Saturday, February 16, 2008

Friends With Benefits

I sincerely doubt this is what Reverend Rob was thinking of when he asked for diversity of opinion on his blogroll or about stories of mentoring moments but here it is. Remember, when you ask for an opinion, you just might get one.

I had a mentoring moment with The Girl just the other day. She asked me what I thought of friends with benefits. I told her that it rarely works out, unfortunately, and hardly ever when you are young. Why? Because we've all been fed the Cinderella story of True Love and Happily Ever After and Sex=Love=Marriage is part of that fairy tale. It takes some actual experience with the world to really understand just how much that is total bullshit.

Sex is the act of mating with another of one's own species for pleasure. That is sex in God's Creation(tm) the animal kingdom over.

Love is an emotional bond between two people engendering feelings of intimacy.

Marriage is a social convention invented to control the population's access to the first two things in a power grab of monumental proportions. It is no mistake that religions the world over seem preoccupied with what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms with their own genitals.

And for too many young people, the indoctrination has been strong. Many are unable to separate the three despite how damaging it is to their lives until they get much older.

Moving on, equating people like Konagod and Txrad or my sister and her partner to polygamy (many times, the women are less than fully consenting in those relationships but are instead sold into it by their fathers) or bestiality, while certainly not original, is still incredibly offensive and narrow. It's been scientifically proven that there is a genetic component to homosexuality. It was written into our DNA and therefore was in God's Plan. There have always been homosexuals and there always will be across cultures, continents and countries in all of human development. There is homosexuality in much of the animal kingdom from swans to bonobos to people. It was in God's Plan, if you believe in such things. So, God created homosexuals why? If you listen to religion, it was so they could live their lives alone, in perpetual loneliness, as a testament to God's Love or to live a lie and involve at least one other human being in their lie. That is one cruel god you got there.

The undertone by way of the rant about divorced people is concerning and quite frankly dangerous to those in abusive relationships. Physical abuse is easy to point to but I'm thinking of all forms of abuse including emotional and verbal. Those kinds of abuse kill too and sometimes, being alone is better than being in that particular relationship.

Tangentially, I can't believe we're still promoting this 'for life' idea when life has gone from being 40 yrs to being almost 100 yrs. When this whole idea was generated, people married for life might be married for 20 years and that was a long time. Now, we're looking at being married for 80 years and that's just ridiculous. People change. People grow. People who were compatible at 20 may not still be compatible at all when they are 50 or 60. So, then what? Stay married despite misery? Is that God's plan, for His children to be miserable for most of their adult lives, chained to a person whom s/he no longer even likes, let alone loves? I guess God's cruelty isn't reserved simply for homosexuals. He doesn't seem to like heterosexuals much either.

So, back to Friends with Benefits. Rev. Rob says:
It keeps on giving disease.

It keeps on giving lonely feelings.

It keeps on giving jealousy, sadness, rejection, anger and depression.

Yep, it’s the gift that never stops giving…until you’re dead.

Oh, that’s the final gift—when you wake up at the end of your life and have to search high and low for any real meaning to your existence.

Because there were no STDs prior to the inception of MTV. No one who is married is ever plagued with loneliness, even those in horrible marriages. Repeat for jealousy, sadness, rejection, anger and depression (the last of which, btw, is a chemical imbalance in the brain and a medical condition, not a side effect of either marriage or singleness. That's like saying that Type II diabetes is a side effect of being married since most people who develop it are married.) And finally, if being married is what gives "real meaning to your existence", you've put an awful burden on your partner and one s/he cannot possibly fulfill. No one other person should be saddled with the responsibility of giving your life meaning. You give your life meaning by what you do in this world. You share that journey with another person if you choose to do so as s/he share his/hers with you. I also am married and prior to that had 'friends with benefits' relationships and so I too am "smokin' what I'm sellin".

BTW, that brings me to another point: When you get someone else a gift, it's supposed to be for the other person, what s/he likes, not for yourself and what you like. That's what a "gift" is. Just saying.

24 comments:

konagod said...

I forgot about the Rev. Bob until I saw your post. I had a message from him as well regarding the blogroll and I didn't add him.

And it's partly out of respect for his readers, just as I neglected to add the Jade Gate, partly out of respect for my readers.

I didn't spend enough time looking at the Reverend's blog, but I sensed that I probably don't belong on his blog roll. I have no doubt that I occasionally offend somebody with something I might post. It's not my intent; it just happens.

But I saw no need to essentially create an easy doorway into my blog for anyone to just pop in, from a group I feel is likely to be offended. For the same reason, I'd never buy a house next door to a church. I wouldn't feel like I could walk around naked with the shades up.

As far as the Jade Gate, I think the owner of that blog is fine. But even I, the loose & liberal konagod, was taken aback by some of the images there. I guess Asian art with an emphasis on bondage just isn't my game. If people are into that stuff voluntarily, more power to 'em. I don't care what sex games people use for their enjoyment.

I just don't particularly want to see it. And with static imagery, I can't tell whether it's voluntary or not. And I felt that some of my readers, many of whom would call themselves feminists, might not find the link very appealing either.

It was an odd situation all the way around. The bottom line is that my blogroll does have a specific theme: political & activism primarily. I just really don't want a link in my blogroll if it's a blog I know I'll never visit, or may visit, but not particularly enjoy.

I realize I have gone on a slightly off-topic rant, but wanted to throw it out there since it had been on my mind.

Christina said...

I did look through it and didn't see anything objectionable and so I linked. My blogroll is full of my friends, but I believe I can never have enough friends. And I'm not hostile to people who believe/think differently than I do.

But that stuff is diametrically opposed to what I believe is right.

Jennifer said...

Timely rant you've got there ;)

Phydeaux said...

Heh. What Jen said.

Rob said...

Aw the infamous pastor "Bob" here.

No wait, it's Rob not Bob -- almost forgot my own name after reading kanagod's comments :) ).

Anyway, Christina, where to begin?

First of all, I'm still thrilled you linked to me b/c, as I said, I want to hear from people from all walks of life (although the dude with the ancient Asian bondage art might not make my blogroll -- Then again, I'm sitting in a Chinese restaurant as I type this and there is some pretty funky stuff on the walls...but I digress).

I hope you are open to response. The truth is, I feel like your post is a bit like a pizza fresh out of the oven. It can be sliced from a million different angles I hardly know where to begin.

But begin I shall...

I preach the first of seven services in about 2 hours so I must address my sermon but I will be back...

But not as the terminator. I promise to be nice.

Christina said...

That's fine, Rev. One rule, though. As soon as you appeal to the Bible, you lose. In order for an appeal to authority to work, we both have to agree that the cited work is an authority. While I like some of the poetry, Song of Solomon comes immediately to mind, and some of the stories aren't bad as far as mythological moral tales go, I do not concede that the Bible is anything more than a collection of stories. It's not the Word of God IMO, any more than the Venus di Milo is the actual representation of Venus despite Michelangelo's inspiration.

You will have to rely on logic.

konagod said...

Oops, Rev. Rob. My proofreading of tiny fonts is worse than my typing.

In any event, I'm looking forward to what his has to say. And if he really would like to be on my blogroll and vice-versa, I have no objections. I have quite a number of Christians on my blogroll, but I know them well enough to know they aren't offended by most of what I say or do on my blog. And I never knock people for being Christians. I do however knock people hard for being hypocrites. And I have been known to spew expletives in the process. And I rant about Leviticus a lot.

:lol:

Jennifer said...

Hint to Kona:

"CTRL +" embiggens the font.

Assuming you're a Firefox boy, and I feel pretty safe making that assumption.

konagod said...

Oh cool. Come to my blog and share technology tips anytime. Now I can actually read this and I see there was a typo in my 2nd comment! :lol:

Anonymous said...

Well, I can't argue with any of this, except for one small point, but it's an important one, IMHO.

You said: "People change. People grow. People who were compatible at 20 may not still be compatible at all when they are 50 or 60."

That's all true. But IMHO, change and change in compatibility aren't things that just happen to people. I think people are agents in their own change and have some influence (not control, but influence) over their mutual compatibility. Much of the "not compatible any more" arguments I have seen in real life have been one partner (usually but not always the guy) going through a midlife crisis, or trying to trade for a younger model.

I certainly agree that a marriage lasting 80 years should influence how we think about marriage- as in being more careful before we get into it.

As well, also done the FWB thing. I don't think it's as dire as Rob presents, BUT I do find that in real life, people tend to see these as either transitional to something more permanent or temporary replacements. Eventually, most people I have known end up wanting permanence, either with the friend or someone else.

Just my experience and perspective. YMMV.

Miceelf

Christina said...

FWB is not supposed to be a long-term situation or a lifetime thing. If it is long-term, that's a relationship. I think it's better than picking up strangers at bars for one-night stands.Safer, too.

You're right about the compatibility thing. But, maybe at 20 they thought they were compatible. Or maybe they are just tired of putting all the work into remaining compatible. I've seen divorces that aren't precipitated by cheating or midlife crisis and were amicable. They just didn't love each other any more in a married couple way. They might have been able to keep it alive with more communication or something along the way but it's dead now and they know it.

Gine said...

Because so many things appear in one's genes that I don't believe were part of The Plan, I have to say that, logically, something being "genetic" isn't necessarily "God's plan."

Nor do I believe in your definition of "marriage," despite having escaped from a pretty ugly one.

Flame ON!

Christina said...

So, Ms. Gine, what is your definition of marriage? The institution, not the relationship.

And what is in the genes that we *aren't* told is in God's Plan?

Gine said...

I don't believe we can separate the institution from the relationship. Cuz people are involved. Personally, I like St. Paul's definition of "marriage."

As I understand God's Plan, it was good: no sickness, no pain, no hunger, no loneliness. . . .The Fall rebelled against (for lack of better terms) God's Plan and added other things to the mix. Therefore, sickle-cell anemia (for example) is *not* a part of God's Plan, having arrived as part and parcel of The Fall. FWIW, I do not consider homosexuality a sickness; I'm merely arguing that not every genetic disposition is, because it's "genetic," part of God's Plan.

Christina said...

What is St. Paul's definition of marriage? That a man take a wife in order to avoid sexual immorality? Or are you discussing his treatise on love in 1st Corinthians? Love =/= marriage, IMO.

And you have a point about the fall, yet if we take that to the logical conclusion then nothing that happens to us now is part of God's Plan b/c God's plan was messed up in the Garden of Eden.

(And, you probably knew this but carriers of sickle-cell anemia have a greater immunity/tolerance against malaria that those that do not. It was actually a genetic mutation with a purpose but not everyone "benefits" from the mutation. Some are harmed by it.)

Anonymous said...

Well, Paul wasn't defining marriage in either case. He was providing one rationale for marriage, not defining it. I don't know of any place where Paul actually defined marriage per se.

Jesus provided a very rough definition of marriage, which also doesn't necesarily help current discussion much. (two becoming one flesh). That model doesn't allow for a "growing apart", but of course it's presented as the ideal. As we know the real world can be very different.

But in terms of God's plan. I'm kind of between you and Gine on this. I think God had an original plan. I think He has a current plan, that isn't the original ("ideal") but is an adaptation to the current situation. Sickle cell is a good example, possibly, of that- in the original ideal world without disease, there'd be no need for a sickle cell trait. But there are other genes that have no benefit whatsoever, other than possibly "thinning the herd"- lots of genetic conditions consign people to painful, short lives. My own inherited condition is likely to shorten my life and make it less pleasant? God's plan? I highly doubt it. God can make some good come out of it, one hopes, but that's not the same thing.

Like Gine, I am also not comparing homosexuality to a genetic disorder, just discussing the general principle that genes don't equate to God's will, as I understand it.

miceelf

Christina said...

Well, if we can't look to the very stuff that makes up who we are to see what God's Plan is or was, then there really isn't any way to do so, IMO. You may believe the Bible provides such a way, but I don't think the Bible is any more special than the Bhagvadgita or the Tao or any other 'inspired' writing.

What comes to my mind wrt to sexual orientation is more along the lines of blue/green/hazel/brown eyes. They were probably all in God's plan all along with no preference one for the other. The test of our humanity and worthiness is in how we treat each other--either based on our common humanity rather than our surface differences or based on othering those who are slightly different in completely irrelevant ways.

There were a bunch of things Jesus didn't speak of, or at least John, Paul, George and...oops, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (that's the right quartet) didn't think important enough to write/pass down to us. One of those topics was homosexuality. He did mention, several times in fact, how folks really need to mind their own dang business, though, and attend to their own salvation rather than worrying about their neighbor's sins. It's the one thing He repeated Himself on.

Anonymous said...

I actually agree completely with you about homosexuality, so let me make sure that's clear up front. Jesus didn't say anything about it at all. And quite frankly, a lot of what Paul said can very easily be construed as specific to certain situations, the cultural setting of the expression of homosexuality and the like, etc. I think homosexual rights are THE human rights issue of the 21st century in America, and a lot of the hardline churches will find themselves on the wrong side of history.

But that's a separate issue from whether all genetic stuff is necessarily a revelation of God's will. To assume that it is requires just as much faith, IMHO, as faith in the bible or any other "holy book". My understanding of God, which I think is not unusual (doesn't make me right, just popular) is that God cannot be completely understood by referencing nature or genes. Of course, you can question any of the holy books and that's certainly fair. But I think many folk would similarly question the link between the world as it is and the complete revelation of the will of God. If you construe God as a perfect and beneficient being, it's hard to see the world (including our genes) as the perfect expression of His will. IMHO, you have to either believe that God is a real jerk OR believe that the natural world deviates from His will in some significant ways.

Did God design me to have Crohn's disease? For my father and sister to have spina bifida? for my aunt to have really severe bipolar disorder? For my best friend to have bipolar disorder along with whatever genetic vulnerability to cocaine/heroin that had such hooks in him that it ultimately killed him, at 34? And if He did, why would I worship such a Being?

I guess my view is that I don't fully understand why things in this world are the way they are any more than I can claim to understand God's will or plan for anyone but myself, and even then only very faintly and by faulty intuition and yes, for me, the bible (my reading of which is guided by my intuition as much as anything else). I try to be pretty humble about pronouncements about what God does or doesn't want. But i don't see God as mainly the author of the world in its current state. I see God as the representation of what the world SHOULD be, a goal to work toward, and a means of coping with the current situation.

-miceelf

Gine said...

Paul never equated love with marriage. He equated *having sex* with marriage. That's where I stand.

(And, yes, I know the origin of SCA. Studied it as a child. Lost a nephew because of it. What Mice said about it.)

And I completely disagree with this: "Well, if we can't look to the very stuff that makes up who we are to see what God's Plan is or was, then there really isn't any way to do so, IMO." It doesn't logically follow. The stuff that makes up who we are can be attributed a lot of things, including environment and genetics. Neither *has* to be in God's Plan as originally set out; however, this does not mean that we can't *know* the Plan. It only means that we can't attribute *everything* to that Plan. Right? No, the bible isn't any more "special" than any other book, but so what? It's not any *less* special, either. Right?

Christina said...

The truth is many religious leaders would tell you and me just that--all of those things are God's Inscrutable Plan and are given to you as Test of Faith. They would say that nothing happens outside of God's Plan.

And homosexuality, being at least partly genetic and not strictly a choice, would therefore be in that plan rather than a "sinful choice", according to the "nothing outside of God's Plan" philosophy, right?

Sensible people understand and are comfortable or at least okay with the idea that we just don't know and we'll find out soon enough so best to err on the side of tolerance and love and freedom for all people.

Anonymous said...

Christina. I agree. And I am very leery of the people who are so sure that they every bit of God's plan for anyone else. It's very easy to be Job's comforters with that attitude, not to mention the absence of the humility that Christianity is VERY clear we should be approaching such things with. ("glass darkly" and all that stuff).

I guess Gine and I were focused on your assumption that genes prove God's will, which would follow from the perspective you're describing, but isn't the only perspective, or even the majority one, I think, within Christianity.

As Paul Simon said, "the information's unavailable to the mortal man"


-miceelf

Christina said...

Not the majority one. Just the loudest. ::eyeroll::

Can I get an amen on that one?

Anonymous said...

Amen

-miceelf

Christina said...

Gine says:

Of course sensible people think this. I was merely pointing out the illogic of assuming that 'genetic' means 'Of God.'