like saheli's friend's interpretation. but also feel compelled to point out that the doubting thomas business is almost definitely slander, an attempt to discredit the author of the Gospel of Thomas, which is older than most of the gospels accepted into the bible (cf. Nag Hammadi scrolls). This Thomas was the brother of Jesus (his name literally means "twin"). He was Peter's rival for passing down the teachings of JEsus. Where Peter reinterpreted a lot of stuff in the light of Jesus' apparently shameful death on the cross, bringing in the heavy emphasis in christianity on sacrifice, sin, jesus' gruesome suffering and notions of an afterlife as reward, thomas' text sticks to the actual sayings and teachings of jesus rather than focusing on his life & miracles - which was almost definitely a distortion of the historical jesus' teachings. for thomas, jesus is a prophet in the tradition of prophets, who teaches that the kingdom of god is HERE AMIDST us, not in another world, and it's better to give up possessions and attempt to realize it emotionally & spiritually now, instead of bothering about an institutional church...
just thought i'd get that off my chest.
at while i'm at it, has anyone heard radio ads directed towards evangelical christians whose faith has been shaken by the Da Vinci Code movie? my mother has and says it's been a serious threat to the faith of a lot of holy rollers. which was interesting to me because i thought stick-your-head-in-the-sand faith like that couldn't be threatened, from any angle, because it is too ideological.
clearly somebody needs to make a movie with that new Gospel of Judas that national geographic is hawking.
re: 66
That's Elaine Pagels, interpretation is it not? Rather than widely accepted fact.
well, you can't speak of "accepted fact" when it comes to bible philology -- educated deductions is more like it. that said, the sayings and parables common to the gospel of thomas, the gospels accepted into the bible, and the source most people call Q, are all almost certainly contemporaneous to the historical jesus. the interpretations you see added onto those parables were almost certainly added on at a later date, and support later evolutions of church structure and institutionalization.
i wasn't thinking of elaine pagels particularly, though i like her work. all serious bible scholars and philologists agree that enormous changes and additions and distortions were made as christianity transitioned to becoming an institution after jesus' death. just think of the famous and well-established mistranslation of the hebrew word for "maiden" as "virgin" in early texts, leading to official church dogma of a virgin birth.
how did we get off fist-fucking again?
should have been: "the interpretations added onto parables that jesus spoke, transcribed in the new testament bible text," are almost certainly later interpolations.
re: 68
The specific claims you made in 66 - vis a vis Thomas as actual rather than metaphorical twin, and the claim that the gnostic interpretation of Christ as teaching that the kingdom of God is here among us was the 'original' teaching and that the later Catholic tradition is a modification, etc. It's my understanding that that's roughly Pagels' view and the view of others who share a similar perspective rather than anything like orthodoxy.
Of course, as you say, the whole field is confused and there is no *one* orthodox interpretation. I just wanted to point out that the 'Pagelian' sort of a view is only one among many. There's some Jesuits who might disagree.
Anyway, as you say, it's a side issue.
Early Christian history is confusing but fascinating stuff even for a non-Christian like me. I do wish I knew more about it.
Now, back to fist-fucking ...
Fist-fucking is not nicely bouncy.
It's got to be a parody site, obviously.
72: Yeah, but what about the one in the link?
IIRC, there still exist old Christian groups who honor St. Thomas, in India (Kerala).
What we think of as Christianity was put together over the period of centuries, ending in certain councils around 500 AD, and then heavily revised to fit German culture around 800 AD or so, and then heavily revised again during the Reformation period.
On the other hand, who cares what the original Jesus said? The only reason he's a big deal is because his name has been used by the various other, later people. It's not like we know he was a great teacher any other way.
32: Most people are very accepting of anal fisting, but have serious reservations about vaginal fisting.
re: 70
that the historical jesus' teachings were not preoccupied with sin, sacrifice, and an afterlife, --that these things are a later modifications based on jesus' biography--is pretty well attested.
it's also pretty well attested too that jesus said the kingdom of god is amidst us -- though scholars argue whether he said it's within us or around us. paying attention to records of jesus' sayings that predate the biblical gospels don't necessarily = gnosticism. Q isn"t gnostic text - it's earlier than the biblical gospels and a lot of the gnostic texts too.
otherwise i agree: whether or not thomas is literally the twin of jesus, or his brother but not twin, or a disciple with fancy rhetoric, is much more up for debate.
is fist-fucking bouncy?
It's not like we know he was a great teacher any other way.
Where are Jesus's teaching evaluations, eh? I'd like to see those found in a clay jar in the Sinai somewhere. "Cool guy, but grades too hard." "Nice haircut." "Too much assigned reading, exam questions not clear." "Plays favorites with some disciples."
Plays favorites with some disciples.
Teh funny.
"Too much prostletyzing. I am not paying to hear his personal opinions!"
You weren't aware of this popular term for prostatic depilatation?
Goddamnit. I knew I should have looked that shit up. I hate you people.
You sound irritable, like someone who's tired of shaving her prostate. Do I have just the thing for you.
I hate it when I join conversations late with something slightly OT, and you hate it too, I'm sure, but I highly recommend God's Gym, a wonderful book on homoeroticism and God's relationship with various ancient Jewish dudes. It makes an excellent case for the possibility that King David, the "man after God's own heart," was actually getting schtupped by YHWH, and that the dance celebrating the return of the Ark was an erotic private dance (with a big fake phallus) for God's titillation, and so forth. God also sodomizes and gives VD to a huge population of unbelievers at one point.
And don't even get me started about Secret Mark and Jesus having sex with a rich gay zombie boy!
I hate it when I join conversations late with something slightly OT, and you hate it too, I'm sure
God, that White Bear, always nattering on about something.
It's true, Bitch! I'm always like, "Funny you should mention it; I have a relevant anecdote that detracts from the fun of conversation!"
Oh for god's sake. Fisting is great. You don't have to want to do it, but I don't see why it has to be dangerous if you take it slowly and don't force anything.
OT: Unfogged sighting!
I'm pretty sure I saw IDP at the Loyola stop this morning. I hate it when you get that "I know that person" feeling, but the realization of who doesn't hit you until five minutes later when it's too late to say hi.
even more OT: Is "you take things too seriously" as bad as "I think you're reading too much into it"?
90: Have you met before, or did you just feel it was IDP, in your bones?
Sadly, no, I don't have those kinds of powers. I have met him before.
Although one time, I was on the train, and recognized this guy that I had corresponded with a couple times (and seen a picture of) but had never met, and went up to him and was like "hey, I'm so-and-so."
That was awkward, especially when we both got off the train at the same stop and ended up walking the same direction to our houses which were one block apart, and so what I meant to be a "hi" ended up being like a 20-minute awkward conversation.
Now I see him everywhere.
Hey, White Bear, I'm going to join you in offering educational reading material that's only slightly on topic. (Well, it kind of responds to Wolfson's post.)
Anywho, if you want to read all about Christ and his wounds as feminized, read medieval theologians or mystics, or just skip to the secondary material that pulls it all together for you and read Caroline Walker Bynum's Jesus as Mother, wherein his wounds are not just vagina-like, but his blood is also breast milk.
Or, if you prefer your Christ more masculine and, potentially, homoerotic, read Leo Steinberg's The Sexuality of Christ in Renaissance Art and Modern Oblivion. (Lots of pictures where Christ has a hard-on. No fisting, I'm afraid.)
Serious question Tia. What's the attraction?
It's exactly the fact that you would have to be very slow, careful and deliberate that makes it seem a whole lot more like a gyno exam than a sex act.
More power to you. But I don't get it. Unlike, for instance, anal sex, which also doesn't much appeal to me, but at least I get it.
If the receiver is really, really aroused, it doesn't have to be that slow. The attraction? Being penetrated by something really, really big. Being totally full.
Also, there's just something about the focused attention. When a guy is fucking you with his dick, he is (of course) somewhat distracted by how good it feels to him. With fingers, hands and/or mouth, it's all about you. Extra bonus if your arousal is making him hard. It can be a nice li'l feedback loop.
Ok, guys, we've gotta clean it up—my mom's hip to the game.
Oh, Ben, I'm sure your mom knows all about fisting.
Should have come up with a better pseudonym, Ben.
Fair enough answer I guess Tia.
Though I still don't get it. Feeling "full" is one thing, but, for instance, guys like tight spaces and I've never heard of sticking your dick in a vice becoming much of a trend. Seems overkill to me.
Incidentally, if that's the level of attention you're used to receiving from a guy, you REALLY need to throw that dork who wouldn't get you a cab or throw an orgasm your way to the curb! :)
What an education thread for naive little me. :-)
I'm talking about the gnostic interpretations of course.
It's exactly the fact that you would have to be very slow, careful and deliberate that makes it seem a whole lot more like a gyno exam than a sex act.
Anal sex is also "very slow, careful, and deliberate," at least in the early stages. Both anal sex and, I suspect, fisting (haven't done the latter) can have a sexily ritualistic quality, precisely because there's no such thing as an anal/fisting "quickie." As Bitch Ph.D. says, the fuckee has to be the focus of the fucker's attention. (Hegel's master/slave bit comes to mind of course.)
I'm not seeing it (the lord/bondsman thing). Expound?
106: Just in the loose sense, common to S/M, that the bottom appears to be dominated/"losing" but in significant respects is in control/"winning."
Not suggesting a close reading of Lordship & Bondage as S/M treatise, tho when I was reading "Story of O" the same semester as the PhG, the idea of a porn version of the PhG *did* seem like a good one. "Story of G"?
Ick. I resist the idea that it has anything to do with S/M. Not all sexual acts that involve attention and care are about dominance or submission.
I was curious because an important characteristic of the lord in that section seems to be that he lacks self-consciousness, while the fister must be careful and, in that respect, fully aware of the implications of his actions.
I resist the idea that it has anything to do with S/M.
Not necessarily, of course, but YMMV. I would only point out that some of the S/M dynamic permeates a lot of plain vanilla sex, but I'd hope to dodge the less than fruitful on/off-our-backs debates ....
Similarly, as for care/consciousness, *playing* at a lack of same can be part of the dynamic. Just as the (bottom's? but that invokes Bitch Ph.D.'s objection, & "receptive partner" is so legalistic ...)fuckee's "control" is in fact mutually consented to. In Hegel, people really are being enslaved, which is just another reason the PhG does not actually work so well as a sex manual.
. . . the bottom appears to be dominated/"losing" but in significant respects is in control/"winning."
Wait a second. You mean Michael's been winning? All this time??? That sneaky little bastard!!!
Eh, I'm not convinced by the whole "some of the S/M dynamic permeates a lot of plain vanilla sex" claim. I mean, sure: sex involves exchange, aggression, reception, passivity, activity, etc. etc., in various combinations and at various times. But I think the connections can be overstated.
But I think the connections can be overstated.
Well, we tend to overstate the connections that work for us, & avoid dating people who overstate the one's we'd rather understate .... Obviously the S/M resonances work for me--I'm a lawyer ....
LOL. Fair enough. And kudos for a good-humored response. :)
I would only point out that some of the S/M dynamic permeates a lot of plain vanilla sex
This gets it exactly right.
What constitutes "plain vanilla" is a bit subjective. I resist your efforts to paint the rest of us with your brush of freakiness.
I resist your efforts to paint the rest of us with your brush of freakiness.
Oh, come on, you know you WANT the brush of freakiness to be dragged lingeringly across your bare torso ...
No, gswift wants the barbed brush of freakishness, and he doesn't want it slow. Speaking of tingling, burning sensations (maybe this should go in the VD thread?), my idiot roommate nearly killed us all. He left something in the oven and left the oven on. Apparently we do not have a smoke detector. I just tried knocking vigorously on his door to tell him about this, but he's not answering even though I'm pretty sure he's in there. Maybe he's asleep. Oh well. I flooded the apartment a week ago. But I cleaned it up before anyone got home.
Yeah -- it was actually a little weird to read Bitch Ph. D.'s 108 -- it seems to me like I have read her arguing before that a key property of subtext is that you do not have to be conscious of it for it to affect you -- and it seems to me like S/M (to which I hasten to clarify, I am entirely a stranger) is at least in part a vocalization* of a subtext that is present in sex.
*Right word? I am trying to say "this subtext is there but unspoken; in practicing S/M somebody is giving it a name, bringing it out into the open and playing with it".
108 does open with 'sure'. I don't think she's denying that you can look at it that way; just asserting that the importance of S&M as a tool for understanding all sex can be overstated.
No, not "sure," "ick."
Of course the argument MK puts forward in 121 is there to be made. I think I'm still reacting to the Great Blow Job debate, which in part hinged on the question of whether bjs are inherently submissive/degrading.
Hey did I mention my friend's client, who is trying to use his inherited wealth to open a BDSM B & B in the city?
123 -- yeah, I'm pretty agnostic about the merits of the argument. Just that it seemed like 108 was denying that it could possibly exist or have any merit in a way that seemed uncharacteristic coming from you.
I read that thread. In fact, I felt a kind of evil satisfaction that a vanilla ox was being gored. I certainly don't think bj's are inherently submissive anyway; on the contrary, they often make you feel powerful. But that goes back to the idea that power, aggression, exchange, &c. are present in vanilla sex.
But I oscillate constantly between insisting that there is no fixed meaning and dogmatically asserting the Way Things Are! Maybe it's been too long since my last absolutist declaration. I'll have to come up with something.
By the end of the thread I was just pissed off at everyone for confusing 'I feel powerful' with 'I am empowered.'
Leaving the Sex Police aside, I'm pretty sure in a world where men and women were equal, people would continue to go down on each other.
Umm...where is the Great Blow Job Debate?
The great blow job debate was boring, Tim. Be glad you missed it.
I dunno. Where are all the women bloggers?
No, seriously, where is it? Just so I feel fully informed on the subject. Should it come up. And maybe most importantly, is "great" modifying "debate" or "blow job"?
Here's the reference. It was going on at Twisty's, Pandagon, and Feministe over the weekend.
Toilet seat: up or down?
136 - B, that's more tired than the BJ debate. Don't tell me that next we're going to go into "if all sexual relationships have D/S dynamics, is marriage institutionalizing blah blah blah." If we're going to talk blowjobs or BDSM, make it good.
Fine, Tia, but what I'd like to know is, where are all the women bloggers?
I can't hear you, I have a banana in my ear.
There aren't any women bloggers because they're too busy making submissive eye contact while giving blowjobs that to the uneducated eye look like sexual assault and fantasies from porn, but to the educated eye are what's really going on in every bedroom.*
*Unless it's BDSM. Because then it's an ironicblowjob.
I can't hear you, I have a banana in my ear.
Mmm...hott. Do you feel degraded or empowered?
Do oo huuh huh houwou oud?
Louder, sonny. Banana.
"I'm pretty sure in a world where men and women were equal, people would continue to go down on each other."
Absolutely. I'm almost as sure that there would continue to be S/M. I think, at least much of the time, the origins of masochism are damaged trust in one's childhood, and difficulty trusting in adulthood. It's erotic to be forced into a position of near-absolute trust in someone, even if it's only pretend near-absolute. About sadism, I'm much less sure. For one, it's less common (tops are hard to find) and for another I'm sure many tops aren't actually sadistic, but take vicarious pleasure through their bottoms.
And things like that don't go away when everyone is equal. They go away when parents stop fucking up their children.
Ben has a watermelon in his ear because he likes to feel totally full.
Huh. I didn't get to pet the kitty, but my comment still didn't register in the sidebar. Usually when that happens it's when I've pet the kitty.
150: I've also noticed that happening lately.
Ben has a watermelon in his ear because he likes to feel totally full.
If men can't be feminists, then isn't feminism itself sexist?
Also, is that "watermelon" thing some kind of racist crack? Hmm?
OK, I've only just found one of the Great Blow Job debate entries, so maybe it sucks, and I'll realize that shortly, but so far it looks like sister-shaming is worth the price of admission.
pdf23ds, I'm inclined to agree with you about the impulses leading to bdsm, but I'm not sure there would be bdsm if there were no patriarchy, because I think patriarchy may be what makes sex the kind of crazy fantasy heal our booboos space it is. But I'm not wedded to any opinion.
Words I don't identify with w/r/t sex: "masochist," "irony," "game."
Becks, you have betrayed the sisterhood for the amusement of the Patriarchal Oppressors. Your membership is being revoked.
Oh fuck, that was me. Time for a self-criticism!
Also, the first google result for "Twisty's" is neither the appropriate blog, nor SFW.
when parents stop fucking up their children
Yeah, well: this be the verse, bain't it?
Wait, I think I'm on to something.
If relativism is true…
Then the Unhappy Consciousness is due to emerge?
156: You may be right about that. On the other hand, S/M play doesn't necessarily have anything to do with sex. I imagine the humiliation and slut-shaming aspects would disappear from S/M play (and I imagine many feminists wouldn't be into those aspects currently), but there's plenty to BDSM besides that.
Also, I don't use the word "masochist", since "bottom" is there and much better. But I don't believe "bottomism" makes a great neologism.
159: I had that in mind while writing my comment. I hesitated to write "fuck the children", though.
Relativism didn't really stand a chance, did it?
Let's do materialism next.
Actually, rereading that, it does say "fuck up". Huh. I wonder why I misremembered.
159: but that's not what "fuck up" means there, as I thought I'd ably demonstrated elsewhere.
I wonder why I misremembered.
I'm going to resist the cheap shots.
Forgive me for my stubbornness, but what is so submissive about the mid-blowjob eye contact? I can understand the argument that the blowjob itself is submissive/degrading (although I do not agree), but why does the submission reside/get intensified by the eye contact?
ably demonstrated
I loved that post, Ben, but "ably" isn't the word I'd use.
171: Dude, don't ask me. I suppose if the argument is that bjs are degrading, then being sure you can watch someone watching you degrade yourself is doubly degrading.
I'll let slol's use of praeteriteo pass without comment.
171: I was wondering that myself. Here I am, someone who actively seeks out submissive feelings, and I've never experienced eye contact that way. It's always more like "Hey there, baby." A way to increase intimacy and connection.
I won't explain that I feel entitled to praeteritio, as a safer indulgence than drinking oneself blind, once in a blue moon.
171, 175: Honestly, it never occurred to me, but the impressions I got from the Twisty/Pandagon threads was that the eye contact request originated in porn cinematography, so a guy requesting it is like him requesting you to be his porn star (submissive, attendant to his needs, etc.)
175: Yeah, it's just like a communication substitute. You can't exactly say anything, because, well, you're busy.
That's an odd use of the subjunctive, teofilo. Or maybe you're a pirate?
Also, there's praeteritio, and then there's laziness.
174: Wow, that is one obscure term. Thankfully, the rosy-toed Alameida comes to the rescue. And only one other page? Wow.
Also, wouldn't an avoidance of eye contact somehow signal shame?
slut-shaming aspects would disappear from S/M play (and I imagine many feminists wouldn't be into those aspects currently)
I don't know that that's true. One's conscious beliefs and one's subconscious desires often aren't aligned all that well, right? (See, TMK? Back to normal!)
Or did SB misspell it? I'm so confused.
Although I agree that the slut-shaming thing would go away if the concept of sex being shameful did.
I remember suddenly that someone's kitty was struck and killed by a car today, and I am so sad for that kitty, and for that someone who had to find out.
that is one obscure term
I o-earnestly, fervently believe that if all voting Americans understood praeteritio, litotes, and a few other rhetorical devices, all our political problems would vanish.
To be replaced by other, far more sophisticated ones, of course.
Anyway, 175 accords with my experience.
186: You don't know if my parenthetical remark is true, or whether the first part is true? Because of course the second part isn't always true--many people come to feminism after being brought up in grossly misogynistic environments, well after their psychosexual development is more or less finished. But I stand by the first part.
Slut-shaming! I was pretty excited about reading that book, The Myth of the Teenage Slut or whatever it was called, but then it sucked. Absolutely horrible writing and organization.
Someone wrote that I was a slut in the girls' bathroom in 7th grade. Good times.
Someone wrote that I was a slut in the girls' bathroom in 7th grade.
Jeebus. Isn't that a sort of serious charge in Egypt?
192: The second. The first I agree with.
189: Sad!
190: Okay, now I feel ignorant and unqualified for suffrage.
190: Okay, now I feel ignorant and unqualified for suffrage.
I wouldn't worry too much about not knowing what litotes is, though it's true it's played a not unimportant role in rhetoric historically.
197: By which I mean that I'm glad that there were (I assume) lesser consequences to such a charge. Not that the charge was made.
I'll just go shoot myself now, shall I?