[Discussion] Men talking to men about Feminism

This thread is for people who believe that when it comes to feminism it's important for men to listen to women and to talk to men.

In this thread we assume Feminism is something you wholeheartedly support or want to support. Questions about the validity of Feminism are for somewhere else.

zeroKFE wrote:

Also, and this is genuine curiosity because I just don't have enough conservative religious people in my life who I'd be comfortable asking to conduct my own survey, but do you (or anyone else) have any sense of how much of that is about the masturbation, and how much is about the porn?

Because, I mean, masturbation doesn't necessarily need to involve porn, and even without having to deal with all the complexities of the morality and ethics of porn, the conversation could at least move forward a bit if we could just reframe how our culture understands masturbation.

Beat me to it. I was going to reference the Seinfeld contest and the Glamour magazine.

jdzappa wrote:

@zeroKFE - you make excellent points and I think you are correct in that the porn is frowned upon more than the masturbation. Im glad to hear that there is a movement to more ethical porn as I don’t have a problem with consenting adults choosing to do porn as long as it’s not exploitive. Heck, the civic libertarian in me would be ok with legalizing prostitution if it could be done in an equitable manner (which may or may not be possible).

I am fortunate in that I get a pass to watch stuff like Game of Thrones which some of my friends don’t. Written erotica doesn’t do it for me even though as a writer I appreciate well crafted sex scenes.

Oh, and of course you could also look into hobbyist content too. I use the term hobbyist due to the word "amateur" having been more or less claimed as a term of art for traditional producers selling people's (often stolen) personal content, or creating products that have a similar feel. Anyway, it's kind of funny that it didn't even occur to me as part of the conversation earlier, because I just think of it as a routine part of the kink oriented social network sites, but it's much easier to satisfy ethical considerations about pornography when it's being created and shared directly by the participants without a (direct, at least) financial motivation. Obviously situations of exploitation and/or people making bad choices they'll regret later still exist, but I think it's not hard to imagine it being slightly easier to parse ethically.

Admittedly, especially for those less into (or with partners less into) the whole free wheeling sex positive flying of freak flags thing, there definitely are other concerns that could arise around the increased potential to betray other aspects of a committed relationship when the artificial boundary of a financial transition is replaced with people seeking to share sexually explicit content on a more personal level. But, you know, another opportunity to strengthen a committed relationship by having a honest, forthcoming discussion about desires, interests, boundaries, and limits, right?

jdzappa wrote:
Valmorian wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Buuuut, if you enter into a relationship with an explicit rule of "I'm the only person that you're allowed to f*ck", then you are taking responsibility for your partner's needs, because you've explicitly told them that no-one else can.

Huh? Since when does marriage suddenly render a person unable to masturbate?

FWIW that’s not always an option in more conservative marriages. Sure you can do it but if your wife considers it borderline cheating than youre damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

I told myself I wouldn't participate, since this is a "by men, for men" thread, but I've just been dying to mention the Jehovah's Witness anti-masturbation videos that were just -ahem- released a few days ago.

Porn doesn't need to be exploitative. I got to listen to Susan Faludi (BTW "Stiffed" should be mandatory reading) and she noted that in mainstream porn the women get to choose their partners, what they want and don't want to do, and they make more money. This was maybe 14 years ago though and that industry has changed so much that it may be less true now. Listening to "The Butterfly Effect" by Jon Ronson though makes me believe that view is still strong in some circles.

It is somewhat of a different point of view but there are few industries it seems where women do have those advantages. The obvious rebuttal would be it is through objectification of their bodies. I'm not sure there is a stronger rebuttal other than women choosing to objectify themselves (in a safe environment) should be a part of feminism too.

I feel that a lot of men find that maintenance sex is a mostly women-only matter primarily because men refuse to do it, or even consider doing it, even when their partners are doing it for them. That's an unequal relationship, is it not?

Does it bug you that your partner wants to snuggle after you're done with an orgasm? That's probably a maintenance sex request. You haven't done it for her, sometimes because your touch technique was insufficient or because she needs more or because she's just not done yet (though you should already know that!). Men often complain that women stay awake and bug us after sex. I have not found this to be the case with my partners. Women are very like men in this way. When they're physically satisfied with the sex they got, they drift off to sleep just as quickly as any man. Necessary caveat: I've only had sex with three people.

Of course, a woman could be satisfied with as much sex in a specific encounter, just as men can. But if she's looking for knock-out (literally knock-out) sex and she provides for you, shouldn't you at least return the favor? That's reasonable, right?

LarryC wrote:

I feel that a lot of men find that maintenance sex is a mostly women-only matter primarily because men refuse to do it, or even consider doing it, even when their partners are doing it for them. That's an unequal relationship, is it not?

Does it bug you that your partner wants to snuggle after you're done with an orgasm? That's probably a maintenance sex request. You haven't done it for her, sometimes because your touch technique was insufficient or because she needs more or because she's just not done yet (though you should already know that!). Men often complain that women stay awake and bug us after sex. I have not found this to be the case with my partners. Women are very like men in this way. When they're physically satisfied with the sex they got, they drift off to sleep just as quickly as any man. Necessary caveat: I've only had sex with three people.

Of course, a woman could be satisfied with as much sex in a specific encounter, just as men can. But if she's looking for knock-out (literally knock-out) sex and she provides for you, shouldn't you at least return the favor? That's reasonable, right?

So I think you have a good point in here especially with the first paragraph. I kind of lost your point later in.
Regardless, it should be a two-way communication street. When my wife and I were having some issues a couple years ago, one of the books I read was about languages of love. While mostly bullsh*t psycho babble, the idea that people have differing needs and being able to recognize that you and your partner have different ones was a good piece of insight.
So it likely is that maintenance sex as a physical activity is probably more commonly something "needed" by men. But there are also equally important maintenance "intimacy"* activities that a partner may need as well.
* - I couldn't think of a more generic, but still love/relationship/intimacy related term.

With sex and most things really you should talk with your partner and know how they feel about things. The things brought up in this thread are great things to think about but none of them apply to 100% of couples. For example I have heard women say they want confirmation before each sex act and I have heard other women say that would drive them crazy. Neither position is wrong you just need a partner that agrees with your position or is willing to go along with it. Same with maintenance sex no matter how you want to define it.

Perhaps a better term is maintenance intimacy?

lunchbox12682 wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I feel that a lot of men find that maintenance sex is a mostly women-only matter primarily because men refuse to do it, or even consider doing it, even when their partners are doing it for them. That's an unequal relationship, is it not?

Does it bug you that your partner wants to snuggle after you're done with an orgasm? That's probably a maintenance sex request. You haven't done it for her, sometimes because your touch technique was insufficient or because she needs more or because she's just not done yet (though you should already know that!). Men often complain that women stay awake and bug us after sex. I have not found this to be the case with my partners. Women are very like men in this way. When they're physically satisfied with the sex they got, they drift off to sleep just as quickly as any man. Necessary caveat: I've only had sex with three people.

Of course, a woman could be satisfied with as much sex in a specific encounter, just as men can. But if she's looking for knock-out (literally knock-out) sex and she provides for you, shouldn't you at least return the favor? That's reasonable, right?

So I think you have a good point in here especially with the first paragraph. I kind of lost your point later in.
Regardless, it should be a two-way communication street. When my wife and I were having some issues a couple years ago, one of the books I read was about languages of love. While mostly bullsh*t psycho babble, the idea that people have differing needs and being able to recognize that you and your partner have different ones was a good piece of insight.
So it likely is that maintenance sex as a physical activity is probably more commonly something "needed" by men. But there are also equally important maintenance "intimacy"* activities that a partner may need as well.
* - I couldn't think of a more generic, but still love/relationship/intimacy related term.

My point is that women probably need it just as much but men see their requests as annoying, insignificant, and unsexy. So men simply don't respond to it and don't fulfill it and yet don't see a problem.

LarryC wrote:
lunchbox12682 wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I feel that a lot of men find that maintenance sex is a mostly women-only matter primarily because men refuse to do it, or even consider doing it, even when their partners are doing it for them. That's an unequal relationship, is it not?

Does it bug you that your partner wants to snuggle after you're done with an orgasm? That's probably a maintenance sex request. You haven't done it for her, sometimes because your touch technique was insufficient or because she needs more or because she's just not done yet (though you should already know that!). Men often complain that women stay awake and bug us after sex. I have not found this to be the case with my partners. Women are very like men in this way. When they're physically satisfied with the sex they got, they drift off to sleep just as quickly as any man. Necessary caveat: I've only had sex with three people.

Of course, a woman could be satisfied with as much sex in a specific encounter, just as men can. But if she's looking for knock-out (literally knock-out) sex and she provides for you, shouldn't you at least return the favor? That's reasonable, right?

So I think you have a good point in here especially with the first paragraph. I kind of lost your point later in.
Regardless, it should be a two-way communication street. When my wife and I were having some issues a couple years ago, one of the books I read was about languages of love. While mostly bullsh*t psycho babble, the idea that people have differing needs and being able to recognize that you and your partner have different ones was a good piece of insight.
So it likely is that maintenance sex as a physical activity is probably more commonly something "needed" by men. But there are also equally important maintenance "intimacy"* activities that a partner may need as well.
* - I couldn't think of a more generic, but still love/relationship/intimacy related term.

My point is that women probably need it just as much but men see their requests as annoying, insignificant, and unsexy. So men simply don't respond to it and don't fulfill it and yet don't see a problem.

Ok, so then I think we are on the same page?

More or less.

LarryC wrote:

I've only had sex with three people.

Three! Wow, getting into Jonman territory there!

Hehe, I kid (at least I'm pretty sure you didn't mean "at the same time" :D)

No. All my sexual experiences have been threesomes. I have no idea how people get on with only two. That's weird.

LarryC wrote:

No. All my sexual experiences have been threesomes. I have no idea how people get on with only two. That's weird. ;)

Catholics have to leave room for the Holy Spirit!

Stele wrote:
zeroKFE wrote:

Also, and this is genuine curiosity because I just don't have enough conservative religious people in my life who I'd be comfortable asking to conduct my own survey, but do you (or anyone else) have any sense of how much of that is about the masturbation, and how much is about the porn?

Because, I mean, masturbation doesn't necessarily need to involve porn, and even without having to deal with all the complexities of the morality and ethics of porn, the conversation could at least move forward a bit if we could just reframe how our culture understands masturbation.

Beat me to it. I was going to reference the Seinfeld contest and the Glamour magazine. ;)

Oh, rest assured that there are definitions of "pornography" (a term itself derived from the Greek "porneia") available to encompass objectifying women in fashion magazines.

I'll take a shot at giving an overview of conservative Christian thoughts on this.

So for those curious, there's about as broad a range of beliefs here as you could imagine. The "safe" stance is generally presumed to be the more restrictive stance, however. There is Biblical language about "spilling your seed" in pretty much any way that's not inside your wife ("onanism," named for Onan, whose sin was pulling out - see Genesis 38)*, but the most common concern is Jesus's language concerning "lust":

Matthew 5 (ESV) wrote:

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

This, of course, is the sort of language that leads despairing folks to consider some pretty egregious self harm. In the context of the New Testament, it can be understood as part of a larger move in Jesus's sermon section showing that nobody is sinless. (The passage quoted immediately follows similar language about anger and murder.) That context, however, does not obviate the condemnation of anger or lust, but it doesn't make clear whether "lust" means objectification, explicitly imagining sex, or really anything rising above casual disinterest.

* There's actually some discussion out there from spiritual leaders, citing historical theological precedent, that basically says any orifice will do; it's the woman's responsibility from that point. The theological precedent was set before it was clear how babies are made. (A common prior belief was that sperm were basically the same as plant seeds, and the uterus was just "soil.")

Some sports leagues (F1 and pro darts) have gotten rid of spokesmodels while NASCAR added them last year. Some women are now defending their right to make money as spokesmodels.

Rebecca Cooper, a five time F1 grid girl, said on Twitter that it is "ridiculous that women who say they are 'fighting for women's rights' are saying what others should and shouldn't do, stopping us from doing a job we love and are proud to do. [It is] political correctness gone mad."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mot...

Women are able to earn some good money and make business connections in some of these ventures. Is it exploitative? How wide a net should be cast? Instagram models with good following can make a lot of money pitching products and enjoy the autonomy of being self employed. At what point if any is it ok for a woman to make money off of their looks?

I know this is the men's discussion board, but I would absolutely like to hear what the women in our community think as well..

It’s a classic problem of not understanding what the problem is, nor who the ire is directed at.

And the problem here is one of branding, and the ire is directed at the organization, not the models.

Does F1 want to brand itself as chauvinistic or socially regressive? No? No grid girls for F1 then. Does NASCAR share these concerns? No. Wa-hey! Grid girls for them!

Moreover, you can lay that problem at the feet of the audience. NASCAR is squarely targeted at middle America, and ignores the rest of the world entirely. Grid girls play well with that audience, and so there they are. F1 is an entirely international audience, and needs to target it’s branding accordingly.

To answer your question – “at what point is it OK for women to make a living off their looks”, the answer is “all of the points”, BUT, that doesn’t mandate that every single organization has to employ those women in that fashion. I doubt you’ll find many bikini-clad models employed by funeral homes, for instance.

I can only speak to F1, but my thoughts are this. It is always okay for a woman to make money off her looks if she is comfortable with the conditions. But that's not the issue here. [Edit: Jonman-hausered!] I am happy the practice of grid girls has ended. Their primary purpose was truly to be furniture for men to look at and stroke the egos of the male drivers; and any tangential benefits to being a grid girl weren't inherent to the position. It wasn't their sole source of income, and there are pre-existing ways to become stunt and competitive drivers (and that's a very specific case). Those ways need to be greatly improved to encourage more women to join the sport and foster them in it, and removing the impression that grid girls create is one step in that direction.

The next best alternative would have been to use more "grid boys", which has been tried a few times in F1, but (disproving any idea that grid girls aren't there for male consumption) never caught on; or let kids take the role to get a chance to be near their heroes (though asking a kid to stand on tarmac under the sun for some time is a bigger asking than running out on to the pitch or ice for a national anthem [Edit 2: Formula E has been having grid kids]). Better to do away with it altogether.

FWIW I took my kid to monster truck jam and there were several highly competitive women drivers in the race. One of the race announcers was an attractive female but it was obvious she wasn’t there just as eye candy.

I understand there are probably certain pro sports where it would be hard if not impossible for women to compete alongside men. I don’t think racing is one of those sports, and if F1 is serious about equality they also need to push recruitment of women drivers and support crews harder.

wordsmythe wrote:
Stele wrote:
zeroKFE wrote:

Also, and this is genuine curiosity because I just don't have enough conservative religious people in my life who I'd be comfortable asking to conduct my own survey, but do you (or anyone else) have any sense of how much of that is about the masturbation, and how much is about the porn?

Because, I mean, masturbation doesn't necessarily need to involve porn, and even without having to deal with all the complexities of the morality and ethics of porn, the conversation could at least move forward a bit if we could just reframe how our culture understands masturbation.

Beat me to it. I was going to reference the Seinfeld contest and the Glamour magazine. ;)

Oh, rest assured that there are definitions of "pornography" (a term itself derived from the Greek "porneia") available to encompass objectifying women in fashion magazines.

I'll take a shot at giving an overview of conservative Christian thoughts on this.

So for those curious, there's about as broad a range of beliefs here as you could imagine. The "safe" stance is generally presumed to be the more restrictive stance, however. There is Biblical language about "spilling your seed" in pretty much any way that's not inside your wife ("onanism," named for Onan, whose sin was pulling out - see Genesis 38)*, but the most common concern is Jesus's language concerning "lust":

Matthew 5 (ESV) wrote:

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

This, of course, is the sort of language that leads despairing folks to consider some pretty egregious self harm. In the context of the New Testament, it can be understood as part of a larger move in Jesus's sermon section showing that nobody is sinless. (The passage quoted immediately follows similar language about anger and murder.) That context, however, does not obviate the condemnation of anger or lust, but it doesn't make clear whether "lust" means objectification, explicitly imagining sex, or really anything rising above casual disinterest.

* There's actually some discussion out there from spiritual leaders, citing historical theological precedent, that basically says any orifice will do; it's the woman's responsibility from that point. The theological precedent was set before it was clear how babies are made. (A common prior belief was that sperm were basically the same as plant seeds, and the uterus was just "soil.")

Good summary. For what it's worth, the actual sin in the "Onan" incident in Genesis 38 wasn't so much where he "spilled his seed", as why he did. He was supposed to give Tamar a son to be an heir (weird custom I know, but having an heir was a big deal back then), but instead was exploiting her as an object for his own sexual pleasure.

The grid girl thing is but a symptom of the broader malaise; yes, we can all agree that women are free to become financially successful with whatever means and opportunities are available, yet some of those means involves systemic objectification which are self-defeating to the feminist cause.

I mean, why is it attractive women succeed more readily than their less attractive counterparts? That social conditioning is the real problem, isn't it? Because a meritocracy doesn't rely on artificial looks, it turns upon capabilities.

Nomad wrote:

Good summary. For what it's worth, the actual sin in the "Onan" incident in Genesis 38 wasn't so much where he "spilled his seed", as why he did. He was supposed to give Tamar a son to be an heir (weird custom I know, but having an heir was a big deal back then), but instead was exploiting her as an object for his own sexual pleasure.

Fair reading. I think there's a lot that can be unpacked there.

While I do find the scholarly scriptural analysis of the nature and origin of biblical prohibitions of masturbation interesting, I'm much more interested to learn about more practical matters, such as how you feel that proscription affecting yourselves and those you know within more religious/conservative communities in the present day. That is, regardless of what the bible says, how do you and people you know split the taboo between the actual activity, and the things people often engage with as part of the activity — or do you split it at all — and does it seem like movement in attitudes about the activity itself would be easier if that was part of a discussion separated from pornography?

And while I'm asking questions along those lines:

In recent years (or in the progression of generations) have you seen any changes (or room for change) in the way that traditional biblical views shape attitudes towards masturbation within yourselves and people you know?

Within the communities you're a part of, does the concept of recontextualizing and destigmatizing masturbation seem like a tractable idea in any form at at all?

For example, what about if it's framed as part of a conversation about changing how we train our youth to think about sex and its place within relationships, with an eye towards improving the odds of men (and people of all gender persuasions for that matter) having healthier and/or more permissive attitudes that could increase the odds of having successful committed relationships?

Or, to frame the whole survey another way, do you see your religious/conservative communities as potentially open (or at least more open relatively speaking) towards coming along with some amount of recent progressive/liberal cultural shifts towards sex positivity and a feminist dismantling of patriarchal attitudes towards sex if the conversation were appropriately staged?

And is the current cultural moment of sudden awareness shifts regarding sexual assault and harassment perhaps opening previously closed minds regarding the value of progressing past those traditional patriarchal attitudes? Or does it instead seem like evidence refuting progressive sexual politics? Both? Something in between, or maybe different entirely?

Can't say I will shed a tear if the world stopped rewarding people for just being attractive.

DanB wrote:

Can't say I will shed a tear if the world stopped rewarding people for just being attractive.

Never gonna happen. It's literally hardwired into people to be nicer to people they find attractive.

zeroKFE wrote:

While I do find the scholarly scriptural analysis of the nature and origin of biblical prohibitions of masturbation interesting, I'm much more interested to learn about more practical matters, such as how you feel that proscription affecting yourselves and those you know within more religious/conservative communities in the present day. That is, regardless of what the bible says, how do you and people you know split the taboo between the actual activity, and the things people often engage with as part of the activity — or do you split it at all — and does it seem like movement in attitudes about the activity itself would be easier if that was part of a discussion separated from pornography?

And while I'm asking questions along those lines:

In recent years (or in the progression of generations) have you seen any changes (or room for change) in the way that traditional biblical views shape attitudes towards masturbation within yourselves and people you know?

Within the communities you're a part of, does the concept of recontextualizing and destigmatizing masturbation seem like a tractable idea in any form at at all?

For example, what about if it's framed as part of a conversation about changing how we train our youth to think about sex and its place within relationships, with an eye towards improving the odds of men (and people of all gender persuasions for that matter) having healthier and/or more permissive attitudes that could increase the odds of having successful committed relationships?

Or, to frame the whole survey another way, do you see your religious/conservative communities as potentially open (or at least more open relatively speaking) towards coming along with some amount of recent progressive/liberal cultural shifts towards sex positivity and a feminist dismantling of patriarchal attitudes towards sex if the conversation were appropriately staged?

And is the current cultural moment of sudden awareness shifts regarding sexual assault and harassment perhaps opening previously closed minds regarding the value of progressing past those traditional patriarchal attitudes? Or does it instead seem like evidence refuting progressive sexual politics? Both? Something in between, or maybe different entirely?

While masturbation isn't really my field of expertise ( ), I can give you some links for a diversity of replies from the Christian community. The hard part of this question, like so many other questions about what Christians believe about things that are not specifically addressed in scripture, is that there is a huge amount of diversity in thought coming from a hugely diverse group of people.

https://rachelheldevans.com/blog/chr...
https://relevantmagazine.com/life/re...
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles...

Thanks for the links! They are great and make for very interesting reading, as I definitely am also curious what "thought leader" types in such communities are making of the subject in recent years, and they significantly address many of my questions above.

But, I guess I'm still not asking my questions correctly. With the understanding that I have no intention of drawing any broad generalizations, and that I don't at all expect you to speak for all Christians (/other religious communities) or even for everyone in your personal communities, I'm really, genuinely interested to hear the personal anecdotal thoughts and experiences of regular folks around those questions.

Clearly, I have strong viewpoints about lots of things related to the politics of sexuality, and they are viewpoints I would love to see to at least some extent become more prevalent in our broader culture because I think they could help people be happier and hurt each other less. I'm also very realistic about the nature of how that kind of change happens, and I realize that the impact I can have is small. But, one of the ways that kind of change happens is something I can participate in — having open, empathetic, good faith conversations and debates about the things I feel strongly about, especially when those conversations are with people outside my little bubble of cultural agreement.

I mean, I know we're not going to dismantle the patriarchy in one fell swoop by asking people of faith how they currently feel about biblical prohibitions on on masturbation (in fact, I'm hard pressed to think of a more silly concept at the moment). But as I discussed a bit in a previous post, culturally assimilated puritanical attitudes towards sex are a huge roadblock on the path towards people having healthy, functional understandings about things like, you know, how consent works, and other matters where gender identity intersect with interpersonal relationships, sexual and otherwise. And I feel like any small inroad that could be found where folks who are more conservative or religious by nature could reconcile that and find ways to make movement away from at least some of the more outdated parts of traditional thought, well, it's something, right?

So, partially I'm trying to directly start a conversation like that here in a place that's a little more safe and controlled than an in person conversation, and partially I'm looking to increase my understanding of where regular people might be about the topic to hopefully help me bring more useful insight the next time I am chatting with someone face to face.

But at the same time, it's also totally understandable if it feels too personal or uncomfortable to talk about, or if you're just not interested for any other reason. I totally get it — even with a liberal hippy upbringing, and with more than half a decade as a member of communities where frankly discussing one's sexual (and otherwise) tastes and proclivities is no more scandalous than mentioning a great coffee shop you found the other day, I still get overwhelmed with discomfort about this kind of conversation, because I was still raised in the same culture, and it's really, really hard to overcome that even in the contexts where it's most clearly safe.

I mean, there are plenty of other much more meaty and substantive things that could be discussed in the space instead, after all.

In my experience most religious people don't feel comfortable talking about this stuff. I have no idea what anyone from the church I grew up with thinks about any of this.

So after seeing Uma on the red carpet a while ago I had a bit of an “aha” moment. My wife is a producer and she had heard stories about Uma being particularly difficult to work with to the point her own agent called her “the c*nt”. I took that at face value, especially since her agent was a woman.

When the Weinstein stuff came out I massively reassessed that and thought “yeah, no, trust the woman not the power structure in these situations”. And then after that interview where it came out that her agency was aggressively pushing her not to pursue anything against Tarantino or Weinstein… well, yeah.

Stele wrote:

In my experience most religious people don't feel comfortable talking about this stuff. I have no idea what anyone from the church I grew up with thinks about any of this.

I honestly think this is a big part of it. People aren't trying to be stodgy or oppressive, it's just an incredibly difficult thing to talk about. I realize I probably overshared but I am trying to negotiate a few things.

Regarding Uma Thurman, the latest NY Times piece is absolutely heartbreaking.