According to Leonardo Boff, what social analysis calls “structural poverty,” faith calls “structural sin,” and what social analysis calls “the private accumulation of wealth,” faith calls “the sin of selfishness.” Suffering exists because sin represents the root of all that is wrong with the world… For liberationists, sin is communal. All sins, even those committed by individuals, have communal ramifications. All too often, Eurocentric theology has made sin and its redemption personal. Sin becomes an act of commission or omission, while salvation from our sinfulness rests in a personal savior in the form of Jesus Christ. Conversion, however, is never personal but must extend to social transformation. What is missing for Eurocentric religious thought is the structural nature of sin. Oppression and poverty as expressions of sin are mostly caused by societal structures that are designed to enrich the few at the expense of the many.
–Miguel A. De La Torre, Liberation Theology for Armchair Theologians, p.54-55
I don’t like the tone of most of this book, but at least there’s this.
Here is a post I saw today about how defining monogamy becomes tricky with aro spectrum and ace spectrum folk in the mix. Go read it. It’s got interesting points and I don’t have much to say on it, besidessss in response to this part added by paradife-loft:
I don’t know if I’ve said it here before but I’m saying it now: I don’t adhere to or support any guideline for How You Should Live Life that’s based on feeling the correct feelings, whether that means feeling others’ feelings (“empathy” as a prerequisite for correct morality); disallowing yourself unhappiness (“staying positive” as a virtue); or pushing discomfort, risk, and unease as self-justifying mandates (in praise for “vulnerability” and “getting out of your comfort zone”). Dogmas of feelings have always been useless at best for me, outright detrimental more often than not, and I don’t want any part in them.
[cw: fictional sex talk, sexual coercion implied]
Going back to old, old stuff…. I’ve gotten to thinking about this more, the implications of this idea… a definition of straightness that suggests, if not requires, an explicit hierarchy of straightness. All straights are straight, but some straights are straighter than others.
That’s what comes of a working definition of straightness that depends on absences & on what is *not* experienced (re: patterns of desire, attraction, unwilled feelings, etc.), without any dependence on what *is* experienced (re: patterns of desire, attraction, unwilled feelings, etc.), deliberately shaped to include pathologized experiences off of that list, as long as they meet the given absence criteria.
I just wanna say — it might actually be workable, for all I know, but there’s a couple things I haven’t seen addressed.
My life definitely changed for the better after I gave myself permission to make the whole situation awkward for everyone when other people make me uncomfortable.
Like, you put me in this position, I’m taking you down with me.
It doesn’t fix anything, no, but it sure beats the alternative because then at least then everyone else is feeling awkward WITH me and I’m allowing myself to feel no shame over that.
I can’t get people to care about or even remember my boundaries but!! by God I will try and give them a disincentivizing experience to remember.
Okay yeah and branching off that last post, how about this wild idea: Abusers… are… unreasonable. They do unreasonable things. They have unreasonable expectations. They are unreasonable. So I’ve got no clue what some people are on about whenever they say something like “imagine a parent getting mad at their kid for X, that doesn’t happen because that’s just ridiculous.” Hey, real fun fact: “it’s ridiculous” has never been enough to stop humanity from doing cruel and violent things. Holding that expectation at all is ridiculous. And more importantly here, it begs the question: Why are you expecting abusive behavior to be reasonable? Why are you talking like there exists any abuse where you’d look at it and say, “oh, yeah that makes sense”?
Do me a favor and pay attention to that. If someone’s position is that real abuse is “reasonable,” that’s the kind of thing that calls a person’s entire politics into question.
Would have been nice to not start the new year first thing by seeing someone say that “ghosting” is “the worst thing you can do to someone,” because apparently it’s just too much sometimes for people to remember that abusive relationships exist and that picking up and leaving doesn’t make you worse than the people who mistreat you enough to drive you to that. And sure whatever the point was that ‘it hurts to be on the other end of that,’ but this kind of practice of just assuming the people who need it will read an unwritten asterisk into what you say is hands down a Bad Practice and I’m already having a hard enough time sticking to my decision and figuring out the future as it is, thanks.
me: *takes a picture of the card my mom sent me*
me: cursed image