But, inevitably, the extroverted cataloguing of everyday minutiae—meals, workouts, thoughts about politics, books, and music—reaches its own limits; it ends up emphasizing what can’t be shared.
Privacy through Woolf’s eyes
In this beautiful and rich essay, Joshua Rothman describes a conception of privacy that I have never considered—using Virginia Woolf’s prose and history to illustrate. What if our need to penetrate and understand the people that we love is the very impetus that keeps us from truly loving them?
The porn industry saves itself
Another way the porn industry is trying to save itself is by getting more personal. Customs4you.com allows customers to pay for their own individual movies where porn stars shout their names and do what they desire. Customers negotiate on price and ownership.
The further and further we go into the world of “custom content” and “web camming” the further away we get from human to human interaction and the joys of sexual arousal au natural
I have heard all of the arguments for consensual porn, for safe porn, for unique porn. But they all fail to make up for the bottom line: porn abstracts sex and sexuality away from the body and into a screen, video, or toy. Sure, humans are the ones who watch it, but in real life, when you are actually having sex, you don’t get to pause, rewind, play that back
Sex is about the awkward experiences, the sweat, the uncomfortable comfort of knowing someone else’s body. Sex is about an act an activity that somehow allows us to lose ourself while bringing someone else closer to losing themselves.
I cannot get behind an industry that seeks to dehumanize, technologize, abstract, and make sex just another commodity to purchase and another reified artifact of the modern age.
Maybe I am naive. Maybe I am conservative. Maybe it’s the “ick factor.” Whatever it is, I am turned off by the porn industry—I only hope that others take the time to evaluate their relationship to the source, rather than the results of the industry as well.
Why don’t educated religious people ever get a say?
As a person who has grown up in many churches, explored religion and theology in academic settings, and genuinely believes that religion should have a rightful place in society, I am always disappointed and appealed by stories and interviews like these.
I understand that this may be how some religious people feel and may be what some religious people believe but it is certainly not how or what every religious person (or religious-adjacent) person believes.
Why don’t educated, nuanced, social minded, and truly “Christ like” people ever get a headline. There are far more loving Christians and Jews and Muslims than there are hating and misguided ones. Moderation is one of Jesus’ greatest lessons and it characterizes a larger population of the religious than media seems to espouse.
There are deeper more complex ways to understand religion’s role in the public sphere and it’s role in guiding those who believe in it than the simple minded garbage that media showcases day after day. A Christian can believe that for their own life, God has ordained them to a traditional marriage and also believe that love is love is love, and that as long as two people come together in god’s love for each other, then they are doing just fine. Religious people can find fault with the ubiquitous portrayal of homosexuality in the media but love their brothers and sisters just the same.
There is so much more to the religious mindset, I fear that we lose a bit more every time miseducated people like these at this rally are allowed to spew their pseudo-religion-pseudo-science all over our screen. (I mean come on, homosexual relations do not create HIV!).
The people religious of the world need to stand up and start taking charge of their beliefs if we are to ever bring about the peace and compassion that all of our Gods implore us to foster.
Plus, they just sound dumb. It’s annoying. My ears hurt from listening and reading about them. But that’s just me.
This is such a good solution to an age-old problem
Mila just rocks it here. I never really stopped to think about this phrasing, but when you do, you realize—it is a bit misleading. Yes, both parents are necessary and complimentary. Yes, both parents will have the child. But the “being” pregnant part, that is all woman. Well, mostly woman.
I don’t want to get into the technicals and semantics of it all because I really do think that both parents have an equal part in pregnancy and the entire process is a partnership. Not to mention emotionally and psychologically, both parents are definitely all in. I just find it interesting to see Mila’s side here. Are men empathizing with their wives, or are they simply taking credit where it isn’t due?
No definitive opinion, except that she rocked this bit.
What an interesting concept—one that I find familiar, but the name of which I was not cognizant. “Twee,” as an aesthetic, seems to be hopeful as well as grounded, but unable to take on the full weight and heaviness that Kundera might implore it to. The article is right, there is definitely a political philosophy lurking beneath. What a fascinating project it will be to unearth it.
What is “twee,” besides an adjective to describe something precious, saccharine or too cute? It’s an aesthetic, certainly, characterized by childlike quirkiness and employed by the likes of Wes Anderson and Zooey Deschanel. But is it also a movement? One that extends far beyond the isolated indie-pop scenes of 1980s Glasgow and Olympia to encompass everything from Truman Capote’s Breakfast at Tiffany’s to mumblecore filmmaking?
View original post 1,897 more words