tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post4296458436985515672..comments2024-03-22T05:55:48.117-04:00Comments on The Pervocracy: Sinsational!Cliff Pervocracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02080142422250604406noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-43209057119022540912013-10-06T17:41:47.403-04:002013-10-06T17:41:47.403-04:00DUDE! I was thinking something along these lines j... DUDE! I was thinking something along these lines just yesterday! I was reading something you wrote about kids being ashamed of sex, because of the stigma our society places on it, and thinking "if Christians consider sex outside of marriage a sin, why should it be treated differently than all the other sins? why is it so sensationalized compared to others? I'm gonna tell my kids that if they decide to try to do that that then it's not necessarily anything worse or better than other things they try to avoid." I kind of never realized this until now myself.Chocolatesahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08493321160124151967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-7195752131910944702013-06-29T03:34:55.394-04:002013-06-29T03:34:55.394-04:00Good post, but as a Christian I would say that it&...Good post, but as a Christian I would say that it's often outsiders who sexualise Christianity, specifically the media. I'm sick of people saying to me, "You're a Christian, what do you think about premarital sex/contraception/homosexual sex. My views on sex are affected by my religion, yes, but as the author of this post points outs SEXUAL MORALITY IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN THE CENTER OF CHRISTIAN MORALITY. The media exists to sell and they will get more attention for writing about religion if they put a sexual spin on things because they KNOW it's going to make people angry. Julia Mascettihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04295831925351006469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-86547101610219417922011-08-21T02:55:57.094-04:002011-08-21T02:55:57.094-04:00Hope it's ok if I drop in with a note to anon&...Hope it's ok if I drop in with a note to anon's earlier comment: "Roman women were required by law to not be unmarried for less than a few months at a time"<br /><br />That isn't quite accurate. I think you might be referring to the Augustan inheritance legislation, which restricted the ability of unmarried women to inherit property. There were strong financial incentives for women to spend as much of their lives married as possible, but they certainly weren't legally obliged to wed at any given time. <br /><br />Holly - fantastic post! I don't have much to contribute that hasn't already been said, but I really enjoyed reading.Lucyhttp://lucymonster.livejournal.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-7842754254272349812011-08-18T11:45:42.972-04:002011-08-18T11:45:42.972-04:00Anther answer to
When did "sin" become s...Anther answer to<br /><i>When did "sin" become synonymous with sex?</i><br />is, of course, <a href="http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2011/02/broccoli-morality.html" rel="nofollow">broccoli morality</a>, though that may be a little circular. But if something feels good and is virtuous, no one cares that it's virtuous, and if something feels bad and is sinful, no one cares that it's sinful. So the notions of virtue and vice only even come to the fore when it's in regards to things that feel bad and good, respectively.Hershele Ostropolernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-6771945121361079012011-08-18T03:01:41.147-04:002011-08-18T03:01:41.147-04:00Imagine a cult of people who admire Socrates and w...Imagine a cult of people who admire Socrates and want to emulate his example. They heard that Socrates could get so lost in thought that he was oblivious to hunger and cold for days. The flock ask their preacher: "how do we get lost in thought like Socrates?" and the preacher replies "by fasting and exposure to the cold."<br /><br />I think a lot of religious moralizing is like that; tacked on by and for people who failed to get the point.Elihttp://comic.truefork.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-4562512050628573642011-08-18T02:41:25.485-04:002011-08-18T02:41:25.485-04:00(Yes, and it does, although it's more racism a...<em>(Yes, and it does, although it's more racism and misogyny than hatred for sex per se.)</em> <br /><br />I got the strong impression from Breivik's manifesto that most of his racism and Islamophobia was taken from others. It never seems personal in the way it does when he writes about his slut mother, slut sister, slut friends, and how they threatened his "100% heterosexual" masculinity. I agree it's not per se hatred for sex, it seems to be mostly about gender roles, and the sex and misogyny sort of follow from there...Elihttp://comic.truefork.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-38991976679826755802011-08-16T12:46:20.151-04:002011-08-16T12:46:20.151-04:00It's funny to see the talk about the word '...It's funny to see the talk about the word 'sin' here. I'm Christian, but honestly, it's a word that I don't really use and feel no connection to; I don't see it as that important, in terms of my spiritual practice.<br /><br />The concept of 'things you shouldn't do/feel,' sure, those are important to me, and are things I grapple with every day, (wrath, wrath is a biggie) but I guess I don't see it as 'sin,' which I associate with a more religious framework. My religion is less about what I shouldn't do, and more about what I SHOULD do. I don't need a religious reason to not be toxically angry, because I know if I'm angry all the time, I'm more likely to lash out and harm someone, for instance.<br /><br />That said, I've mostly trashed the concept of sexual sin, but that's part of how I interpret my religion. I experience God as the sheer joy and ecstasy of living, and something to be strived (striven? strove?) for. Sex certainly feels like God to me, and it doesn't hurt anybody, so it just can't be wrong.<br /><br />--Mac<br /><br />PS from Rogan: "Want to hear about Mediterranean political intrigues from 2000 years ago? Course ya do!" IT'S FUNNY BECAUSE IT'S SO SO TRUE. I keep trying to read Maccabeans for precisely this reason.LBThttp://healthymultiplicity.com/loonybrainnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-81361554620584491562011-08-15T20:54:39.126-04:002011-08-15T20:54:39.126-04:00*hypocrisy doesn't quite stick.*hypocrisy doesn't quite stick.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-68021022800593525312011-08-15T20:53:45.968-04:002011-08-15T20:53:45.968-04:00Eli:
Sorry, I missed your post earlier.
I'm p...Eli:<br />Sorry, I missed your post earlier.<br /><br />I'm pretty sure that all of us (meaning all of us with an interest in ethics that goes beyond "follow this book") agree that morals serve a social function, after all, how could the concept of morality apply if only a single person existed?<br /><br />I'm not suggesting that the concept of sin be abandoned exclusively for the purpose of rehabilitating the public image of sex, I'm saying that sin is a ridiculous concept that fails to address moral concerns, and one of the benefits of abandoning it would be that a great deal of people would have healthier attitudes toward sex.<br /><br />I agree about the suggestion to stop talking about the fat acceptance, with the one qualification: in my experience, and in the conversations that I've had, <i>every last person</i> who espoused fat acceptance had the attitudes that I mentioned, AND, I was specifically addressing the canard you brought up of "beauty standards". So I'm afraid your implication of hy<br /><br />Mr. Monster:<br /><br />Your understanding of sin is correct, but not quite inclusive enough. Sin, at least as I was taught in my tragically Christian upbringing, includes actions, states of mind, attitudes, preferences, thoughts, and probably other things I am sinfully forgetting. It's not a very well thought out category of things, because it's not a very well thought out ethical system.<br /><br />It seems like you are giving most Christians far too much credit, in terms of the sophistication of their moral reasoning. Christian ethics are, in the <i>best case scenario</i>, divine command theory, which is laughably juvenile.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-73533293754144549912011-08-15T12:00:40.919-04:002011-08-15T12:00:40.919-04:00"Well, I think even atheistic moral systems s..."<i>Well, I think even atheistic moral systems should have Things You Shouldn't Do. Whatever you call them, a well-chosen set of TYSD is integral to not being harmful to yourself and others.<br /></i>" - Holly<br /><br />That's a really interesting point. You seem to be using the word "sin" to refer to specific actions here. <i>Things</i> you shouldn't do. My understanding of "sin" (although my religious knowledge is little hazy) is that people tend to talk about either emotional states or long-term patterns of behaviour being sinful. Lust, wrath, envy, covetousness, sloth, pride and, um, mint choc chip - I'm pretty sure it was mint choc chip.<br /><br />The point is, these are not acts to be commanded against - the Abrahamic TYSD would surely be either or both version of the Ten Commandments, supplemented by Deuteronomy and all those other prohibitory writings - but states of being: the true sins are more pervasive than any one act, even murder, although everyday acts can be indicators of "sinful" tendencies. I think that having sex (in whatever unsanctioned form) has now joined the other sins, in the minds of many modern Christians and others, because to them sex isn't something you <i>do</i>. There are, quite clearly, the "people who have sex", and the "people who don't". Choosing to have sex has become for them a lifestyle statement, a moral signifier. More importantly, it's a one-time decision - you make your choice and live with the consequences. This no-going-back point of view has serious implications regarding virginity, pre-marital relationships, and most worryingly the rape/promiscuity conflation that Holly's written about so well in previous posts.Mr Monsternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-20520973462511999652011-08-15T11:58:48.230-04:002011-08-15T11:58:48.230-04:00I didn't delete anything, Eli. I'll check ...I didn't delete anything, Eli. I'll check the spamfilter.Cliff Pervocracyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02080142422250604406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-13752632614666582802011-08-15T05:06:42.777-04:002011-08-15T05:06:42.777-04:00The comment I posted yesterday seems to have disap...The comment I posted yesterday seems to have disappeared. Should I draw some conclusion from that?<br /><br />Personally I see morals as a mechanism to promote desirable social interactions. So we can say "don't be a jerk" because in general we prefer a society with less jerks, for example. A lot of religious commandments can be understood in the same sense; be hospitable to strangers, help the poor, etc. But a sizable number of them are ancient taboos with no secular benefit for society (leaving aside the question of supernatural benefits here). I think the sexual-sin-category falls under the latter. Perhaps part of the reason that preachers like to focus on sins against taboos is that it doesn't threaten the status quo; you can't preach social justice without advocating social change or questioning your place in society, whereas preaching against those evil sexual deviants doesn't call for any personal effort...Elihttp://comic.truefork.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-54579082772786919592011-08-14T23:33:03.548-04:002011-08-14T23:33:03.548-04:00Hahaha. I like you Holly, you're funny.
It&...Hahaha. I like you Holly, you're funny.<br /><br /><br />It's interesting that you state both "violating consent" and "death" as foundational elements of some ethical system that is against murder. "Death" seems redundant, because in nearly all cases, murdering someone violates their consent. Do you include it so that suicide is a TYSD?<br /><br />So you're expressing a normative statement about normative statements. That would seem to make it difficult to reliably know which thing we are talking about (the 1st order normative statement that refers to actions, or the 2nd order normative statement that refers to the 1st normative statement).<br /><br /> Your concept of ethics is still non-consequentialist, which sort of ignores my earlier point, intentionally or not. As I said before, a robust ethical system doesn't require specific restrictions/requirements focused on actions, it could instead focus on the outcome of actions (as consequentialist systems do).<br /><br /><br />I think your use of the word "irrational" is mistaken here. I understand your point that, eventually, there needs to be some normative statement that is taken axiomatically (not deduced from something else), but that's not exactly a novel feature of ethical reasoning, <i>all</i> reasoning requires some premise to be accepted as axiomatic. This isn't "irrational".<br /><br />I disagree that it's "just something we agree on" though. That makes it sound more arbitrary than it is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-49019984034727486992011-08-14T22:58:12.270-04:002011-08-14T22:58:12.270-04:00Anon - You know, you can actually be the first to ...Anon - You know, you can actually be the <i>first</i> to let things go.<br /><br /><i>"Murder should be a bad thing" doesn't seem to be much other than an assertion of preference on your part, without some other premises.</i><br />It is a preference! A really important one. If I really wanted to get philomosophical I'd say that violating consent is bad and death is bad except to end extreme suffering, so killing someone who is not horribly ill without their consent is the real problem here. But even then, the "consent" and the "killing is bad" are pretty much just preferences, if you want to call them that.<br /><br /><i>Again, this is just a statement of preference, but speaking as an atheist (which you aren't, right?), I can say that I completely disagree. </i><br />Well, I think even atheistic moral systems should have Things You Shouldn't Do. Whatever you call them, a well-chosen set of TYSD is integral to not being harmful to yourself and others.<br /><br />I think they do ultimately go down to "irrational" propositions--there's no exact REASON I can give you for why not-suffering is better than suffering. It's just something we agree on as humans who like to not-suffer.Cliff Pervocracyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02080142422250604406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-34065187824815318712011-08-14T21:09:32.974-04:002011-08-14T21:09:32.974-04:00Please will you just stop talking about this? I...Please will you just stop talking about this? I'm trying so hard to end this conversation about fat acceptance, but when you lie about what I say, I can't do that. So I'm going to go through this one final time.<br /><br />Holly, I'm implying none of those things. Not only that, but I've <i>explicitly said</i> the opposite of those things. So cut it out, you don't get to use your emotional baggage to change my intended meaning.<br /><br />"Go away"? <b> You started talking to me about this</b> At every turn, post after post, I've tried to get you to let this go, but you haven't.<br /><br />How about we make a deal: you don't initiate conversations with me about fat acceptance, and I won't respond to the conversations you don't initiate? Seems like a good deal all round, and we can talk about more interesting stuff.<br /><br />"Bad things" aren't the same as sins. There's a substantive meta-ethical difference implied (like, real implied, not "I tell you what you mean" implied) with the term sin that doesn't come with "bad things".<br /><br />"Murder should be a bad thing" doesn't seem to be much other than an assertion of preference on your part, without some other premises. That's not an insult or some mean implication, it's just a fact. If you intended some other stuff too, I'd be very interested in hearing it.<br /><br />"Even atheistic moral systems should still have sins, even if they doesn't use that words"<br />Again, this is just a statement of preference, but speaking as an atheist (which you aren't, right?), I can say that I completely disagree. <br /><br />My reasoning about ethics has no need for sin, or any other quasi-deontological nonsense. Empathy and some rough form of consequentialism make far more sense.<br /><br />Your assertion that atheistic moral systems require "sin" is interesting though, would you mind expanding on that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-53199107208791901612011-08-14T18:01:08.765-04:002011-08-14T18:01:08.765-04:00Anon, you're very super close to getting your ...Anon, you're very super close to getting your comments zapped.<br /><br />What I've done before is <i>also</i> not let you get away with implying that I'm hideous, dying, and could fix this if I just acted like a normal person (and furthermore it's most <i>unsportsmanlike</i> of me to have emotions about this).<br /><br />This post isn't about that shit, though. So just go away or say something interesting about sexual sin.<br /><br />I think saying "we shouldn't have sin at all" isn't quite right, because we always have to have <i>bad things</i>, right? Murder should be a bad thing. And I'm okay using "sin" as a synonym for "bad thing." Even atheistic moral system should still have sins, even if it doesn't use that words.Cliff Pervocracyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02080142422250604406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-28156149416086193552011-08-14T17:54:40.210-04:002011-08-14T17:54:40.210-04:00goth-is-not-emo:
No.
I'm curious as to how...goth-is-not-emo:<br /><br />No. <br /><br />I'm curious as to how Holly misrepresenting what I say constitutes flamebaiting. <br /><br />Or is it you don't like that I point out when people are wrong? You're aware that disagreement happens when people talk, right?<br /><br />(Granted, you may not be familiar with the fact that Holly has done this before, so it may seem that I was perhaps rude when she completely ignored what I posted and decided to tell me I meant something completely different. So maybe we'll give you a pass.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-56555655274150904632011-08-14T17:34:26.780-04:002011-08-14T17:34:26.780-04:00Oh fork, what did I start?
Anony, I don't di...Oh fork, what did I start? <br /><br />Anony, I don't disagree with you that the concept of sin as commonly understood is mostly unhelpful. Personally I believe that the world would do better with less divine commandments, but then I don't call myself Christian either. I see morals as a mechanism to improve social interactions, and I think it works best when recognized as such, and not imbued with grandiose pretensions.<br /><br />But getting rid of the idea of sin to get rid of the sex-negativity would only work if the latter derives from the former, and that I seriously doubt. Religions wouldn't focus so exclusively on sexual sins if there were no broader cultural reasons for doing so. Hence I think a wider approach will be needed.<br /><br />I'm only vaguely familiar with the range of opinions that fall under "fat acceptance" and it isn't what I had in mind or want to be drawn into a fight about. So for the sake of not derailing the topic any further, do you think that you could perhaps take some of your own previous advice and pretend that "fat acceptance" is NOT a united front with a single point of view, and leave it be?Elihttp://comic.truefork.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-79587559227549099472011-08-14T17:01:42.905-04:002011-08-14T17:01:42.905-04:00Holly? Have a heartwarming image. :)
http://27.m...Holly? Have a heartwarming image. :)<br /><br />http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljq2rsyRD11qj3vuao1_500.png<br /><br />Anonymous: Are you flamebaiting? Because it looks an awful lot to me like you're flamebaiting. That's kind of a douchey thing to do. Knock it off.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-63164649144106199772011-08-14T11:50:24.664-04:002011-08-14T11:50:24.664-04:00Oh.
I used to be fat, so I know these things (the...Oh.<br /><br />I used to be fat, so I know these things (the fact that I made the unpleasant choices and changed things isn't really the point, but it's worth mentioning). I'm not sure how it relates to any of the points I've made against your "with us or against us" position though.<br /><br /><i>So we're all touchy about it and shit when someone bursts in going "you guys! I have three things that fatties must be told!"</i><br />Well, that's some impressive intellectual dishonesty. Unless you aren't saying that's what I did, in which case it's a non sequitur. Take your pick.<br /><br />Cool, you seem to have read some of what I said this time, sort of. Although you sort of repeated yourself with the bathwater thing. <br /><br />No, I don't agree at all about sin = Christianity. The amount of variation within Christianity already is pretty overwhelming (prayer works for everything vs. listen to the doctor, women are brood mares vs. ok maybe they aren't), so I don't see how you could draw the line at sin like you seem to want to.<br /><br /><br />Wait, wait, wait. Wait. You're pro-divine command theory? Now, see, that's a discussion I would <i>love</i> to have, once you're done with the "non-fat people are jerks who attack us constantly with their conversational replies" self-pity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-9789740523674379882011-08-14T11:16:05.026-04:002011-08-14T11:16:05.026-04:00Anon - It was in the spamfilter.
Please don't...Anon - It was in the spamfilter.<br /><br />Please don't live under the illusion that any fat person on the planet hasn't <i>heard</i> that their body:<br />1) Is hideous<br />2) Is killing them<br />3) Could be fixed so easily if they would just act like a normal person!<br /><br />So we're all touchy about it and shit when someone bursts in going "you guys! I have three things that fatties <i>must be told!</i>"<br /><br /><i>Read my post, I said that Christians pick and choose anyway (they ignore what doesn't work for them), so why not ignore sin as well?</i><br />Because they're Christians. I don't think it's necessary (or productive to suggest) to throw the whole religion out with the bathwater. And throwing out the entire concept of sin would be doing that.<br /><br />Understand, I don't want people enforcing <i>every</i> Biblical commandment either, but I think a general concept of commandments and sins can be a good thing, or at least a valid thing.Cliff Pervocracyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02080142422250604406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-10605583743460428742011-08-14T10:53:55.182-04:002011-08-14T10:53:55.182-04:00I don't understand the double post, I tried po...I don't understand the double post, I tried posting and it acted like it was deleted or something a minute later. Sorry about that. Anyway.<br /><br />Holly:<br /><br />You've proven my point about Eli's analogy bringing up emotional baggage. I wasn't interested in getting into another discussion with you where you misrepresent my points and ignore my questions, but again, you force my hand. I guess time will tell if you later accuse me of not letting something go after you started talking to me.<br /><br />Well, I'm not sure if the opposite is attacking people, but even if it is, there are more than two choices available. Not everyone who disagrees with you hates you and wants to attack you.<br /><br />I'm not sure who you think you're arguing with in the moral imperative thing, but it isn't me. My position is that fat acceptance (or whatever you choose to call it) has false premises, portrays aesthetics as a moral issue, and is often accompanied by some amount of self deception.<br /><br />It isn't that fat people should be harassed. Nor is it that the issue should be discussed forever. But when someone (in this case, you) responds to me and misrepresents my position, it's only polite to correct your misunderstanding.<br /><br />I'm aware of what you're talking about, actually. Read my post, I said that Christians pick and choose anyway (they ignore what doesn't work for them), so why not ignore sin as well?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-35096363780293645232011-08-14T09:50:16.291-04:002011-08-14T09:50:16.291-04:00"Cafeteria Catholic" anon - I think cond..."Cafeteria Catholic" anon - I think condemning lust while engaging happily in pride and wrath would be one of those "cafeteria" things, don't you?<br /><br />"Fat apologist" anon - The opposite of "fat apologism" is attacking fat people, and really, I'm pretty happy with an "echo chamber" in that regard. There's really no moral imperative to attack fat people.<br /><br />"Uh oh, that fat person is <i>too happy</i>! Perhaps they must think they are thin, or that being fat is an okay activity for them to engage in! I must correct this!"<br /><br />As for getting rid of sin, well, I'm talking about this in a religious framework, and "well, why not just throw away your entire religion, that would fix it" is not really a helpful thing.Cliff Pervocracyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02080142422250604406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-88069442364358549152011-08-14T07:31:43.916-04:002011-08-14T07:31:43.916-04:00I'm not offended, although your courtesy is re...I'm not offended, although your courtesy is refreshing.<br /><br />The context wasn't really in play with my objection, 'beauty standards' is a ridiculous idea independent of Christianity.<br /><br />What I don't understand is why nobody is asking "Why not just get rid of the idea of sin?". Christians <i>have</i> to pick and choose which parts of their doctrines they believe anyway, so why not get rid of sin?<br /><br />Altruism isn't improved with a foundation of guilt and punishment, so why bother disentangling sex from sin when you can just stop pretending that sin is a real thing?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-67353673130471601042011-08-14T07:22:15.464-04:002011-08-14T07:22:15.464-04:00Don't worry, I'm not offended.
My objecti...Don't worry, I'm not offended.<br /><br />My objection wasn't relating to that part of the discussion, which would be why I didn't mention Christianity in my post. I'll get to that in this post I guess though.<br /><br /><i>There doesn't have to be a single unified voice pushing a single International Agenda, in either religion or the media, for concepts like "beauty standards" or "sex==sin" to refer to actual phenomena.</i><br /><br />Even mentioning 'beauty standards' bring in all this baggage from fat apologists that detracts from the discussion. And previous comments on this blog show that any response other than agreement with fat apologists is met with insults and hostility, so why bring it up? Unless you just want an echo chamber, which you don't seem to want.<br /><br />What seems like a more interesting point would be to ask 'why do we even need the concept of sin in the first place?'. I'm not even talking from an anti-theistic standpoint; since all Christians pick and choose which doctrines they believe anyway, why not remove the useless idea of sin? <br /><br />Altruistic behavior doesn't need some bullshit foundation of punishment and guilt, so why bother with disentangling sex from sin when you can eliminate the idea of sin in the first place?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com