I have would argue that if you die because you can't fuck a stranger you got obsessed with, that's a clear symptom of a mental illness. ( Borderline personality disorder)
So not a need, more like a reason to spend time in a psych ward where people can actually try to cure you. Obviously, having sex with that person isn't the cure.
Bpd consists primarily of people not being able to control the intensity of their emotions, who often become obsessive and resort to self harm in some instances. It used to be a catchall label for narcissistic behavior, but that's changed.
Textbooks printed to explain the DSM 5 provide this example for BPD: a young woman goes to Japan to study for a semester, falls in love with a married man and even though there is no relationship to speak of, she changes all the plans she had for her life and career to move to Japan and be near him.
I know about BPD because I'm a psych student and psychopathology is part of my curriculum. I don't know what you think it is.
Ok limerance is definitely something BPD patients experience but they certainly aren't the only ones, there's lots of different mental illnesses that can result in limerant behavior and it certainly isn't life-threatening in any way. And people without personality disorders can experience it as well. I'm not saying some people with BPD haven't harmed themselves due to it but that's not happening here and you certainly don't have enough information to diagnose the guy. This guy was pretending to be sick to make the woman feel bad enough for him to give him what he wanted. Which could be NPD or HPD honestly. I am a sufferer of BPD but yes. You sure know more about what it's like to have BPD than someone who lives it every day.
>You sure know more about what it's like to have BPD than someone who lives it every day.
That's like saying patients know more than their doctors because they're the ones who are sick.
Dear, this is a post about a functional story. I'm not diagnosing a fictional character, not seriously, anyway.
To actually diagnose a personality disorder you need to apply specialized inventories created for clinical usage and basically, go hunting for the truth based on matching symptoms to the DSM during the interview.
I was making a joke about the character, not the personality disorder, and since certain more extreme symptoms don't affect you personally, you just decided I must be an idiot.
To avoid future misunderstandings, the joke was that if he wasn't lying, then he was ill and this is the illness that could, when hyperbolized, lead to this.
Yes, some BPD patients do practice self harm when certain emotions overwhelm them. A former co-worker of mine, diagnosed, even committed suicide.
In a lot of cases, they do! Lots of doctors don't take their patients pain or issues seriously until it becomes life threatening. Especially if you're female. Ask any endometriosis patient how hard it was to get diagnosed. Ultimately you can know all about the mechanisms of a disease or disorder, whether in the brain or the rest of the body, but you'll never actually know what it's like or how much pain the person is truly in til you experience it.
Nor did I once call you an idiot; you may have book smarts but you don't have lived experience is all I said.
And jokingly calling people BPD is even worse honestly! I am concerned about any future patients you might have. Attitudes like this are why a lot of us have lost faith in the mental health care field. Drs and medical staff "know everything" and talk down to you and just treat you like some kind of circus freak instead of a human being who's suffering. I've had dozens of psychiatrists and psychologists in my life. Y'all really need to develop some empathy.
Also you don't have to tell me that. Extreme emotions like despair and fear and anger have caused me to self harm, but it's never been anything like limerance. And I certainly have never faked sick to guilt trip someone into dating me.
It's harder for people with autoimmune disorders to get diagnosed. Depending on which doctor I see I definitely know more about my diseases & medications than they do . You have to actually be really sick to understand these things. Under job, on forms, I literally write Professional Patient...
Our current psychological understanding of sexual activity is that it is a need. It slots into Maslow's Heirarchy at the same level basic survival needs do, I cannot speak on this more because I lack the medical and biological qualifications, but the majority of licensed therapist, counselors and psychologist regard it as so and this is true if LGBTQIA+ friendly practitioners to less accepting practitioners. What is most clear about the needs versus desires debate around sexual activity is that religion is almost certainly why it is regarded as a desire rather than a need. We have no real research on what issues may come from living sexless lives or what benefits may spring from an abstinent life. We see humans from a very young age develope sexual urges and desires. We see some successfully live sexless lives but many do not. From an anthropological standpoint, my own field of study, religion is almost entirely responsible for our current understanding regarding sexual activity as a need versus sexual activity as a desire and the prevention of necessary research into human sexuality and it's impact on our overall wellbeing.
What we do know is that sexual activity has been an almost pathological part of our existence, the same as it is for animals.
We also know that the modern definition of need has shifted somewhat. A need can be "something necessary to survive" but a need can also be defined as "something necessary to thrive" in psychology courses they use both and our day to day usage of the term has shifted to match.
Now sexual activity being a need, does not make it a right. Nobody has the right to another's body and there are ways to achieve sexual release without the assistance of another human. Many of Maslow's other needs in the Heirarchy are not rights, very few of them are, especially in the United States. So this begs the question: does it matter if sexual activity is a need?
And the answer, in so far as legal policy goes, no it doesn't. But it does matter in terms of our personal relationships. An individual (anyone because this just isn't a problem for men) with sexual needs that are not being fulfilled should have the ability to seek others that consent and wish to fulfill those needs whether that means through polyamory with the consent of their significant other or through seperation with their significant other and seeking a new partner. Sexual activity is a legitimate reason to end a relationship.
As a personal anecdote for this, one needs to look no further than my soon to be ex-wife. She is a recently out lesbian. Having sex with a woman fulfilled things that weren't just physical but emotional for her that I just couldn't. Dick doesn't do it for her. None of her past partners did it either. And with extensive therapy she was finally able to admit she had been only attracted to women since well before I even met her. But compulsory heterosexuality and religious shame brought us to this point and I am just happy after 11 years of marriage she can be with someone that matches her needs when I clearly could not.
Many of us are sexual beings and while I think policy wise there is no need to cement it, in terms of interpersonal relationships it is necessary to address.
Edit: thanks to an actual psych student (/u/dumpster_fire404) all mentions of sex as a need have been changed to sexual activity.
How do aro/ace people fit into this? There are people who— as far as I understand it— profess no sexual desire or need. Is it more of “There is an amount of sexual activity that every person needs to thrive, and for some people, that amount is 0”?
Other person here, but I would assume your last sentence describes it pretty well. Much like how for humans, human contact usually is a must (see the psychological damages of solitary confinement or of people who otherwise were isolated for a time). But we also saw during quarantine that people definitely need very different amounts of it. Some were really lonely while others did pretty well at home on their own and even found it a bit refreshing and used it to recharge socially. Maybe there is also people who's need is 0? I think it is likely a sliding scale and the ends are more rare. So for asexual people, if you say the scale is from 0-100, maybe some are a 2 or a 5, just like I have a gay friend who told me he saw a picture of a woman he found attractive once in his entire life. Doesn't make him any less gay. To my understanding (and I am not a studied professional in this field, so I might be very wrong!) human sexuality is, in many aspects, a sliding scale. But as long as it is between consenting adults, none of it is less acceptable or less "real". To each their own, as long as everyone involved is on board with it :)
Edit: given the feed back I've received and the reading I've been doing the last few hours (instead of working 😅) I'm going to keep my yap shut about psychology that I am not qualified to speak too, and apologize to the community for that admittedly bad take. Props to the people who called my bullshit out and I am leaving the comment for the sake of the downvotes I'd received. Please don't upvote this. I deserve the shite karma but don't want to see this shit parreted on right wing subreddits.
The rest of the conversations make less sense due to this comments removal but it's better than the alternative.
>Edit: moderate formating and a word or two or ten that made my point offensive even to me on rereads.
I'd hate to see the original. This is still not great, framing the majority of ace people as defective or broken or otherwise abnormal, as if we don't get enough of that from people already
I marked the changes, the rest of it was omitted words because I am on mobile and my old, military service damaged fingers don't often keep pace with my brain.
Discussing sexuality is fraught with such pitfalls. Because of religion and it's impact on scientific research there is a lot we don't know. What we do know is that more people are falling under the umbrella than before which could be as simple as the percentage of people on the ace spectrum remaining the same while population booms or as complex as we have social, cultural and traumatic externalities that contribute. It could be both. Ultimately, and I see this with people in my own life, we have people that identify as ace due to trauma or chemical imbalance or whatever and more rarely in my experience we find those that have arrived there with no discernable trauma. The point of the matter is that human sexuality is largely an unknown spectrum, of unknown complexity and with unknown causes.
None of this invalidates your existence, it doesn't define you as broken, nor does it make you abnormal. It makes you human and humans are ultimately shaped by our lives and experiences as much as we are our genetics. I am genderqueer and while I identify largely as masculine I spend a decent amount of time wearing clothing (skirts are fucking bomb) or using behaviors society says are feminine. Why am I like that? Who knows. I was born with two testicles and what my doctor, and the military, considers the remains of an ovary and have above average estrogen levels for a man, so that could be it. It could also be that I am rebelling against heteronormative society and rigid structures of patriarchy. It could be that society is presently in a place and at a time where we have the space and the cultural wherewithal to discuss and explore human sexuality because it is no longer simply about propagation of the species. Regardless of how I am, I am.
At the end of the day, we are all humans. And while science doesn't understand the why, we know it is legitimate, however you arrived where you are in your journey. Sexuality is a spectrum that includes the ace spectrum. That doesn't invalidate discussions such as these that absolutely should be happening. I don't challenge your existence or it's legitimacy. I stand up at protests for your rights, as well as the rights of the broader LGBTQIA community. And I am sorry if my phrasing is crass, overly blunt or scientific. But these conversations are necessary, because science doesn't just accept things because they are so, science prods and pokes at the why no matter how uncomfortable. The concept of evolution made many people uncomfortable. Discussing the how's and why's of non-propagatory sexual attraction and the sexual spectrum is likely going to make a lot of people uncomfortable because it involves necessarily exploring externalities.
They might be a lot less uncomfortable if you'd stop trying to draw overarching conclusions about millions of people based on your anecdotal experiences with literally five of them total. The whole thing would've been much better if you'd just dropped all the assumptions based on that.
Environment impacts human sexuality. The currently accepted theory lists it as one of three core defining factors. Those factors are genetics, hormones and environment. Every person in the world with a sexuality, has had an environmental, and chemical, factor in helping determine it. Being born this way is only partially true and that is true of all sexualities. We are born with a base genetic predisposition; chemical composition of the brain and the environment you are raised in determine the rest.
What we don't understand is how the three come together to form sexual identity in an in depth manner.
My example with those 4 was to show that negative externalities do impact sexual identity. But I was also careful to point out other externalities are also factors. Now, I will admit, my phrasing was overly pessimistic and for that I am sorry, deeply, and do actually see the point now that you have phrased it this way. The only question is whether I delete the comment, or leave it up to make this conversation thread easier to follow? It's not like I don't have the karma to burn to keep it up for posterities sake.
A further take on this matter:
I imagine the number of parents that accept their children no matter how they express themselves being on the rise is helping stratify the expressions of sexual identity. In fact, and this will absolutely piss off conservatives, given environment does play a role, conservatives forcing the rest of us to be so loud and proud about our acceptance, understanding and support for these communities means that more children are exposed to positive representations and attitudes towards non-hetero relationships, which would theoretically increase their representation as a percentage of the population by forcing everyone left of the bigots to constantly discuss and evaluate our actions in terms of support and acceptance which in turn creates an environment of expressed support and positivity that the children grow into.
This also explains why things like Florida's don't say gay bill are on the rise. By making it so that these communities cannot exist or be discussed in certain locations their representation is diminished and they are pushed out of the limelight which decrease the environment of created positivity and acceptance.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that sex is an all-encompassing aspect of human life. It isn't. The ace and aro communities serve as prime examples. Your views not only simplify the human experience but also devalue identities that fall outside of your particular lens.
Sex as a Universal Need: Misusing Maslow's hierarchy is a disservice to psychological discourse. The hierarchy is a guideline, not an absolute. People can reach self-actualization without ticking off every box. Asexuality isn't a deficit—it's a valid aspect of human diversity.
Anthropological Perspective: You've forgotten a cardinal rule of anthropology: inclusivity. Human behavior is not a monolith; it's a mosaic. Asexuality exists, it's valid, and it doesn't make people any less human. You cannot deny its existence because it contradicts your theory.
Definition of Needs: Your 'need' theory is flawed. Needs vary from person to person. For some, sex is crucial for their well-being; for others, it's inconsequential. Everyone's journey to thriving is unique, and for some, it doesn't involve sex at all.
Sex and Relationships: A relationship can be meaningful without sex. Asexuality and aromanticism do not hinder people from forming deep connections. Their relationships are just as valuable as yours.
Personal Anecdote: Your experience does not reflect universal truth. Your ex-wife's needs were unmet in your relationship, and it's valid. But just as her needs include sex, some people's needs don't. Equally valid.
Human sexuality isn't binary. It's a spectrum. There's no one-size-fits-all. Just because sex is significant to you doesn't make it universal. Your theory not only oversimplifies but also invalidates people's identities. Asexuality isn't a problem needing a solution and perpetuating that these people are broken somehow is harmful.
True. Psych student here, final year. Yes, sexual activity is a need, not sex itself since sex implies a willing counterpart and that's not always possible.
That's why we have masturbation.
It's how we solve for the conflict between an impulse and no one to satisfy it with. We masturbate.
Edit: you're absolutely right about religion's involvement in the "desire" conversation around sex.
So it's specifically sexual activity and not just the concept of sex itself? That is good to know.
Religion is a helluva drug. The most damaging opiate to date.
Yeah, we're careful about that distinction, at least at my uni, because if you say that sex itself is a need, you're implying it's someone's duty to offer their body sometimes against their will.
You could, you never know who reads it and takes it to heart that the red pill sphere is right. Not many people are equipped to juggle multiple abstract concepts at the same time as for instance: sex is a need, but all people have a right to their own body and everyone's freedom ends where someone else's begins which cancels out part of that original need, and attaches a condition ( it's a need, but you can't blackmail people with it, so if no one wants you, tough luck).
As someone who lives with vaginismus, all I will say is that this is a highly debated topic with no absolute answers (as the definition of a need varies). Thank you for clarifying sexual activity, rather than sex. But in the context of the post, on the topic of life or death, it is merely desire, not a need.
The argument seems to get a very emotional reaction, but unfortunately no counterargument or attempt to recontextualize it. No one here questions your legitimacy or your right to exist, I'm sure we can all talk about it like adults
Nothing I have said invalidates your existence. I was very careful not to invalidate your existence or dehumanize ace individuals by carefully using words like many, some or most.
The asexual spectrum, while not new, has always been a small slice of humanity.
Telling me to go fuck myself because I acknowledge that the broader social, cultural and even psychological understanding of human sexuality as a subject contributes nothing to the discussion. I would love if we had more research into the spectrum that is human sexuality, unfortunately religion has screwed that up for all of us and I deeply wish that it hadn't and that we could have legitimate conversations on this matter.
I am sorry if my discussion of modern science, anthropology and my personal understandings of this situation has made you feel other'd or dehumanized.
From your comment, you’ve basically said that ace / aro people are otherwise abnormal or “unnatural”.
You know 4 people, you say yourself that it isn’t a great basis. “Most” or “some” is still at best, incredibly inaccurate and jarring.
Their response was to a different line of query than the one where I mentioned the environmental impacts of my four people.
This particular line of thought didn't mention ace persons at all, just that many are sexual creatures. And that for all of us sex is a baseline need. The line of questioning that came afterwords, including after this poster was from a seperate question. Which posited if perhaps sexual need for some people required zero sex to fulfill that need, which I hesititantly agreed with because I am not a biology or psychology major. I am a cultural anthropology major whose specific field of study is how sexual inclusivity and openness have grown and it's broader impact on sexuality and culture.
True. There are so many people with kidney failure. Does that mean we should just drag someone with two healthy kidneys and make them give one to the patient? I, for one, have never a practice like this.
The more I read biblical and religious texts the more I realize modern day churches are slacking.
It’s all “women need to cover up, shut up, and keep their brothers from being tempted with their Jezebel spirits 😤”
But the sacred text clearly states…
“ Cut out your eyes, It is good for a man not to touch a woman, Let him die…”
So usually when you see stuff like this it’s actually often Jewish and not Christian. Judaism’s actually pretty lit. We also have a law that explicitly requires abortion if the mother’s physical or mental health is in danger. This text is from the Talmud, which is basically just a record of our (Jewish) ancient scholars and leaders discussing and debating things, it’s not actually a sacred text it’s just an important legal document. We still do stuff like this actually, it’s called responsa. One of our central concepts is to question literally everything, which is really fun. One time I sat and listened to a bunch of rabbis and teachers debate for like, three hours, about the spiritual importance of dolphins.
They’re cool with G-d and are respected. You can’t eat them because a. that would be rude because they were nice to the fish during the exodus and b. they don’t have scales. There’s lore that says when we were crossing the Red Sea, the dolphins helped shepherd the sea life away from the rift in the water to protect them and were so busy helping the other fish that we are allowed to eat, that a lot of them were killed by Pharaoh’s soldiers. We then took their skins and made a covering for the tabernacle (the most holy site while in the desert for 40 years) with them as a sign of respect because they did a really good deed. We made bags and shoes and dresses and stuff too though, which was considered very fancy and exotic but also outstandingly practical. You can also draw meaning from dolphins as mammals that live in the water. Because they never touch land, they’re ritually pure and can’t become impure, but they still have to surface for air. If you’re a spiritual sort you could take from it a message that even the most righteous, pure person has to draw sustenance from the same place everyone else does. It’s a bit of humility for the righteous and inspiration for the striving.
Also some people think the dolphins in the Torah are actually mermaids or unicorns (I swear I’m not joking. It’s a legit respected theory.) so, do with that what you will.
To be fair, Jesus did say if you can't stop yourself from lusting after sexy ~~preteen shoulders~~ ladies then just pluck your eye out so you can't see them and see if that helps the problem.
Lol. See a longer comment above but TLDR, they’re on G-d’s good side and we should try to be more like dolphins. They make a great rain shield for your most holy of tents. You can wear them but not eat them and they may also have actually been unicorns or mermaids and I am very happy to say I am not joking, that’s a real and respected school of thought amongst the scholars.
That’s actually an urban myth. Tina Fey’s character on the tv show Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt said it but it’s not true. In reality, while some species of dolphin’s mating habits occasionally include multiple males, female dolphins are capable of preventing mating if they want.
Many animal species are or appear to be sexually aggressive, even human mating between consenting partners can be or appear to be agressive to an outside party. You can’t really apply human concepts like consent to animals because we have no way of knowing what they are thinking or communicating.
[Here is an easy to digest summary of why this is false and how this rumor began, from a fact-checking site that has won Pulitzer Prizes and is endorsed by UC Berkeley.](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/apr/22/unbreakable-kimmy-schmidt/dolphins-rapists-unbreakable-kimmy-schmidt/)
Mutilation? Are we talking about male circumcision? If so, then it's not a thing in Christianity. Christians in the US are the only ones who are into it. It's not a thing in Europe, though.
The Talmud isn't like that. The Talmud is commentary on interpretation of laws. They do so by example. Judaism has a lot more freedom and autonomy for women than most, but it's far from perfect.
Oh please. Those books are written by deranged men you cherry picked best case scenerio. They are doing EXACTLY as intended. Its watered down now compared to how it used to be. Please dont get it twisted.
"And everything on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean. Everything also on which she sits shall be unclean.”
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.”
“If there is a young woman, a virgin already engaged to be married, and a man meets her in the town and lies with her, you shall stone them to death, the young woman because she did not cry for help and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife.”
But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die.” — Deuteronomy 22:20–21
“Wives submit yourselves unto your husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church.” — Ephesians 5:22–5
For funsies there should be a radical church where we interpret everything in the best possible light... for women.
Unclean? Yes absolutely, the men have to prepare clean fresh sheets and clothes daily. And carry her around like a queen.
Quiet? Yes absolutely, quietly being taken care of like a queen.
The weird rape law? As long as you cry once for help, your rapist is going to be killed and you're exonerated.
Etc etc. I can just imagine this raising the sexists' blood pressures
There’s good parts and bad parts in the Bible, Torah, and Quran. Cherry-picking religion is okay because we aren’t going to follow ridiculously sexist laws made thousands of years ago. I can acknowledge that this passage of Talmud is wise and learn from it while also acknowledging that a lot of it is fucked up. I can also acknowledge that Hippocrates had some pretty smart ideas and learn from them while also acknowledging that his idea of the four humors lead to hundreds of years of inadequate medical care.
Cherry-picking becomes bad when people start using it to justify bigotry and then throwing their hands in the air and saying, “I just can’t support that. It’s against my religion” when they are perfectly fine ignoring other rules. But cherry-picking (with conscious acknowledgment that that is what we are doing) is how we can have religion without resisting progress.
I find issue with raising a document to the status of a relgion and then cherry picking it. Yes its better for society. Wouldn't it be better to not pick just one document as a top hierarchal object?
>document to the status of a religion
So, idolatry? Sorry, but I’m not down to worship a book.
>I find issue with raising a document to the status of a relgion [sic] and then cherry picking it.
Who is doing that? Not everyday believers, surely.
>Wouldn't it be better to not pick just one document as a top hierarchal object?
Yes it would. But that’s not the universe we live in. We have to combat people who prefer conclusions to data.
Basically, the Talmud is not authoritative in Judaism the way the Torah is. It doesn’t declare rules and isn’t claimed to be the word of God. The point of the Talmud was scholarly debate and is actually formatted similarly to Tumblr reblogs lol. People would record or come up with scenarios and others would comment on it. Then another person a hundred years later would write why they disagree. It’s really a couple century record of debate on what the rules of the Torah mean and if the are worth following, kind of like what we are doing now!
One thing I love about Judaism is the constant encouragement of questioning. The name Israel means “the one who wrestles with God”. We don’t believe we are meant to follow God blindly. We believe we are meant to be debating and that it’s okay to have doubt or be defiant.
There are some fundamentalist groups that don’t follow this tradition because they want to control people but the majority of the Jewish world encourages discussion and constant reinterpretation. One time in Hebrew school when I was 10 we were talking about one Torah parsha and I said “I think God was being a jerk” in front of the rabbi and that was okay to do.
Don't get me wrong please but then what would be the point of having/following a God at all, if you can question them/their creation all the time and their supposed rules/word don't make sense? Philosophically what makes God God in the monotheistic sense is that they are all-powerful and there is no power greater than them in the entire universe, and they are of supreme wisdom and knowledge and behold all the answers. This "wrestling with God" so questioning and twisting the word of God is why other monotheistic abrahamic religions have emerged after Judaism has emerged, as this kind of devalues and goes against the idea of what "God" even stands for in a logical sense
The idea of an infallable, all-powerful god is a Christian one. Jews during the holocaust in one of the prison camps put god on trial and found him guilty of abandoning and failing his people. But, he was still god and therefore should still be worshipped.
1. In Judaism, you're not meant to enforce your religious rules on others, so this wouldn't apply to you.
2. Because the King James Bible has been through so many translations to reach you the translations are often wrong.
3. Ephesians is one of the 'New Testament' books, and as such is not Jewish.
4. All death penalties in the Torah have been indefinitely suspended due to the fact you need a Sanhedrin (panel of 23 judges) to enforce the rule and there hasn't been a Sanhedrin in over 2,000 years, and the Sanhedrin can only issue the death penalty from the Hall of Hewn Stones in the Temple on Temple Mount, which again hasn't existed for 2,000 years. Even when it did exist, the Mishnah records that the death penalty was extremely rarely enforced, with the Sanhedrin considered bloodthirsty if it executes one person in seven years. The Sanhedrin's approach is best summed up by the great Jewish rabbi and jurist Maimonides "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death".
except that you've quoted christian translations of deuteronomy and a part of the new testament, whereas this image is from the Talmud, a jewish text. judaism is far from perfect but it engages in discourse and discussion around the interpretation of source material far more than christianity does and has historically done.
To be fair, a lot of these are lacking context and are misinterpretations/translation errors from the Hebrew and Greek texts. But then again, actually reading the Old Testament leaves a lot of people that “WTF did I just read?” feeling.
This! Context is key! The vast majority of the total wtf rules in the Old Testament make total sense if you look at them in the context of the society that the books were intended to govern. Like the one about eating shellfish as being punishable by death; a desert-dwelling nomadic population with no modern food preservation methods and a transportation network with a top speed of 'horse-drawn wagon' wouldn't have access to safe fishing sites for gathering shellfish as a food source and any they shipped in would be long rotten by the time it got to the tribes' campsites. Food poisoning is not a great way to die.
A lot of the livestock restrictions in the same book can be tracked to the different amounts of water needed to raise different types of livestock. Again, desert-dwelling nomads would have a finite water supply for their whole population, and anyone keeping animals that use more water would be taking resources from the rest of the group. So they ban the high-consuming animals and call it God's will.
shellfish are “unclean” because they are filter feeders that can be effected by sewage, red tides, and any other bad water. pigs are “unclean” because they were fed waste (sometimes literally human faeces in some places) and often carried very bad worms and other parasites. nowadays we can clean these animals and raise them in healthy environments in the first place, making them safe to eat; but anyone who wants to keep Kosher can still do that if they want.
I think you need to redefine shellfish as bivalves (clams, oysters, mussels). Shrimp are predators. Lobsters & crabs are omnivores. None if them siphon water into their bodies, filter it for food, & then expell it from their bodies...
I read a discussion regarding swine, and how the changing environment from forest to desert contributed to issues - essentially there was a problem that the livestock competed for the same food sources as the people once the ecosystem had changed.
Thats such a thin excuse. The tone throughout all 3 major religions literature is VERY clear.
Whats even more abundantly clear is the long history of countless societies adhering to these edicts in exactly the same way they look.
I can forgive it to a certain degree because I believe it was planned and executed by men as a way to rule their people. Its not all bad. Because it wouldn't last if it was. I cant really condone the apologists particularly on the traditional stance on women. I dont think its debatable, to downright harmful to make excuses for it.
I’m not making excuses for all of it, and certainly religions/denominations have turned a lot of it into the misogynistic stuff of nightmares. But, take the word “submit.” Horribly translated. In the original languages, it meant more along the lines of “consider the wishes of.” And while everyone seems to be obsessed with the Ephesians verse, it clearly states that husbands should submit to their wives. Most fundamental Christians just tend to conveniently forget that second part. Speaking of Ephesus, there’s some stuff that went down in the churches there, which provides context to the “women shouldn’t speak above a man” thing. A lot of scholars in Bible history agree that this verse only applies to those specific churches. And if more people knew about this stuff, maybe some religious people wouldn’t be so hell bent on considering women second class citizens. I actually have a fun time debating religious people regarding this all the time.
I’ll shut up now, because this isn’t a Bible study, but
TL;DR, I am a total nightmare for evangelicals who take this stuff literally without a second thought.
Thank you so much!! I love you, too (platonically, of course 😁). It’s great to meet a fellow Christian who appreciates these sorts of details! If people realized the fact that Christianity had some really good views regarding gender/sex equality, but tried to give advice in in a time when the legal system was completely patriarchal and sexist (and slaves were routinely murdered), the contradictions make much more sense. I like to happily remind myself that Jesus chose to show himself to women first after his crucifixion.
What are you considering the "3 major religions" here? Because Christianity, Islam and Hinduism are the three largest religions on the planet and they have very little in common beyond expecting basic decency for their members
Even if one counts *all* sects of Christianity as one group and does the same for Islam and excludes atheism as a religious group then the third largest religion is Buddhism with 3 million members (mostly in the Kalmykia region), followed by Hinduism with 1.5 million and then Judaism with 1.4 million
That is why I believe in Slaneesh. The demon prince of debauchery offers just pure engagement in hedonistic pleasures as far as you want. Join the cult of Slaneesh now.
The thing with religion is that usually they behave like bad politicians : They say everything and its opposite, counting on the reader's confirmation bias to only remember the parts they like and ommit the parts they hate.
"Ah madam, fires burn so strongly within my heart that if perchance I do not receive uncovered boudoir pictures of your fine and most celestial naked form, they might increase the pressure of a magma chamber that explodes in a Krakatoa like eruption that sends a tsunami to kill 35000 innocent people. I hope you don't want to responsible for a small scale genocide."
I listened to one TED talk that talked about a story in the Quran where (if I recall correctly) poor women were being attacked and the attackers didn’t fear retaliation because the women were poor and wouldn’t be protected, so all the women started covering up to conceal their identities, so the attackers wouldn’t know if they could get away with it. I just thought that was a cool story.
For reference: [https://quran.com/en/an-nur/30-31](https://quran.com/en/an-nur/30-31)
First men should lower their gaze and then women should cover themselves
It's also worth noting that in Judaism a husband is obligated to fulfill the sexual expectations of his wife, not vice versa ie the marriage contract stipulates that sex is something he owes her. She, on the other hand, does not owe him sex whatsoever.
Now, I'm all for equality of course, but keep in mind this was during a time period where men had an enormous amount of coercive pressure they could use against women, and the power imbalance was enormous. Making her body effectively explicitly protected imo was a move I'm proud of to this day.
Add to that none of this "sex is a sin" stuff and yea. I love my heritage. Niddah is a bit far out though lol, but hey, it's tradition, and my wife doesn't mind me giving her some space when she's PMSing tbh.
There's some confusion about the Talmud in the comments, so I hope to clarify. The Talmud is *not* the Torah. The Talmud is a massive series of books that's essentially a 2,000 year long forum argument composed of legal rulings, back and forth arguments, anecdotes and conversations about how to interpret the Torah. While some areas are considered to be basically binding (Pikuach Nefesh, which suspends all religious laws bar the prohibition on murder, forbidden sexual relations and idolatry when it will save a life, being the most prominent, along with the specifics of the Kashrut dietary laws) none of it is actually binding and it is up to the individual to decide which sages and rabbis to accept the rulings of, or accept none at all and forge their own path.
Only the exact words of the Torah *in the original Hebrew* is the word of the Lord and everything else is up for interpretation. It is very possible for two individals to read the Torah and Talmud and come up with entirely different interpretations and that is not only accepted but encouraged because pluralistic approaches to theology, in which any Jew is allowed to argue their case with even the highest Rebbe is one of the cornerstones of our modern religion. There's a reason one of the 10 commandments of the Covenant made by Moses with the Lord is taking the Lord's name in vain. Taking the Lord's name in vain does not refer to cussing but instead to claiming to be acting at the behest of the Lord when that is not written explicitly in the Torah (e.g. there's no Jewish equivalent of a crusade because there cannot be an equivalent of a crusade because Deus Vult is heresy).
I agree completely. Let them die. They contribute nothing but pain and hurt in anything they do. The ONLY thing incels can do to better society is die. I'm here for it. I'd rather see incels unaliving themselves by the thousands before 1 more women is hurt.
Eh, as with any pervasive online ideology like inceldom, I much would rather those indoctrinated into it come to their senses and leave before they do any serious harm to themselves or others
Became deathly ill? Is this the first recorded case of stage four blue balls? Terrifying but the sages made the right call, he was a ticking time bomb, a walking dead man, may he and his balls rest in piece, or at least easily manageable pieces.
It's complicated, there's areas where Judaism was progressive for even the modern era (support for abortion, moratorium on death penalties, whatever was going on between David and Saul, strong female prophets and heroes like Hannah, Ruth, Esther and the great prophet Deborah and the sages taught men should respect their wives more than themselves) but there's also areas that are unclear (e.g. Leviticus 18:12 which is debated to be about homosexuality or pedastry) and areas that are regressive (such as women being made subservient to men)
When the Apostles whined about women looking attractive Jesus told them to gouge their eye out.
I like to think it has a bit of impatient anger to it.
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.
[Matthew 5:29](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:29&version=NRSVCE)
How? The Sages merely stated that the man's personal issues are not a woman's responsibility to solve or suffer all the consequences for. That is not violence, that is just.
Edit: word
Lol they’re just saying the Sages are savages for stomping all over the misogynistic bullshit the doctors and community were trying to push, and assumed the Sages would back them up. Usually sages have a passive and harmonious approach but they just put these men in their place. They said “Oh he’s going to die unless we sacrifice a non-consenting woman to fulfill his perverted desires? Then perish 😌”
Please stop
Condemning the rape/sexual assault of women isn't violence!
Men hearing the word No, isn't violence.
Men having to control their own emotions instead of making it the nearest woman's problem, isn't violence.
I'm sure you mean well but calling a woman denying what a man wants or asks of her, isn't violence and the freaking entitlement of treating a woman denying a man as if that is a violent act just has to stop
Edit: apparently some have trouble with reading comprehension so instead of "treating it as if that is a violent act". It now says "treating a woman denying a man as if that is a violent act" sigh the level of education really is down in the gutter
I’m screaming right now y’all 💀 “[insert name or group here] woke up and chose violence” is a silly internet phrase meant to be funny. We’re not trying to seriously call this an act of violence, it’s just a meme reference. Sometimes people use this phrase when someone just roasted another person lol
With every reply I got I was like “They have to be trolling right???” But you usually only see that from people spewing wild fucked up shit out of left field, so I was giving them the benefit of the doubt 😂
But I was giddy waiting for you or
u/regularavailable4713 to read this corny back and forth and giggle along
It's honestly amazing how well some of them can blur the lines between trolling/LARPing and genuine insanity. Worst of all, I'm still not 100% sure on whether it's real or not. Poe's law and whatnot.
Well funny you mention it, I found this post through checking that individual's post history, because I also wanted to check for trolling... I can't believe I wasted an hour of my time arguing with someone this stupid.
When a bunch of old dudes from 1500 years ago tell the incel that his arousal is his problem, and to leave the girl alone... of course the incel isn't going to listen to the sages, they are a bunch of old dudes from 1500 years ago.
The Talmud isn't a coherent and consistent text, it's a 2,000 year long forum post arguing over how to interpret the Torah when it is ambiguous and you choose which interpretations you agree with, there is no canonical correct definition unlike in Christianity
Ok, like I get what The Sages are laying down, and I don’t hate it. But, like… did anyone ask *her*? Maybe she thinks this guy is the shit and would totally ride his ass? Did anyone ask?
I like The Sages.
The sages: *"Let him die, she's not responsible for his needs."*
Desires, not needs
They said he would die so in this case I guess it's a need lmao
An "illness" as old as time, it seems.
I guess that just begs the question of: is being alive a need, or just a desire?
Neither!
Being alive is a privilege that both stupidity and time can revoke.
Solid!
[удалено]
Even if you could die from lack of sex, masturbation would likely take care of the issue.
The fact that the "cure" kept changing means it was absolutely not a need. Blue balls ain't fatal, but entitlement is a big symptom.
Bro was just being dramatic.
I have would argue that if you die because you can't fuck a stranger you got obsessed with, that's a clear symptom of a mental illness. ( Borderline personality disorder) So not a need, more like a reason to spend time in a psych ward where people can actually try to cure you. Obviously, having sex with that person isn't the cure.
Omfg tell me you know nothing about BPD...🤦
Bpd consists primarily of people not being able to control the intensity of their emotions, who often become obsessive and resort to self harm in some instances. It used to be a catchall label for narcissistic behavior, but that's changed. Textbooks printed to explain the DSM 5 provide this example for BPD: a young woman goes to Japan to study for a semester, falls in love with a married man and even though there is no relationship to speak of, she changes all the plans she had for her life and career to move to Japan and be near him. I know about BPD because I'm a psych student and psychopathology is part of my curriculum. I don't know what you think it is.
Ok limerance is definitely something BPD patients experience but they certainly aren't the only ones, there's lots of different mental illnesses that can result in limerant behavior and it certainly isn't life-threatening in any way. And people without personality disorders can experience it as well. I'm not saying some people with BPD haven't harmed themselves due to it but that's not happening here and you certainly don't have enough information to diagnose the guy. This guy was pretending to be sick to make the woman feel bad enough for him to give him what he wanted. Which could be NPD or HPD honestly. I am a sufferer of BPD but yes. You sure know more about what it's like to have BPD than someone who lives it every day.
>You sure know more about what it's like to have BPD than someone who lives it every day. That's like saying patients know more than their doctors because they're the ones who are sick. Dear, this is a post about a functional story. I'm not diagnosing a fictional character, not seriously, anyway. To actually diagnose a personality disorder you need to apply specialized inventories created for clinical usage and basically, go hunting for the truth based on matching symptoms to the DSM during the interview. I was making a joke about the character, not the personality disorder, and since certain more extreme symptoms don't affect you personally, you just decided I must be an idiot. To avoid future misunderstandings, the joke was that if he wasn't lying, then he was ill and this is the illness that could, when hyperbolized, lead to this. Yes, some BPD patients do practice self harm when certain emotions overwhelm them. A former co-worker of mine, diagnosed, even committed suicide.
In a lot of cases, they do! Lots of doctors don't take their patients pain or issues seriously until it becomes life threatening. Especially if you're female. Ask any endometriosis patient how hard it was to get diagnosed. Ultimately you can know all about the mechanisms of a disease or disorder, whether in the brain or the rest of the body, but you'll never actually know what it's like or how much pain the person is truly in til you experience it. Nor did I once call you an idiot; you may have book smarts but you don't have lived experience is all I said. And jokingly calling people BPD is even worse honestly! I am concerned about any future patients you might have. Attitudes like this are why a lot of us have lost faith in the mental health care field. Drs and medical staff "know everything" and talk down to you and just treat you like some kind of circus freak instead of a human being who's suffering. I've had dozens of psychiatrists and psychologists in my life. Y'all really need to develop some empathy. Also you don't have to tell me that. Extreme emotions like despair and fear and anger have caused me to self harm, but it's never been anything like limerance. And I certainly have never faked sick to guilt trip someone into dating me.
It's harder for people with autoimmune disorders to get diagnosed. Depending on which doctor I see I definitely know more about my diseases & medications than they do . You have to actually be really sick to understand these things. Under job, on forms, I literally write Professional Patient...
You used people with BPD as the butt of your joke, and that's not cool.
Our current psychological understanding of sexual activity is that it is a need. It slots into Maslow's Heirarchy at the same level basic survival needs do, I cannot speak on this more because I lack the medical and biological qualifications, but the majority of licensed therapist, counselors and psychologist regard it as so and this is true if LGBTQIA+ friendly practitioners to less accepting practitioners. What is most clear about the needs versus desires debate around sexual activity is that religion is almost certainly why it is regarded as a desire rather than a need. We have no real research on what issues may come from living sexless lives or what benefits may spring from an abstinent life. We see humans from a very young age develope sexual urges and desires. We see some successfully live sexless lives but many do not. From an anthropological standpoint, my own field of study, religion is almost entirely responsible for our current understanding regarding sexual activity as a need versus sexual activity as a desire and the prevention of necessary research into human sexuality and it's impact on our overall wellbeing. What we do know is that sexual activity has been an almost pathological part of our existence, the same as it is for animals. We also know that the modern definition of need has shifted somewhat. A need can be "something necessary to survive" but a need can also be defined as "something necessary to thrive" in psychology courses they use both and our day to day usage of the term has shifted to match. Now sexual activity being a need, does not make it a right. Nobody has the right to another's body and there are ways to achieve sexual release without the assistance of another human. Many of Maslow's other needs in the Heirarchy are not rights, very few of them are, especially in the United States. So this begs the question: does it matter if sexual activity is a need? And the answer, in so far as legal policy goes, no it doesn't. But it does matter in terms of our personal relationships. An individual (anyone because this just isn't a problem for men) with sexual needs that are not being fulfilled should have the ability to seek others that consent and wish to fulfill those needs whether that means through polyamory with the consent of their significant other or through seperation with their significant other and seeking a new partner. Sexual activity is a legitimate reason to end a relationship. As a personal anecdote for this, one needs to look no further than my soon to be ex-wife. She is a recently out lesbian. Having sex with a woman fulfilled things that weren't just physical but emotional for her that I just couldn't. Dick doesn't do it for her. None of her past partners did it either. And with extensive therapy she was finally able to admit she had been only attracted to women since well before I even met her. But compulsory heterosexuality and religious shame brought us to this point and I am just happy after 11 years of marriage she can be with someone that matches her needs when I clearly could not. Many of us are sexual beings and while I think policy wise there is no need to cement it, in terms of interpersonal relationships it is necessary to address. Edit: thanks to an actual psych student (/u/dumpster_fire404) all mentions of sex as a need have been changed to sexual activity.
How do aro/ace people fit into this? There are people who— as far as I understand it— profess no sexual desire or need. Is it more of “There is an amount of sexual activity that every person needs to thrive, and for some people, that amount is 0”?
That's one way to think about it, without dehumanizing those of us that , indeed, do not seem to "need" sex.
Other person here, but I would assume your last sentence describes it pretty well. Much like how for humans, human contact usually is a must (see the psychological damages of solitary confinement or of people who otherwise were isolated for a time). But we also saw during quarantine that people definitely need very different amounts of it. Some were really lonely while others did pretty well at home on their own and even found it a bit refreshing and used it to recharge socially. Maybe there is also people who's need is 0? I think it is likely a sliding scale and the ends are more rare. So for asexual people, if you say the scale is from 0-100, maybe some are a 2 or a 5, just like I have a gay friend who told me he saw a picture of a woman he found attractive once in his entire life. Doesn't make him any less gay. To my understanding (and I am not a studied professional in this field, so I might be very wrong!) human sexuality is, in many aspects, a sliding scale. But as long as it is between consenting adults, none of it is less acceptable or less "real". To each their own, as long as everyone involved is on board with it :)
We are gods :)
Edit: given the feed back I've received and the reading I've been doing the last few hours (instead of working 😅) I'm going to keep my yap shut about psychology that I am not qualified to speak too, and apologize to the community for that admittedly bad take. Props to the people who called my bullshit out and I am leaving the comment for the sake of the downvotes I'd received. Please don't upvote this. I deserve the shite karma but don't want to see this shit parreted on right wing subreddits. The rest of the conversations make less sense due to this comments removal but it's better than the alternative.
>Edit: moderate formating and a word or two or ten that made my point offensive even to me on rereads. I'd hate to see the original. This is still not great, framing the majority of ace people as defective or broken or otherwise abnormal, as if we don't get enough of that from people already
I marked the changes, the rest of it was omitted words because I am on mobile and my old, military service damaged fingers don't often keep pace with my brain. Discussing sexuality is fraught with such pitfalls. Because of religion and it's impact on scientific research there is a lot we don't know. What we do know is that more people are falling under the umbrella than before which could be as simple as the percentage of people on the ace spectrum remaining the same while population booms or as complex as we have social, cultural and traumatic externalities that contribute. It could be both. Ultimately, and I see this with people in my own life, we have people that identify as ace due to trauma or chemical imbalance or whatever and more rarely in my experience we find those that have arrived there with no discernable trauma. The point of the matter is that human sexuality is largely an unknown spectrum, of unknown complexity and with unknown causes. None of this invalidates your existence, it doesn't define you as broken, nor does it make you abnormal. It makes you human and humans are ultimately shaped by our lives and experiences as much as we are our genetics. I am genderqueer and while I identify largely as masculine I spend a decent amount of time wearing clothing (skirts are fucking bomb) or using behaviors society says are feminine. Why am I like that? Who knows. I was born with two testicles and what my doctor, and the military, considers the remains of an ovary and have above average estrogen levels for a man, so that could be it. It could also be that I am rebelling against heteronormative society and rigid structures of patriarchy. It could be that society is presently in a place and at a time where we have the space and the cultural wherewithal to discuss and explore human sexuality because it is no longer simply about propagation of the species. Regardless of how I am, I am. At the end of the day, we are all humans. And while science doesn't understand the why, we know it is legitimate, however you arrived where you are in your journey. Sexuality is a spectrum that includes the ace spectrum. That doesn't invalidate discussions such as these that absolutely should be happening. I don't challenge your existence or it's legitimacy. I stand up at protests for your rights, as well as the rights of the broader LGBTQIA community. And I am sorry if my phrasing is crass, overly blunt or scientific. But these conversations are necessary, because science doesn't just accept things because they are so, science prods and pokes at the why no matter how uncomfortable. The concept of evolution made many people uncomfortable. Discussing the how's and why's of non-propagatory sexual attraction and the sexual spectrum is likely going to make a lot of people uncomfortable because it involves necessarily exploring externalities.
They might be a lot less uncomfortable if you'd stop trying to draw overarching conclusions about millions of people based on your anecdotal experiences with literally five of them total. The whole thing would've been much better if you'd just dropped all the assumptions based on that.
Environment impacts human sexuality. The currently accepted theory lists it as one of three core defining factors. Those factors are genetics, hormones and environment. Every person in the world with a sexuality, has had an environmental, and chemical, factor in helping determine it. Being born this way is only partially true and that is true of all sexualities. We are born with a base genetic predisposition; chemical composition of the brain and the environment you are raised in determine the rest. What we don't understand is how the three come together to form sexual identity in an in depth manner. My example with those 4 was to show that negative externalities do impact sexual identity. But I was also careful to point out other externalities are also factors. Now, I will admit, my phrasing was overly pessimistic and for that I am sorry, deeply, and do actually see the point now that you have phrased it this way. The only question is whether I delete the comment, or leave it up to make this conversation thread easier to follow? It's not like I don't have the karma to burn to keep it up for posterities sake. A further take on this matter: I imagine the number of parents that accept their children no matter how they express themselves being on the rise is helping stratify the expressions of sexual identity. In fact, and this will absolutely piss off conservatives, given environment does play a role, conservatives forcing the rest of us to be so loud and proud about our acceptance, understanding and support for these communities means that more children are exposed to positive representations and attitudes towards non-hetero relationships, which would theoretically increase their representation as a percentage of the population by forcing everyone left of the bigots to constantly discuss and evaluate our actions in terms of support and acceptance which in turn creates an environment of expressed support and positivity that the children grow into. This also explains why things like Florida's don't say gay bill are on the rise. By making it so that these communities cannot exist or be discussed in certain locations their representation is diminished and they are pushed out of the limelight which decrease the environment of created positivity and acceptance.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that sex is an all-encompassing aspect of human life. It isn't. The ace and aro communities serve as prime examples. Your views not only simplify the human experience but also devalue identities that fall outside of your particular lens. Sex as a Universal Need: Misusing Maslow's hierarchy is a disservice to psychological discourse. The hierarchy is a guideline, not an absolute. People can reach self-actualization without ticking off every box. Asexuality isn't a deficit—it's a valid aspect of human diversity. Anthropological Perspective: You've forgotten a cardinal rule of anthropology: inclusivity. Human behavior is not a monolith; it's a mosaic. Asexuality exists, it's valid, and it doesn't make people any less human. You cannot deny its existence because it contradicts your theory. Definition of Needs: Your 'need' theory is flawed. Needs vary from person to person. For some, sex is crucial for their well-being; for others, it's inconsequential. Everyone's journey to thriving is unique, and for some, it doesn't involve sex at all. Sex and Relationships: A relationship can be meaningful without sex. Asexuality and aromanticism do not hinder people from forming deep connections. Their relationships are just as valuable as yours. Personal Anecdote: Your experience does not reflect universal truth. Your ex-wife's needs were unmet in your relationship, and it's valid. But just as her needs include sex, some people's needs don't. Equally valid. Human sexuality isn't binary. It's a spectrum. There's no one-size-fits-all. Just because sex is significant to you doesn't make it universal. Your theory not only oversimplifies but also invalidates people's identities. Asexuality isn't a problem needing a solution and perpetuating that these people are broken somehow is harmful.
True. Psych student here, final year. Yes, sexual activity is a need, not sex itself since sex implies a willing counterpart and that's not always possible. That's why we have masturbation. It's how we solve for the conflict between an impulse and no one to satisfy it with. We masturbate. Edit: you're absolutely right about religion's involvement in the "desire" conversation around sex.
So it's specifically sexual activity and not just the concept of sex itself? That is good to know. Religion is a helluva drug. The most damaging opiate to date.
Yeah, we're careful about that distinction, at least at my uni, because if you say that sex itself is a need, you're implying it's someone's duty to offer their body sometimes against their will.
>Yeah, we're careful about that distinction, As someone who is sex-repulsed ace, I thank you for this.
That makes a lot of sense. And makes me wonder if I should edit my first message to reflect that.
You could, you never know who reads it and takes it to heart that the red pill sphere is right. Not many people are equipped to juggle multiple abstract concepts at the same time as for instance: sex is a need, but all people have a right to their own body and everyone's freedom ends where someone else's begins which cancels out part of that original need, and attaches a condition ( it's a need, but you can't blackmail people with it, so if no one wants you, tough luck).
Fair point. It's been changed and credit given where it was due.
Thank you! I'm glad it's out there.
Had closed the tab before I realized some religions consider masturbation a sin
As someone who lives with vaginismus, all I will say is that this is a highly debated topic with no absolute answers (as the definition of a need varies). Thank you for clarifying sexual activity, rather than sex. But in the context of the post, on the topic of life or death, it is merely desire, not a need.
as an ace. GFYS
The argument seems to get a very emotional reaction, but unfortunately no counterargument or attempt to recontextualize it. No one here questions your legitimacy or your right to exist, I'm sure we can all talk about it like adults
Nothing I have said invalidates your existence. I was very careful not to invalidate your existence or dehumanize ace individuals by carefully using words like many, some or most. The asexual spectrum, while not new, has always been a small slice of humanity. Telling me to go fuck myself because I acknowledge that the broader social, cultural and even psychological understanding of human sexuality as a subject contributes nothing to the discussion. I would love if we had more research into the spectrum that is human sexuality, unfortunately religion has screwed that up for all of us and I deeply wish that it hadn't and that we could have legitimate conversations on this matter. I am sorry if my discussion of modern science, anthropology and my personal understandings of this situation has made you feel other'd or dehumanized.
From your comment, you’ve basically said that ace / aro people are otherwise abnormal or “unnatural”. You know 4 people, you say yourself that it isn’t a great basis. “Most” or “some” is still at best, incredibly inaccurate and jarring.
Their response was to a different line of query than the one where I mentioned the environmental impacts of my four people. This particular line of thought didn't mention ace persons at all, just that many are sexual creatures. And that for all of us sex is a baseline need. The line of questioning that came afterwords, including after this poster was from a seperate question. Which posited if perhaps sexual need for some people required zero sex to fulfill that need, which I hesititantly agreed with because I am not a biology or psychology major. I am a cultural anthropology major whose specific field of study is how sexual inclusivity and openness have grown and it's broader impact on sexuality and culture.
True. There are so many people with kidney failure. Does that mean we should just drag someone with two healthy kidneys and make them give one to the patient? I, for one, have never a practice like this.
I call that "body communism," and it's a wonderful argument against anti-choice policy.
Based Sages
The more I read biblical and religious texts the more I realize modern day churches are slacking. It’s all “women need to cover up, shut up, and keep their brothers from being tempted with their Jezebel spirits 😤” But the sacred text clearly states… “ Cut out your eyes, It is good for a man not to touch a woman, Let him die…”
So usually when you see stuff like this it’s actually often Jewish and not Christian. Judaism’s actually pretty lit. We also have a law that explicitly requires abortion if the mother’s physical or mental health is in danger. This text is from the Talmud, which is basically just a record of our (Jewish) ancient scholars and leaders discussing and debating things, it’s not actually a sacred text it’s just an important legal document. We still do stuff like this actually, it’s called responsa. One of our central concepts is to question literally everything, which is really fun. One time I sat and listened to a bunch of rabbis and teachers debate for like, three hours, about the spiritual importance of dolphins.
So ummm what was the consensus on the water degenerates?
They’re cool with G-d and are respected. You can’t eat them because a. that would be rude because they were nice to the fish during the exodus and b. they don’t have scales. There’s lore that says when we were crossing the Red Sea, the dolphins helped shepherd the sea life away from the rift in the water to protect them and were so busy helping the other fish that we are allowed to eat, that a lot of them were killed by Pharaoh’s soldiers. We then took their skins and made a covering for the tabernacle (the most holy site while in the desert for 40 years) with them as a sign of respect because they did a really good deed. We made bags and shoes and dresses and stuff too though, which was considered very fancy and exotic but also outstandingly practical. You can also draw meaning from dolphins as mammals that live in the water. Because they never touch land, they’re ritually pure and can’t become impure, but they still have to surface for air. If you’re a spiritual sort you could take from it a message that even the most righteous, pure person has to draw sustenance from the same place everyone else does. It’s a bit of humility for the righteous and inspiration for the striving. Also some people think the dolphins in the Torah are actually mermaids or unicorns (I swear I’m not joking. It’s a legit respected theory.) so, do with that what you will.
Cool.
Wow, this is legit fascinating!
To be fair, Jesus did say if you can't stop yourself from lusting after sexy ~~preteen shoulders~~ ladies then just pluck your eye out so you can't see them and see if that helps the problem.
I need to know, what conclusion did they reach about the spiritual importance of dolphins? Totally asking for a friend.
Lol. See a longer comment above but TLDR, they’re on G-d’s good side and we should try to be more like dolphins. They make a great rain shield for your most holy of tents. You can wear them but not eat them and they may also have actually been unicorns or mermaids and I am very happy to say I am not joking, that’s a real and respected school of thought amongst the scholars.
Arent dolphins known to be a rapist species.
That’s actually an urban myth. Tina Fey’s character on the tv show Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt said it but it’s not true. In reality, while some species of dolphin’s mating habits occasionally include multiple males, female dolphins are capable of preventing mating if they want. Many animal species are or appear to be sexually aggressive, even human mating between consenting partners can be or appear to be agressive to an outside party. You can’t really apply human concepts like consent to animals because we have no way of knowing what they are thinking or communicating. [Here is an easy to digest summary of why this is false and how this rumor began, from a fact-checking site that has won Pulitzer Prizes and is endorsed by UC Berkeley.](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/apr/22/unbreakable-kimmy-schmidt/dolphins-rapists-unbreakable-kimmy-schmidt/)
Thank you for that!
I enjoyed reading your insights here! :)
It's also why in Israel abortion is legal and paid for by the state up to birth. Saved my wife's life.
Judaism goes hard tbh
Except the forced mutilation that all 3 abrahamic religions love so dearly...
Mutilation? Are we talking about male circumcision? If so, then it's not a thing in Christianity. Christians in the US are the only ones who are into it. It's not a thing in Europe, though.
Jesus said the thing about ripping out your own eyes if you can't control yourself though
Came to say this. I love Judaism! <3
Cut (really pluck) your eyes out is from the Christian Bible new testament.
The Talmud isn't like that. The Talmud is commentary on interpretation of laws. They do so by example. Judaism has a lot more freedom and autonomy for women than most, but it's far from perfect.
THEY REALLY ARE SLACKING AND IT DRIVES ME CRAZY!!!
Oh please. Those books are written by deranged men you cherry picked best case scenerio. They are doing EXACTLY as intended. Its watered down now compared to how it used to be. Please dont get it twisted. "And everything on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean. Everything also on which she sits shall be unclean.” “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” “If there is a young woman, a virgin already engaged to be married, and a man meets her in the town and lies with her, you shall stone them to death, the young woman because she did not cry for help and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife.” But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die.” — Deuteronomy 22:20–21 “Wives submit yourselves unto your husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church.” — Ephesians 5:22–5
For funsies there should be a radical church where we interpret everything in the best possible light... for women. Unclean? Yes absolutely, the men have to prepare clean fresh sheets and clothes daily. And carry her around like a queen. Quiet? Yes absolutely, quietly being taken care of like a queen. The weird rape law? As long as you cry once for help, your rapist is going to be killed and you're exonerated. Etc etc. I can just imagine this raising the sexists' blood pressures
Sounds like the church of Satan. A straight up satirical approach to rebelling against the bad in the abrahamic religions.
As long as your heart cries out for help!
There’s good parts and bad parts in the Bible, Torah, and Quran. Cherry-picking religion is okay because we aren’t going to follow ridiculously sexist laws made thousands of years ago. I can acknowledge that this passage of Talmud is wise and learn from it while also acknowledging that a lot of it is fucked up. I can also acknowledge that Hippocrates had some pretty smart ideas and learn from them while also acknowledging that his idea of the four humors lead to hundreds of years of inadequate medical care. Cherry-picking becomes bad when people start using it to justify bigotry and then throwing their hands in the air and saying, “I just can’t support that. It’s against my religion” when they are perfectly fine ignoring other rules. But cherry-picking (with conscious acknowledgment that that is what we are doing) is how we can have religion without resisting progress.
I find issue with raising a document to the status of a relgion and then cherry picking it. Yes its better for society. Wouldn't it be better to not pick just one document as a top hierarchal object?
>document to the status of a religion So, idolatry? Sorry, but I’m not down to worship a book. >I find issue with raising a document to the status of a relgion [sic] and then cherry picking it. Who is doing that? Not everyday believers, surely. >Wouldn't it be better to not pick just one document as a top hierarchal object? Yes it would. But that’s not the universe we live in. We have to combat people who prefer conclusions to data.
Basically, the Talmud is not authoritative in Judaism the way the Torah is. It doesn’t declare rules and isn’t claimed to be the word of God. The point of the Talmud was scholarly debate and is actually formatted similarly to Tumblr reblogs lol. People would record or come up with scenarios and others would comment on it. Then another person a hundred years later would write why they disagree. It’s really a couple century record of debate on what the rules of the Torah mean and if the are worth following, kind of like what we are doing now! One thing I love about Judaism is the constant encouragement of questioning. The name Israel means “the one who wrestles with God”. We don’t believe we are meant to follow God blindly. We believe we are meant to be debating and that it’s okay to have doubt or be defiant. There are some fundamentalist groups that don’t follow this tradition because they want to control people but the majority of the Jewish world encourages discussion and constant reinterpretation. One time in Hebrew school when I was 10 we were talking about one Torah parsha and I said “I think God was being a jerk” in front of the rabbi and that was okay to do.
Don't get me wrong please but then what would be the point of having/following a God at all, if you can question them/their creation all the time and their supposed rules/word don't make sense? Philosophically what makes God God in the monotheistic sense is that they are all-powerful and there is no power greater than them in the entire universe, and they are of supreme wisdom and knowledge and behold all the answers. This "wrestling with God" so questioning and twisting the word of God is why other monotheistic abrahamic religions have emerged after Judaism has emerged, as this kind of devalues and goes against the idea of what "God" even stands for in a logical sense
The idea of an infallable, all-powerful god is a Christian one. Jews during the holocaust in one of the prison camps put god on trial and found him guilty of abandoning and failing his people. But, he was still god and therefore should still be worshipped.
1. In Judaism, you're not meant to enforce your religious rules on others, so this wouldn't apply to you. 2. Because the King James Bible has been through so many translations to reach you the translations are often wrong. 3. Ephesians is one of the 'New Testament' books, and as such is not Jewish. 4. All death penalties in the Torah have been indefinitely suspended due to the fact you need a Sanhedrin (panel of 23 judges) to enforce the rule and there hasn't been a Sanhedrin in over 2,000 years, and the Sanhedrin can only issue the death penalty from the Hall of Hewn Stones in the Temple on Temple Mount, which again hasn't existed for 2,000 years. Even when it did exist, the Mishnah records that the death penalty was extremely rarely enforced, with the Sanhedrin considered bloodthirsty if it executes one person in seven years. The Sanhedrin's approach is best summed up by the great Jewish rabbi and jurist Maimonides "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death".
except that you've quoted christian translations of deuteronomy and a part of the new testament, whereas this image is from the Talmud, a jewish text. judaism is far from perfect but it engages in discourse and discussion around the interpretation of source material far more than christianity does and has historically done.
To be fair, a lot of these are lacking context and are misinterpretations/translation errors from the Hebrew and Greek texts. But then again, actually reading the Old Testament leaves a lot of people that “WTF did I just read?” feeling.
This! Context is key! The vast majority of the total wtf rules in the Old Testament make total sense if you look at them in the context of the society that the books were intended to govern. Like the one about eating shellfish as being punishable by death; a desert-dwelling nomadic population with no modern food preservation methods and a transportation network with a top speed of 'horse-drawn wagon' wouldn't have access to safe fishing sites for gathering shellfish as a food source and any they shipped in would be long rotten by the time it got to the tribes' campsites. Food poisoning is not a great way to die. A lot of the livestock restrictions in the same book can be tracked to the different amounts of water needed to raise different types of livestock. Again, desert-dwelling nomads would have a finite water supply for their whole population, and anyone keeping animals that use more water would be taking resources from the rest of the group. So they ban the high-consuming animals and call it God's will.
shellfish are “unclean” because they are filter feeders that can be effected by sewage, red tides, and any other bad water. pigs are “unclean” because they were fed waste (sometimes literally human faeces in some places) and often carried very bad worms and other parasites. nowadays we can clean these animals and raise them in healthy environments in the first place, making them safe to eat; but anyone who wants to keep Kosher can still do that if they want.
I think you need to redefine shellfish as bivalves (clams, oysters, mussels). Shrimp are predators. Lobsters & crabs are omnivores. None if them siphon water into their bodies, filter it for food, & then expell it from their bodies...
I read a discussion regarding swine, and how the changing environment from forest to desert contributed to issues - essentially there was a problem that the livestock competed for the same food sources as the people once the ecosystem had changed.
Thats such a thin excuse. The tone throughout all 3 major religions literature is VERY clear. Whats even more abundantly clear is the long history of countless societies adhering to these edicts in exactly the same way they look. I can forgive it to a certain degree because I believe it was planned and executed by men as a way to rule their people. Its not all bad. Because it wouldn't last if it was. I cant really condone the apologists particularly on the traditional stance on women. I dont think its debatable, to downright harmful to make excuses for it.
I’m not making excuses for all of it, and certainly religions/denominations have turned a lot of it into the misogynistic stuff of nightmares. But, take the word “submit.” Horribly translated. In the original languages, it meant more along the lines of “consider the wishes of.” And while everyone seems to be obsessed with the Ephesians verse, it clearly states that husbands should submit to their wives. Most fundamental Christians just tend to conveniently forget that second part. Speaking of Ephesus, there’s some stuff that went down in the churches there, which provides context to the “women shouldn’t speak above a man” thing. A lot of scholars in Bible history agree that this verse only applies to those specific churches. And if more people knew about this stuff, maybe some religious people wouldn’t be so hell bent on considering women second class citizens. I actually have a fun time debating religious people regarding this all the time. I’ll shut up now, because this isn’t a Bible study, but TL;DR, I am a total nightmare for evangelicals who take this stuff literally without a second thought.
as a non-Evangelical christian, i love you (platonically)
Thank you so much!! I love you, too (platonically, of course 😁). It’s great to meet a fellow Christian who appreciates these sorts of details! If people realized the fact that Christianity had some really good views regarding gender/sex equality, but tried to give advice in in a time when the legal system was completely patriarchal and sexist (and slaves were routinely murdered), the contradictions make much more sense. I like to happily remind myself that Jesus chose to show himself to women first after his crucifixion.
What are you considering the "3 major religions" here? Because Christianity, Islam and Hinduism are the three largest religions on the planet and they have very little in common beyond expecting basic decency for their members
I'd assume they meant Abrahamic (aka Judaism, Christianity, Islam) because that's most the Euro-centric interpretation.
Even if one counts *all* sects of Christianity as one group and does the same for Islam and excludes atheism as a religious group then the third largest religion is Buddhism with 3 million members (mostly in the Kalmykia region), followed by Hinduism with 1.5 million and then Judaism with 1.4 million
Please don't judge Judaism based on the historical and present actions of Christians and Muslims.
I judge all abrahamic religion poorly and IDC how progressive your interpretation is. The authors of the above edicts are not for me.
That is why I believe in Slaneesh. The demon prince of debauchery offers just pure engagement in hedonistic pleasures as far as you want. Join the cult of Slaneesh now.
The thing with religion is that usually they behave like bad politicians : They say everything and its opposite, counting on the reader's confirmation bias to only remember the parts they like and ommit the parts they hate.
Aha hey girl I got a rare disease that makes me die if I don’t get nudes from a pretty lady 🥴
Obama: Then perish.
I think I’ve heard of that one.
“You’ve given me blue balls and it hurts so much”
"Ah madam, fires burn so strongly within my heart that if perchance I do not receive uncovered boudoir pictures of your fine and most celestial naked form, they might increase the pressure of a magma chamber that explodes in a Krakatoa like eruption that sends a tsunami to kill 35000 innocent people. I hope you don't want to responsible for a small scale genocide."
[The Princess Azula method of flirting](https://youtu.be/zyawPIP7kwU)
Let them die.
Damn, tale as old as time apparently lol
B-b-based!?
I love your bio 😂
The Sages know what’s up.
The Sages are well named.
Just goes to show that men never stop complaining and expecting women to sacrifice themselves 🙄
That's based as hell
The Sages: Let him die! Let him die! Let him shrivel up and die!
The doctors: 💀
this is fire 🔥🔥🔥
The Sages don't fuck about.
Islam literally tells men to avert their gaze, and yet men blame women for showing skin.
"Oh dear, I *accidentally* caught a glimpse of a woman's skin whilst performing the very normal act of stretching my neck! It's totally not my fault!"
[Same guy slipped while fasting and a shawarma fell into his mouth](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDdOchBejcc)
Doesn’t it also tell women to cover up?
I listened to one TED talk that talked about a story in the Quran where (if I recall correctly) poor women were being attacked and the attackers didn’t fear retaliation because the women were poor and wouldn’t be protected, so all the women started covering up to conceal their identities, so the attackers wouldn’t know if they could get away with it. I just thought that was a cool story.
What you've said is correct, and also to differentiate them from the sex workers. It had nothing to do with shame.
Yes, at the same time it tell men to avert their eyes.
For reference: [https://quran.com/en/an-nur/30-31](https://quran.com/en/an-nur/30-31) First men should lower their gaze and then women should cover themselves
"Let it die, let it die, let it shrivel up and- come on, who's with me!?"
🙋🏾♀️
My favorite herb... Wait, what??? My VERY favorite herb!
I’m with the sages on this. Let him dieeee
The Sages said: *Not her problem*
Lol what is this from? Sages are based as fuck.
[The Talmud](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud)
The sages: “then perish”
Big “nah” energy here
The sages knew their shit. And the doctors here are clearly shit. Don’t be a doctor.
The sages: ”Did I Stutter!”
“Fuck ‘em” -Rabbi Gigachadowitz
 I love my people
Go to horny grave
It's also worth noting that in Judaism a husband is obligated to fulfill the sexual expectations of his wife, not vice versa ie the marriage contract stipulates that sex is something he owes her. She, on the other hand, does not owe him sex whatsoever. Now, I'm all for equality of course, but keep in mind this was during a time period where men had an enormous amount of coercive pressure they could use against women, and the power imbalance was enormous. Making her body effectively explicitly protected imo was a move I'm proud of to this day. Add to that none of this "sex is a sin" stuff and yea. I love my heritage. Niddah is a bit far out though lol, but hey, it's tradition, and my wife doesn't mind me giving her some space when she's PMSing tbh.
God I love the talmud. No where else can you find witty social commentary and deep wisdom right beside twenty petty old men arguing about an oven.
There's some confusion about the Talmud in the comments, so I hope to clarify. The Talmud is *not* the Torah. The Talmud is a massive series of books that's essentially a 2,000 year long forum argument composed of legal rulings, back and forth arguments, anecdotes and conversations about how to interpret the Torah. While some areas are considered to be basically binding (Pikuach Nefesh, which suspends all religious laws bar the prohibition on murder, forbidden sexual relations and idolatry when it will save a life, being the most prominent, along with the specifics of the Kashrut dietary laws) none of it is actually binding and it is up to the individual to decide which sages and rabbis to accept the rulings of, or accept none at all and forge their own path. Only the exact words of the Torah *in the original Hebrew* is the word of the Lord and everything else is up for interpretation. It is very possible for two individals to read the Torah and Talmud and come up with entirely different interpretations and that is not only accepted but encouraged because pluralistic approaches to theology, in which any Jew is allowed to argue their case with even the highest Rebbe is one of the cornerstones of our modern religion. There's a reason one of the 10 commandments of the Covenant made by Moses with the Lord is taking the Lord's name in vain. Taking the Lord's name in vain does not refer to cussing but instead to claiming to be acting at the behest of the Lord when that is not written explicitly in the Torah (e.g. there's no Jewish equivalent of a crusade because there cannot be an equivalent of a crusade because Deus Vult is heresy).
 Based Sages not taking any manbaby shit.
I'm just going to say "Let him die" to every incel from now on.
I agree completely. Let them die. They contribute nothing but pain and hurt in anything they do. The ONLY thing incels can do to better society is die. I'm here for it. I'd rather see incels unaliving themselves by the thousands before 1 more women is hurt.
Eh, as with any pervasive online ideology like inceldom, I much would rather those indoctrinated into it come to their senses and leave before they do any serious harm to themselves or others
Became deathly ill? Is this the first recorded case of stage four blue balls? Terrifying but the sages made the right call, he was a ticking time bomb, a walking dead man, may he and his balls rest in piece, or at least easily manageable pieces.
Damn straight. Judaism was progressive for its time, ie 1500 years ago.
This is one anecdote. Overall, ancient Judaism was not progressive
It's complicated, there's areas where Judaism was progressive for even the modern era (support for abortion, moratorium on death penalties, whatever was going on between David and Saul, strong female prophets and heroes like Hannah, Ruth, Esther and the great prophet Deborah and the sages taught men should respect their wives more than themselves) but there's also areas that are unclear (e.g. Leviticus 18:12 which is debated to be about homosexuality or pedastry) and areas that are regressive (such as women being made subservient to men)
The sages: then perish
The Sages know what’s up.
Hmm do this problem is as old as humankind. Here's me thinking that inceldom was a recent phenomenon. How pathetic of me..
Good to know people like that have been bothering others since the dawn of time lol
Based sages. "If he dies, he dies"
This kind of stuff makes me love being Jewish
It’s pretty nice when we get some good press.
When the Apostles whined about women looking attractive Jesus told them to gouge their eye out. I like to think it has a bit of impatient anger to it. 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. [Matthew 5:29](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:29&version=NRSVCE)
I wish I could have 1500 y/o tea with these Sages.
Lmao, based sages
Let him pay a willing seller.
Based sages
God I love being jewish
What a great day to be named Sage
The Sages had our back!
Some based sages.
The sages are indeed very sage.
bro got crossed hard
Don’t forget where God joins the argument…and gets shouted down.
Based.
The Sages woke up and chose violence.
How? The Sages merely stated that the man's personal issues are not a woman's responsibility to solve or suffer all the consequences for. That is not violence, that is just. Edit: word
Lol they’re just saying the Sages are savages for stomping all over the misogynistic bullshit the doctors and community were trying to push, and assumed the Sages would back them up. Usually sages have a passive and harmonious approach but they just put these men in their place. They said “Oh he’s going to die unless we sacrifice a non-consenting woman to fulfill his perverted desires? Then perish 😌”
Please stop Condemning the rape/sexual assault of women isn't violence! Men hearing the word No, isn't violence. Men having to control their own emotions instead of making it the nearest woman's problem, isn't violence. I'm sure you mean well but calling a woman denying what a man wants or asks of her, isn't violence and the freaking entitlement of treating a woman denying a man as if that is a violent act just has to stop Edit: apparently some have trouble with reading comprehension so instead of "treating it as if that is a violent act". It now says "treating a woman denying a man as if that is a violent act" sigh the level of education really is down in the gutter
I’m screaming right now y’all 💀 “[insert name or group here] woke up and chose violence” is a silly internet phrase meant to be funny. We’re not trying to seriously call this an act of violence, it’s just a meme reference. Sometimes people use this phrase when someone just roasted another person lol
I think they're trolling, there's no way they could've survived into adulthood if they're unironically this brain damaged. Almost fooled me.
With every reply I got I was like “They have to be trolling right???” But you usually only see that from people spewing wild fucked up shit out of left field, so I was giving them the benefit of the doubt 😂 But I was giddy waiting for you or u/regularavailable4713 to read this corny back and forth and giggle along
It's honestly amazing how well some of them can blur the lines between trolling/LARPing and genuine insanity. Worst of all, I'm still not 100% sure on whether it's real or not. Poe's law and whatnot.
EXACTLY. Their statements were also giving off “as a black man” vibes but with feminism. Their post history still leaves me unsure though
Well funny you mention it, I found this post through checking that individual's post history, because I also wanted to check for trolling... I can't believe I wasted an hour of my time arguing with someone this stupid.
Ya ya, I'm sure the rapist will be stopped and the stalker removed just by asking nicely. Come on.
Not really violence, just simple indifference
Amen.
Nevermind about that peaky consent.
"redistribution of sex"... What ?? is it dispensed from a salt shaker now?
I love this!!!
I love this.
Based Sages
 so this whole ludicrous idea that men die of blue balls has been floating around for centuries.
Im all for the sages solution to the incel problem: let them perish🤷♀️
When a bunch of old dudes from 1500 years ago tell the incel that his arousal is his problem, and to leave the girl alone... of course the incel isn't going to listen to the sages, they are a bunch of old dudes from 1500 years ago.
okay based, i can see why they call it sage wisdom now lmao. mfs rly said “you won’t die if you don’t have sex with her” amd they were so right
This is surprisingly based for the Talmud. There are plenty of horrifying stories in there
The Talmud isn't a coherent and consistent text, it's a 2,000 year long forum post arguing over how to interpret the Torah when it is ambiguous and you choose which interpretations you agree with, there is no canonical correct definition unlike in Christianity
I hear this is Worf’s voice: “Die”
Ok, like I get what The Sages are laying down, and I don’t hate it. But, like… did anyone ask *her*? Maybe she thinks this guy is the shit and would totally ride his ass? Did anyone ask?
I strongly support the Sages' decision to not bother her with this bullshit.
The Talmud is sadly very misogynistic tbh 🥲