On Memory, Inevitability, and Healing from Wounds You Didn't Know You Had

(Consider this a warning, both for the length of this post, and for triggering material)

If I could go back in time, there are not many things I'd change.  Mostly because you can't know how little changes might affect you, and in making changes to my past, I'd be killing myself.  Which is all nonsense, as every time I see sci-fi shows where someone is faced with helping the heroes put back the past, they struggle with the knowledge that they will kill themselves in the process, and I think, "Well that's dumb.  Don't they know it's better this way?"  But that's not the point.  Better or not, at the end, you become a new person, and whoever you would have become down that alternate timeline, whether they liked themselves or not, whether they were a good person or not, they are dead.  Chances are, it was not so straightforward - everyone is a mix of good and bad, everyone likes and dislikes themselves or part of themselves at times.  Maybe weathering this battle made them better and stronger, and although the whole world is better because the battle never happened, something will be missing from this version of that one person.  They are dead.
If I could go back in time, I've said before that there were things about my wedding I would change.  Certain things that I had fixed in my head that were unnecessary, because at the time, I was a staunch traditionalist.  I still am, in my way.  I debated for a long time whether to have my mom or my step-dad walk me down the aisle.  My mom has been there for me forever.  She's always been my primary parent.  At the same time, my step-dad and I had formed a close bond, and he had been my dad for 20 years.  I chose him, in my own way symbolically adopting him.  I chose him.
When he walked me down the aisle, he was already cheating on my mom.  He was already in the process of ruining everything.  When it all came out, the world fell down around my ears - the narratives I'd built up about second chances, about religious conversion, about all kinds of things.  For those reasons, I would go back and not choose him.  For a while, I thought I should have chosen my mom.  Now, I think, I would choose no one.

My (Very, Very Incomplete) Thoughts on Abortion

 Here's another one that's been mulling in my mind for a long time now.  My 3 regular readers (Hi guys!) have seen it pop up a few times as I have begun to contemplate it.  It's about abortion.  Eeww.  I'm not sure how much my opinions have changed, but I am aware that they are on the move.  So here's my brain as it grapples with an incredibly difficult and divisive issue.
(Another opinion that's on the move for me is my affiliation with the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.  I'm not going to write about that now, but I will when I've had a chance to think through it better and gather my thoughts...but I'm actively seeking a LCMS church to attend in my area.  So, not a huge change, I know - I'm Lutheran, dammit, and I loves me some liturgy, so there's only so far I can drift.)

ANYWAY
What started it is this article: When evangelicals were pro-choice.  Here's the juicy bit (verses, as always, linked for your convenience):

"In 1968, Christianity Today published a special issue on contraception and abortion, encapsulating the consensus among evangelical thinkers at the time. In the leading article, professor Bruce Waltke, of the famously conservative Dallas Theological Seminary, explained the Bible plainly teaches that life begins at birth:
“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: 'If a man kills any human life he will be put to death' (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense… Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”
The magazine Christian Life agreed, insisting, “The Bible definitely pinpoints a difference in the value of a fetus and an adult.” And the Southern Baptist Convention passed a 1971 resolution affirming abortion should be legal not only to protect the life of the mother, but to protect her emotional health as well."

Short Hair, Don't Care

THIS:

When Suits Become a Stumbling Block: A Plea to My Brothers in Christ - See more at: http://thesaltcollective.org/modesty-whensuitsbecomestumblingblock/#sthash.z16WBDam.dpuf

When Suits Become Stumbling Blocks: A Plea to My Brothers in Christ

Read it.  Savor it.  Then go, and sin no more.

From the comments:

"What about saving your body for your future husband?"
Well, looking at something doesn't mean you own it.  Exposing something doesn't mean you share it.  This is why you neighbor doesn't occasionally drive your car to work, even if it's sitting in your driveway every day.
And while we're on this metaphor, can we stop comparing women to cars and, occasionally, cows?  Weirdly, people are different than objects.  The fact that we can compare a woman to a car and then go on, in the same metaphor, to show how cars are more respected is really, truly alarming.

"But your body doesn't belong to you, it belongs to God and your husband."
First of all, if you're so concerned that I'm desecrating the holy temple that is my body, I hope you're really, really fit.  Like, mostly vegetarian, working out several times a week kind of fit.  Anyway, God said to be "modest."  Modesty is cultural.  Paul talks about braiding hair or not having short hair, and we tend to ignore those rules because, really?  Who thinks about hair that much?  Ancient Romans, evidently.  Modesty is a moving target.
I would argue that the intent of the exhortations on modesty had more to do with the intent of the one being modest.  Why are you wearing that?  Because it's comfortable?  Because you like it?  Or to attract sexual attention?  I have a baggy hoodie that I have worn, on purpose, to attract sexual attention, back in my naughtier days.  It may sound odd, but it worked like a charm.  No one on earth would have called that sweater "immodest," but it was, because I was immodest in my intent.
Also, a man's body is also God's, but nobody shames them for jogging shirtless.  Or wearing basketball shorts with nothing underneath (one of my favorites).  So let's not pretend this article isn't relevant.
As to your body belonging to your husband, his body also belongs to you.  Read the WHOLE VERSE.  It's not about possession.  It's about mutual respect, commitment, and taking care of each other.  It's about - wait for it - consent.  Consent.  Good word, consent.  We should talk about consent more often.  Because consent is important!  Boy, do I like consent.  It's weird that consent seems to be something only "the left" or "the feminazis" are talking about, because consent is right there in the Bible.  Inside marriage, consent is still a thing.  Wow!  Consent!  (Ok, I'm done now.)

"Men and women are different.  Women don't think that way...Something something Testosterone" (also, any comment where womens' "lust" is put in "quotes" like a "unicorn" who "doesn't exist")
I'm sorry, have you met me?  Here's an awkward fact: I have only once dated a man who could match me in sex drive.  Not that it's a big pool, but that's like 25%, so still less than half.  So don't talk to me about women having less of a need for sex.
Also, where is that in the Bible?  Where does it say that men and women are innately built to be different?  I haven't figured that one out yet.


"Women can't be sexist!" (A complaint that an article written by a woman was one of those satirized)
Yes, in fact, they can.  Next question

"Paul argues against tempting others in 1 Cor 8"
This is an interesting passage, and I tend to view part of it as evidence that sin is whatever we think it is - that is, if something is not specifically forbidden by scripture, but we, for some reason, think it's a sin, then do it anyway, we actually have sinned, even if it wasn't originally a sin.  That's a whole different discussion, with so many tangents and dangerous arguments, but I'm well aware of the verse.
Anyway, Paul is talking about peer pressure.  If we were to apply this to clothing, it wouldn't be: That person is wearing a short skirt -> I'm going to go have lust over here and/or I guess it's ok to rape her.  It would be: As a lady, I notice that that person is wearing a short skirt, which I think is a sin -> But if she's doing it, I should too -> Oh no, I'm wearing a short skirt and now I have sinned.  We should, certainly avoid causing our brothers and sisters in Christ to sin.  However, we simply can't have enough knowledge of a complete stranger's tastes and moral standing.  We do our best.  But the amount of shaming that flies around about this one thing is ridiculous.
So: If you have a male friend, and you know he has a thing for, say, tennis skirts, maybe don't wear a tennis skirt around him.  Maybe don't play tennis with him.  But if you're playing tennis with other people, don't feel like you have to wear sweat pants just to avoid having complete strangers lust over you.  Play tennis like a human.


WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST BE HUMANS?
I don't know, It's like 6pm and I work at Starbucks now, so I'm too tired to end this post because it's almost bedtime and I haven't eaten supper yet.  I just got all...infuriated on my insides while reading the comments to this awesome satirical article.  I don't know why I went down there.  YOU NEVER GO DOWN THERE.  I wasn't even going to do this tonight.  LEAVE ME ALONE, WORLD.
Um...
KBYE

This is one of the most misunderstood teachings in Christianity… Christians believe that our bodies, in marriage, belong to ONE ANOTHER. Not “your body belongs to your husband” or “to your wife”, but to each other. .. which means you are to treat one another with the utmost in respect and love.
It’s not about possession. It’s about commitment and mutual respect.
- See more at: http://thesaltcollective.org/modesty-whensuitsbecomestumblingblock/#sthash.z16WBDam.dpuf

This is one of the most misunderstood teachings in Christianity… Christians believe that our bodies, in marriage, belong to ONE ANOTHER. Not “your body belongs to your husband” or “to your wife”, but to each other. .. which means you are to treat one another with the utmost in respect and love.
It’s not about possession. It’s about commitment and mutual respect.
- See more at: http://thesaltcollective.org/modesty-whensuitsbecomestumblingblock/#sthash.z16WBDam.dpuf

When Suits Become a Stumbling Block: A Plea to My Brothers in Christ - See more at: http://thesaltcollective.org/modesty-whensuitsbecomestumblingblock/#sthash.z16WBDam.dpuf

On Young Readers, Growing Up, Moral Outrage, and Other Nonsense

Ender's Game and the two series that spawned off of it were my favorite books in High School.  I read them every year or so for a while, because I would start to miss the characters, like friends I hadn't seen in a while.  I'm told that they're not as good as I remember.  I'm told that people who still cling to those books tend to have the same crazy beliefs as their writer, which is disconcerting.  I was shocked when OSC started with all his defense of marriage stuff, because the main things I remember about his books were that they were about accepting people for who they were without judgment.  Maybe I was reading different books than I thought I was, but those books had a big impact on my development and how I chose to interact with the world, and that's meant trying to understand people's intentions and seeing the humanity inherent.  I almost want to read these books again (it's been quite a few years), but I'm almost afraid of what I will find with fresh, adult(ish) eyes.
This brings me to this article, about the privilege of being a young reader.  It starts with a discussion of Ender's Game and brings it around to talk about the way that adults talk about children's literature.  People who argue loudly for free speech, against censorship, take a different stance on children's books, because children are "impressionable" (read: "stupid").

Backlash! Part Deux:Your husband doesn’t have to earn your respect

Your husband doesn’t have to earn your respect - This is a blog post by Matt Walsh, which you should read before you read this, as I'm going to just jump right in.  All in all, I don't think I disagree with Walsh, just that we're coming at this thing from two different perspectives, with two different agendas.  He sees a chicken, and I see and egg, and it's anyone's guess how either one got there in the first place...let me explain:

The "all men are fat, witless, oafs sitcoms" are often panned by feminists, because these same sitcoms tend to:
a) Show an unattractive man with a smoking hot wife (demonstrating the gulf between the requirements for physical attractiveness between men and women), and
b) Perpetuate outdated gender roles, because now not only is the wife responsible for taking care of the children and the house, she is now also expected to take care of her husband, who does nothing but bring home money (and occasionally do some yard-work).
So she's not an alpha-bride, but an overworked subservient bride who has minimal control over her own life and exercises it.  The media's (and, chicken/egg-ly, general culture's) shift toward portraying men as children that must be cared for is just another part of the ongoing backlash against feminism.  For all it seems like this attitude is elevating women, it's really just as degrading to the women as it is to the men - it's hardly different from the Victorian notion of the "Angel in the Household."
(Also, there are an increasing number of people arguing that childhood is a social construction designed to keep women from attaining equal status, because the care of our youth is Just Too Important.  I'm really skeptical of this one, since how you raise your kids is important, but then again, I also recognize that in other times and cultures, children are/have been given more responsibility [including jobs of their own], left to their own devices, raised by professional strangers, etc, and generally grown up to be normal, reasonable adults - and then again, today's kids have seen a 20 pt increase in IQ in just the past few years, probably due to the way we're paying more attention to them.  BUT ANYWAY...)

Backlash!

Awhile back, a friend of mine posted this article, and I responded to it, and now I'm posting it here because I've continued to think about it afterward.  The article is entitled:

Men and women are not equal

Hmm...Nothing against the rest of his blog (which I haven't read), but this particular article is just...angrifying.  It's backlash against "feminism," which he doesn't want to be associated with. He argues that feminism doesn't mean "believing men and women are equal," but that every unsavory thing that various feminist movements have done have redefined the word.
The problem is that there is no one definition for a feminist, any more than there is any one definition for a Christian. A feminist believes that men and women should be equal, a Christian believes that Jesus died to save us from sin. Can there be a pro-life, stay-at-home-mom feminist?  Can there be a gay Christian?  Or one who honestly believes some people go to hell? Sure. It's a belief system, and in any such system, there are dissonant chords.  If the term "feminist" is too vague, the term "Christian" sure as heck is.

My Body

I'm pretty ok with it.  I mean, sometimes I have fat days and I hate my body, but everyone does that.  For the most part, though, I love my body.

I've gained some weight, and I'm not where I sometimes think I'd like to be - I weigh more than my boyfriend - but I still have my curves, and I can still look in the mirror and feel sexy.  Usually, I do.  Plus, the thing I would have to do to lose the weight?  Not worth it.  I like me.  I actually like the little paunch under my belly button and I like that I have a thick bottom and thighs.  The thing I take most issue with is my stomach, and you know what?  It's fine.  I'm ok with it.  This is all still a work in progress, I guess.  My thoughts are a bit scattered right now.

I guess this is the same thing I hear trumpeted all over: "Be yourself!"  "Be proud of who you are!"  Sure, easier said than done.  I know a lot of it springs, admittedly, from having the worlds most non-judgmental boyfriend, who really, honestly doesn't care what I do with my appearance, as long as I'm happy.  Paradoxically, it also comes from my forays into feminism - it's only recently I've learned that that's not a dirty word for someone who hates men, but a word for someone who believes women should have equal rights.  I know, I know, SHOCKER.  But the culture I was raised in shrinks back from that word like it's something a bit nasty, that someone shouldn't want to be.  So that's something else I'm taking back, that word.  I am a feminist (if sometimes a very bad one) because I am a woman, and I believe that I have the power and capability to do whatever I want, and I believe that I deserve to be paid equally for it.  This came as a surprise to me.  Like the rest of this whole business, it's a work in progress.

I like my pubic hair.  I've shaved it and not shaved it back and forth my whole life, but right now, I'm keeping it.  I've had it a while, but a bit ago I shaved it again on a whim.  I looked so small and shy!  I didn't like it.  That's not who I want my privates to be, if that makes sense.  They're not small and shy, they're powerful and loud.  So I keep it.  I do trim some, for courtesy's sake, obviously.  No need to get carried away.

Sometimes I'm self-conscious of my crooked back, but I can't fix it, so I have to own it.  It's behind me, so that helps.

So again, it's a work in progress.  My point is, it's up to you to make you beautiful.  Not by changing to accommodate society or men, but by loving yourself and the body you live in.  If you want to fix things for health reasons, more power to you.  But if you want to fix yourself so that you look good for someone else, forget it.  To thine own self be wicked sexy

And again, sometimes I do change for someone else.  I'll fix my hair the way my mom likes, and I'd be willing to shave my bits occasionally for my guy, but it's not something I'm willing to do all the time.  If they expect me to do those things all the time, that's a problem.

I don't wear makeup or pantyhose and I don't put much effort into my hair.  I don't want to go through the time and effort it takes to look "effortless" and "natural," the way I'm told I should.

Amy Farrah Fowler by Sebastian König

I do put some restraints on myself.  If I did what I really wanted with my appearance, I wouldn't have a job. That's the price of being a manager, I guess, though I don't really agree with it.  Given the choice, I'd dye my hair blue or shave my head or possibly a little of both.  I'd have visible tattoos on my wrists and neck.  I'd wear different clothes.  I guess these are things I can't really change, or am not willing to make the lifestyle changes I would need to to accommodate these things, but regardless of what I can't do with my body, there are things I can do, or can refrain from doing, and I do or don't do those things because this is my body.  I do or don't because I like or don't like the result or because I'm willing or not willing to put in the effort.  It's all a work in progress, as one's life always is.  But in a world full of things you can't control, and a world full of people telling you how you should look and what you should do with your body, I'm saying no.  This?  This is mine.  And I'm keeping it.