lazy geisha

Organized religion is the single greatest scourge on humanity in the history of the world, bar none.

I notice on the comments on NBC10’s web site that they are overwhelmingly in support of her.

Apropos of nothing, the protest meeting was held on East Gay Street. (per the telecast in the link)

Probably some kind of subconscious behavior…

Organized religion is the single greatest scourge on humanity in the history of the world, bar none.

Caitlain,

On that point you and I completely agree. I’d even throw in the persecution of women into that mix too.

I read quite a few of the comments and you’re right — they are overwhelmingly supportive of the store. But I suppose this is probably the biggest thing to happen in West Chester in a while! :lol:

It reminds me of the town I live in too — in a small way. I wrote about this once, I think before I lost my database — but a few years ago my town got what was then called an Amazing Superstore — which basically sold adult DVDs, a few sex toys. Your normal adult store fare, kwim?

Well… that just wouldn’t sit with the townsfolk you know. And they protested for about a month, got the local news to pay attention for a few days and then they went back to standing in front of the abortion clinic. So I’m thinking this could be the best thing to happen to Jill! All this free publicity!

nina

JC,

Women having orgasms AND gays? Goodness! A zealot’s jackpot! haha!

Open an abortion clinic on the opposite corner and you’ve got the trifecta!

I did watch the clip but I didn’t catch that one. Thanks.

Oh I’m sure it means something! :lol:

nina

So I’m thinking this could be the best thing to happen to Jill! All this free publicity!

Indeed. If I were her, I’d send the good church a personal thank you letter. :P

Indeed. If I were her, I’d send the good church a personal thank you letter. :P

MmmHmm! That, and maybe a butt-plug too! :lol:

four words in defense of christians:

“the reverend al green”

(new album, “lay it down”

“lay it down, let it go, fall in love,
put your hat on the floor…”).

’nuff said.
can I hear an “amen?”

Well, isn’t that special?

Now, who could it be? Could it be…SATAN?

Yes, guess who (hint…da link da link, boss). Snort!

larokkaku,

:lol: You know, I read a short review of Lay It Down recently, and the reviewer had this to say:

“The title track in particular gets him into that signature Green vocal space where you can’t tell if he’s talkin’ to God or gettin’ it on.”

Now THAT’s what I’m talkin’ ’bout baby! lmao!

Oh believe me — it isn’t the Jesus part of Christianity that I have the problem with.

I have a problem with the: “Hey Lady! You’re gonna burn in Hell if you rub your clit with a vibrating piece of silicone!”

Somehow, I don’t think Jesus would have such a big problem with that, kwim?

Thanks! :razz:

nina

Lazy Ichi,

LMFAO!

(nina does Superior Dance!) :razz:

Mwah!

nina

There is one thing that devout Christians and devout fanatical Muslims have (but never admit) in common: they abhor any idea of sex before marriage, this, and that sex is purely for procreation rather than pleasure.

I agree with Caitain about organized religion and I have no problems with religion in general, as long as it doesn’t invade my right to choose otherwise.

Maybe it’s me, but the “In your face” type Christians really get on my nerves. It’s like they’ve created a snobbery all their own.

I agree with Caitain about organized religion and I have no problems with religion in general, as long as it doesn’t invade my right to choose otherwise.

Indeed. I have absolutely no problem with someone believing what they want and practicing their faith however they choose to do so, so long as it doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s rights. Once you start imposing your beliefs on me, *then* we’re going to get busy.

Hi Nina: This crap makes me laugh.. I bet you can buy Zig-Zags and all the rest, in West Chester or wherever!!!!!! Jesus freaks are the worst of the worst.
Great day here on the rocky coast. you have a wonderful day. Richard

Anastasia,

I think the real issue here is the difference between religion and faith. Having faith (of any sort) is perfectly fine and can be quite enriching to anyone. I follow a Buddhist system of beliefs myself. So, this isn’t about picking on someone’s faith — the problem is religion. Which is a creation of men. Religion uses people’s faith as a means to an end to grab more power for those heading any particular religion.

So, when we think about why religion has such a problem with sex — it comes down to an issue of control. Religion uses things like sex as a means to control their followers.

nina

heee! the shop is on Church Street! No wonder the man who is celibate is cranky…. ;-) Of course, it sounds like there are no churches on Church Street, either. Silly people.

Susan,

Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts with me here. Oh yes, Caitiebelle is a smart one — and that’s really what these fights come down to isn’t it? It isn’t so much about being opposed to someone’s beliefs, it’s about people keeping their beliefs out of other people’s lives.

Maybe it’s me, but the “In your face” type Christians really get on my nerves. It’s like they’ve created a snobbery all their own.

There has been a pervasive attitude in this country for the last two decades which has seen the ‘religious right’ gain incredible political clout which has enabled them to steer not only the conversation in this country, but the policy as well.

I think we can draw a direct line between the Republican party’s political co-opt of the religious right’s hot button issues for their own political gain as a cause. There’s a well established cause and effect pattern here — which I believe emboldened the ‘in your face’ type of mindset we’ve seen.

Of course this is America and if you want to protest something… well, knock your lights out — it’s still a free country. But I’ve always wondered why it was that for some of these people to be happy and get their way, that someone else had to lose their freedoms and rights.

Jill McDevitt isn’t breaking any laws, she isn’t hurting anyone, and if you don’t want to use sex toys in the privacy of your own bedroom, don’t. But the opposition just can’t seem to complete that thought for some reason, you know?

The other argument about the store being close to a kid’s toy store or a candy store is laughable too.

Thanks again,

nina

Caitie,

Indeed. I have absolutely no problem with someone believing what they want and practicing their faith however they choose to do so, so long as it doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s rights. Once you start imposing your beliefs on me, *then* we’re going to get busy.

I love how popular you are too btw! Mwah! ;)

This is a great point and it’s a great statement of belief — I too would concur with the idea that this isn’t about another person’s beliefs, but this is absolutely about people keeping their beliefs out of other people’s lives.

You know, we often have discussions here which intersect sex and religion, and I think for the majority of people who read here, there’s an important idea that sex is normal and healthy and a part of all our lives. That’s why I write the things I do and is why I encourage the conversations we have here.

Pointing out the ridiculous (like protesting a sex toy store) is just filling in the blanks!

Mwah!

nina

Hi Richard,

Oh I’m sure — but you know how uptight these people get over just the idea of a woman being able to give herself sexual pleasure… it makes them CRAZY!

Busy day today — a nice walk along the beach is just what I need right about now!

nina

alliterative red,

lmao!

Want to hear something very, very funny?

Do you know why the church demands celibacy from the clergy? Money.

A little known 15th century pope enacted the whole celibacy thing because the church did not want to be financially responsible for the families of priests and other clergy members. It isn’t about anything other than that.

Protestant branches of Christianity took a slightly different tact, which is why they have mega-churches and tele-ministries, and lots of money — but true Christianity is about Catholicism IMO.

However — it still is mind boggling when you consider that there is NOTHING in the bible about celibacy or more importantly, being in opposition to sex or sexual pleasure. There’s nothing in the bible that says you can’t masturbate or have pleasure during sex. It does speak about adultery, but this is NOT the same thing.

(nina knows a thing or two about world religions) :lol:

Thanks hon!

nina

My dearest Nina. We papalians used to be a bunch of not-so-chaste guys in robes. Now it’s all about the shiny red Italian shoes (yes, we papal men have shoe fetishes too).

Of course there was the one pesky broad, um I meant sister, Pope Joan. As always, we couldn’t allow a women into our mens’ club, so we rewrote the papal history books.

Ps: Please don’t ask about all our investments, especially our GM-related investments that somehow end up piping the porn channels into upscale hotels so Pope Ratzinger, err, Benedict, has something to watch on his trips, It’s all so complicated. Kwim Verne. ;)

And certainly don’t tell Father Guido (da link da link), that blabbermouth.

Toys? HA!

I challenge to a cooking match. Top this Lazy Geisha!

HA!

Father Lazy Ichi, Mon Signor,

lmao! Oh! This explains why the nuns used to hold my head against their long black dresses when they would come check on me as I was serving my penance by washing the chapel floor on my hands and knees!

And confession too! Why did Father always want me to unbutton my blouse and lift my uniform skirt up over my ass so he could see my white panties when I knelt in the pew and prayed the rosary after making confession?

Such questions Father Lazy Ichi, Mon Signor! Such questions! :lol:

nina

Lazy Ichi, Iron Chef,

LMFAO! (spits soda)

You owe me a new keyboard, Ichi. :P

hahahaha! Um, do they vibrate?

Tho I love the piercing! I’m going to have one of those soon!

nina

(you sick puppy… lmao)

However — it still is mind boggling when you consider that there is NOTHING in the bible about celibacy or more importantly, being in opposition to sex or sexual pleasure

We have St. Augustine to thank for a lot of how Christianity thinks about sexuality today. Most people just don’t even realize the irony associated with that. lol

Caitie,

lol! Oh! You mean what that pagan bastard did to Floria Aemilia?

Mmm, yes, his Confessions is quite the page turner too. ha!

nina

Hi Nina,
I finally worked up the courage to leave you a comment. I’ve been reading your blog for over a year and I just wanted to let you know how much I enjoy sharing this small part of your life with you every day. Mostly I just lurk but I read your posts every day and I’ve shared your laughter, your tears, your outrage, your love and your heartbreaks. Thank you for being such a powerful voice for women, Nina.
You let the rest us know that we’re not alone with these feelings we all have. You are an inspiration.

Sincerely,
~ Victoria

“Hey Lady! You’re gonna burn in Hell if you rub your clit with a vibrating piece of silicone!”

Oh make no mistake about it you’re gonna burn. But that is one of the funniest things I’ve heard in a while.

It’s right up there with “I haven’t been fucked like that since grade school.”

Amen.

Do you mind if an devout Christian—a Catholic, no less, from West Chester—jumps in here? Even more, I’m an intellectual type with a particular interest in sexuality, marriage, feminism, etc. Needless to say, there’s almost not a single line in this post or the comments in reply that I wouldn’t like to take up with anyone open to honest discussion. But for now I’ll limit myself to this one:
“There is one thing that devout Christians and devout fanatical Muslims have (but never admit) in common: they abhor any idea of sex before marriage, this, and that sex is purely for procreation rather than pleasure.”
It happens that lately I’ve been researching for an article on the differences between the Catholic and Muslim views of sexuality, and truly they are much deeper and more significant than these lines suggest.
1) It’s true that both religions prize virginity until marriage. The differences lie in the why and the how. In Islam, a girl’s sexuality is basically owned by the men in her family. They are responsible for keeping it intact until she marries, at which point it becomes the property of her husband. In the Catholic vision, our sexuality is radically our own. It is the deepest expression of our self-hood—to the point that, according to Church teaching, I cannot give myself sexually without giving my very SELF. This is why the Church says marriage—a life-long, exclusive and absolute commitment—is the only fitting context for sex: because the total gift of self calls for a total gift of self in exchange. Anything less would involve a kind of self-squandering. Also, in the Catholic vision, a girl’s virginity is her own responsibility, freely chosen, freely offered to God, and then freely bestowed on the man she decides will honor it and honor her for the rest of his life. A Catholic woman understands at a deep, free, and personal level, that her commitment to virginity until marriage and fidelity in marriage, has everything to do with her own self-respect and with her own true happiness. That’s why she chooses it—not because she’s afraid her father or her brothers might kill her if she strays. Catholicism abhors the coercion that is a normal part of Islamic life.
2) It is not true that Catholicism sees sex as “purely for procreation”. Its central meaning is LOVE and the union of the two lovers into “one flesh”, so that they live as an earthly icon of the mutual, self-giving, life-giving, ecstatic union of love in the Holy Trinity. What the Church says (see Humanae Vitae, see JP II’s Theology of the Body, see Dietrich von Hildebrand’s little book on Marriage) is that this “unitive” intention of sex can not be separated from its procreative dimension without doing damage to the love and to the persons involved. This is because the ESSENCE of love is a gift of self, while the ESSENCE of birth-control entails a refusal to give—a holding something back, a rejection of some aspect (the fertility, the potential motherhood or fatherhood) of the other. It changes the nature of the sex act from an act of giving to an act of taking and using—something inimical to the dignity of persons, who should never be used, but always treated as an end in themselves.
What the Catholic Church abhors is anything that offends the dignity of persons, which it is her mission to uphold and cherish. (BTW, natural family planning is recognized as a good by the Church, because it allows married couples to have a certain control and ownership of their fertility that in no way violates the integrity of their sex or their love for one another.)
There is so much misunderstanding of the Church! especially her incredibly rich and beautiful teachings on human sexuality.
Because I wish you all well, I wish you knew it better. Meanwhile, peace be with you.

victoria,

Thank you so much for your kind words and for sharing this with me. I’m happy to know that my words have held meaning for you, and I hope that I can continue to inspire you!

Thanks so much,

nina

Jeffrey,

It’s right up there with “I haven’t been fucked like that since grade school.”

ha! I did use that line didn’t I? hahahaha!

love,
nina

Katie,

Do you mind if an devout Christian—a Catholic, no less, from West Chester—jumps in here?

Not in the least — in fact, I was wondering when someone would. This post seems to be the most googled item in West Chester! lol! It’s been viewed quite a bit since I posted it.

Let me say that I appreciate you sharing your thoughts here with me. I always encourage an open and organic dialog around my words and the things I write — and all opinions are respected and considered here.

You happened to address one of the comments left by one of my friends who reads here, so I’m not necessarily prepared to debate the finer points of the differences between Islam and Catholicism — other than to point out that in the Islamic world, women suffer torturous lives.

With things like the forced removal of a young girl’s clitoris, honor killings, burquas, and a general attitude of women as property — I personally don’t feel that Islam and Catholicism/Christianity are in the same discussion in any way, shape or form. They are not the same thing.

The point I believe Anastasia was making was more to do with how religion attempts to control and influence human sexuality, especially with regard to women — and in that regard, she’s absolutely correct.

You speak as a person with great personal faith and belief in what you say. I respect that and your right to have those beliefs. The issue I take, most directly, is why it seems as tho Christians in general cannot seem to mind their own business when it comes to “other people’s choices”?

That’s a question you’ve sort of conveniently avoided here, and that really IS the central question.

I can only speak for myself, but I’m reasonably sure that the people who choose to read here are of a similar opinion in that we don’t have a problem with your choices and beliefs — but we wonder why you have such a problem with those which differ from your beliefs?

I too am married, I too believe in the gift of self — but I do not share your dogma. Human sexuality is far too complicated and diverse and is truly such a basic human need for such rules to ever make sense for the vast majority of people.

I take issue with religion attempting to influence public policy for all people. For its attempts to influence the political conversation. For its attempts to dictate to others who do not share your faith, terms of how we should live our lives. What’s wrong with you keeping your religion in your homes and in your church? Why must it find its way into a young woman’s life like Jill McDevitt’s — who is doing nothing wrong and is actually trying to do some good?

I never get good answers to those questions and that’s a little frustrating because I don’t think you really have them, but that doesn’t seem to stop the protests, or people shouting “You’re going to burn in Hell” at people who want nothing more than to simply live their lives and be happy.

A woman exploring her own sexuality on her own terms is not dishonoring that sexuality in any way. Sex toys and indulging our own erotic core is in fact very healthy, especially for women.

Study after study after study has shown again and again that religious influence in public policy — like abstinence only education and chastity contracts (virginity pledges), for example, only leads young women to make bad choices about their sexuality because they don’t receive the survival skills necessary in order to understand their sexuality.

Ignorance and faith when it comes to sex and sex education and sexual expression is not bliss in this case.

Tho, I don’t hold ill will towards you in any way — I only wish you had addressed the real questions here.

Thanks much,

nina aoki

A woman exploring her own sexuality on her own terms is not dishonoring that sexuality in any way.

Pure truth. Truer words have never been spoken. <3

Caitiebelle,

Pure truth. Truer words have never been spoken. <3

Thank you my dearest!

Mwah!

xoxo,
nina

Nina, you’re right, there is a difference between religion and faith, but a lot of the extreme Christian/Islamic/Judaic groups interchange the two things. Their thoughts, ideologies and/or standards (sexual or otherwise) reflect their faith, and are embedded into their definition of (their) religion. Religion is an extension of faith (in their view). They’re not going to use the word control, or even acknowledge that extreme religious ideology, expressed by extreme religious leaders is based on control, despite the adequate proof gathered by past and present examples of religious cults (that are Christian in flavor) or Islamic terrorist groups - both of which control followers.

In response to Katie however:

A thesis isn’t required to outline the similarities, and rave on at length to justify something like religious guilt and morality to justify sexual control.

Firstly, whether it’s Catholicism or Islam, there is no difference in the why and how. The Catholic Church and Islamic leaders forbid sexual autonomy for women. Since when do Catholic women ‘own’ their sexuality when a Pope dictates what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’? I’d say that they’re both the same: giving up virginity to the man after marriage. This is the same in both religions, and you may go on about until the cows come home but as long as a Pope outlines the church’s rules, rules that frown upon contraception, the right to choose abortion, Fertility technologies and other things that affect many women around the world, then Catholic women do not ‘own’ their sexuality. Their sexuality is governed by a Pope, or shall I say, a bunch of lifelong ‘celibate’ men who live with other men for the duration of their service to the church.

On your second point about procreation. Why do you think that marriage is a mandatory requirement? Marriage isn’t a prerequisite for love. Love usually develops before marriage occurs, especially by today’s western standards (shopping, planning and booking wedding functions), so in theory, one doesn’t need marriage (in accordance to Catholic views) to have children, but the church always has some representative discussing the merits or the sanctity of the marriage, which is why they still frown upon children being born outside of marriage.

And I find it incredibly amusing that you refer to the church in the feminine. “Her teachings.” Come on!

The Catholic Church is a patriarchal institution, that is controlled by men who live with other men, and the teachings and major biblical edits were controlled by men and you use a feminine pronoun to refer to the Catholic Church? We’re talking about a Church that is still too chicken to admit that Maria Magdalene wasn’t a prostitute, but was made a prostitute because some Pope thought it convenient, as it would simplify the moral lesson and reduce the amount of ‘Mary’s’ in the Bible. Seriously, get a grip.

I often wonder wonder why faith requires that people check their brains and critical thinking at the door.

Btw, here’s something interesting.
Remembering Hypatia: A Novel of Ancient Egypt by Brian Trent

Too bad all churches can’t be more like the Riverside Church in the City of New York.

The knock against most christians and catholics, and rightfully so, is they forget to follow their own teachings, and at more like businesses that have become.

If you’re old enough to remember the original Miami Vice, there was an episode with Brian Dennehy as Reverend Billy Bob Proverb in “Amen Send Money”.

In order to correct all of the historical, philosophical, theological, and physcological errors contained in this discussion thread would take a book length response. So I will leave that aside.

I find the comments on this page to be full of anti-Catholic dogmas which amount to very few subsantial claims against the Church, and those opposing the sex novelty shop in West Chester, PA.

I do find this comment telling though, ‘A woman exploring her own sexuality on her own terms is not dishonoring that sexuality in any way. Sex toys and indulging our own erotic core is in fact very healthy, especially for women.’

I consider the existence of sex toys to be thought provoking for many reasons, but a few of these thoughts lead me to conclude that they are ridiculous and detrimental to a healthy, fulfilling living out of one’s sexuality.

I believe they point to a mistaken solution addressed to the obvious concern of sexual dissatisfaction. One would add the use of such toys to their sexual activity most likely out of boredom or a lacking in some other area of their lives.

I would argue that those opposing the novelty shop appreciate, esteem, and respect to a greater degree, and look upon the sexual embrace with more wonder and awe than those who support the shop.

One faction turns to rubber penises, the other sees the physical union between husband and wife as an exchange of the intimate core of the person, the whole person, body, soul, emotion, capacity for pleasure, the lifegiving capability of the union, and at its most beautiful a reflection and share in the inner life of the Triune God, the eternal exchange of love that has, and will, exist for eternity.

One faction pushes, ‘live for the share in the novelty of it,’ the other, ‘live for the share in the eternity of it.’

For my part I will throw my hat in with the eternity of it, and in that I will find all the pleasure, joy, and happiness that I would not find in the sedated, mundaneness of the view of sexuality put forth by those advocating for this ‘adult’ sex novelty shop; which in reality ought not be called ‘adult’ by any means since in perpertuates a view of sexuality perpetually stuck in a middle school-esque indulging of any sexual whim that fancies to enter one’s awareness.

And of course a person can choose as they wish, as long as that choice harms no one else. But what one does in the bedroom does effect everyone else, since the mentality one takes into the bedroom is the mentality one takes out of the bedroom, into the world, where one interacts with people other than their bedroom partners, even if that partner is in reality not a partner but one’s self.

And in one’s choices one has to realize they choose to reject all other options, in this case, a rejection of the Christian understanding of sex is choice against greater joy, self-respect, and personal integrity.

I wish you all the best, and some of the best I have found is the Theology of the Body, which I highly recommend, thanks for the opportunity to voice these thoughts.

Last time I looked, christians and catholics alike had not produced one single shred of empirical evidence to prove their beliefs.

Until that happens, this belongs in the category of Christian Mythology, along with the windbags like William Donohue.

On the other hand, there have been quite a few cases of evidence of priests molesting children. With substantial payouts. Some people are taking that to the bank.

Thinking and facts are sure a bitch for some people.

Ps: It looks like someone is still under the mistaken impression their mother loves them.

I forgot to add, it sounds like someone wants to tell women how to have orgasms.

It’s ok as long as it’s under their supervision.

Dear Nina,

Thanks for a respectful reply, and for giving someone with views so foreign to your own a voice in your forum. Clearly this is all stuff for many long, in-depth conversations—too much for a blog. But at least we can make a start.

You wrote: (I don’t know how to italicize here)
“The point I believe Anastasia was making was more to do with how religion attempts to control and influence human sexuality, especially with regard to women — and in that regard, she’s absolutely correct.”

I don’t agree that she’s correct, though her view is understandable and widespread. Perhaps the most fundamental difference between Christianity and Islamic when it comes to sexual morality (other things too) is the place of freedom. Christianity proposes; Islam imposes. Islam’s ideal is blind obedience to an all-powerful God. The modus operandi of its moral formation is fear and shame. (Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s books, Infidel and The Caged Virigin, are great for showing this.) Christianity, on the other hand, holds up a vision of the beauty, power, and greatness of the mystery of human sexuality, and 1) invites everyone to accept it freely, and 2) warns against its abuse. She warns against its abuse, because its abuse is destructive, in our individual lives and in our communal lives. The Catholic Church takes enormous pains to unfold that mystery, so that everyone (who cares to listen) can fully understand it, recognize its truth in their own experience, and embrace it through their freedom. (See John Paul II’s Wednesday audiences. For years they were all about sex—its mystery and beauty and power, its role in human life and in salvation history. Or see his beautiful book, Love and Responsibility.) I don’t think there’s anything comparable in Islam.

It’s a sad fact, though, that Catholics are often poor exemplars of the teachings of their Church, and responsible for a lot of the misunderstanding surrounding them. I’m sorry about that. We need to do much better.

You wrote: “The issue I take, most directly, is why it seems as tho Christians in general cannot seem to mind their own business when it comes to “other people’s choices”?”

Two answers: First, because no man is an island. Personal choices have social ramifications, especially when it comes to something as deep and potent as sexuality. Think, for instance of STD’s; think of sex-trafficking; think of the social costs of divorce and fatherlessness; think of the of the well-documented effects of post-abortion syndrome, etc.

And secondly, the Catholic Church cares about every single individual person and wants every person to fully thrive. Therefore, she can’t help but urge against destructive behaviors, even when doing so makes her extremely unpopular. If you see your friend ruining herself through drug use or bulimia or an abusive relationship, do you say, “Well that’s her personal choice; it’s none of my business”? The Church fights against the misuse of sexuality for the same reason she fights for human rights in totalitarian societies or against poverty and injustice in the third world.

You wrote: “I take issue with religion attempting to influence public policy for all people. For its attempts to influence the political conversation.”

Are only irreligious people allowed to have a say in the public square? Is their view of the moral life to be declared the valid one and imposed on everyone else? Was it wrong for Christians to fight the evil of slavery and segregation? Is it wrong for Christians to decry the exploitation of the environment or the poor? Shouldn’t we deplore and work against the abuse of women in Islamic countries? And if we hold that certain uses of sexuality are destructive of human life and well-being, wouldn’t we be radically unserious as persons if we stood by and said, “Oh well, not my problem”?
But I agree with you this far: Christians have often been guilty of failing to properly respect the freedom of others. We have often become impatient with the demands of proposing, and have tended to impose. We have to keep working on this.

You wrote: “Why must it find its way into a young woman’s life like Jill McDevitt’s — who is doing nothing wrong and is actually trying to do some good?”

Because her idea of good is our idea of bad. We see bad, not good, in the trivialization and commercialization of sex. Many of us find it deeply objectionable that matters that ought to be treated with profound discretion, because of their essential intimacy, are thrust rudely into the public sphere. We find it objectionable that young children are exposed to things that violate their innocence. I have five children. They walk past her store, with its advertisements for foreplay and outercourse seminars, etc., on their way into town. I wish she were not in the business she’s in at all, but in any case, it doesn’t belong downtown. Surely this is something the overwhelming majority can agree on? Just as I don’t have to be a teetotaler to agree that the sale of alcohol should be restricted for minors, you don’t have to embrace the whole Catholic vision of sexuality to agree that sex shops shouldn’t be set up where children will be exposed to them.

You wrote: “Study after study after study has shown again and again that religious influence in public policy — like abstinence only education and chastity contracts (virginity pledges), for example, only leads young women to make bad choices about their sexuality because they don’t receive the survival skills necessary in order to understand their sexuality.”

I’ve seen stacks of studies with very different conclusions.

Before I close I want to say that it makes me sad to hear that people were yelling at Jill and telling her she’s going to hell. On one level I can understand it. Those who cherish traditional values can’t help feeling threatened by the anything-goes, in-your-face sexuality inundating our culture and society today. It’s not what we want for ourselves or our children, and it’s hard to find any escape from it. We feel victimized by the aggressions of the shameless, and there seems to be no recourse against it. If we object, we’re told that we’re not allowed to impose our values on others. (Others, however, are clearly free to impose their values—or disvalues, as we see it—on us.)
But I don’t see any good coming from yelling at Jill. It’s obvious to me from reading some of her things online that she means to do good. I just think she’s wrong about how to do that.

I have a response to Anastasia, too, but maybe I’m taking up too much space on your blog. I’ll leave it to you to post or not, and won’t be offended if you decide not to. I think you’ve already been generous with me.

Katie

note

Katie, don’t take this the wrong way, but let’s take a hypothesis I have that christianity (and catholicism by default) is the most violent religion in the history of the world.

There’s plenty of facts to back this up from the Crusades to the Spanish Inquisition to plenty of other instances.

The Founding Fathers of this country were correct in their premise to make the wall between church and state. Wanna read some of their opinions about christianity (and by default catholicism), here’s the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli.

I’m just saying, all good religionists should clean up their own house and tell the world how sorry they are. Otherwise, they don’t really have a box to stand on do they?

Anastasia,

Thank you so much for coming back to answer some of these things and to further our discussion. I was outside planting flowers and came in to find several more additions to this thread — and now after my margarita, I’m ready to engage. I’m thinking with so much here and with so many different paragraphs to look at, with so many different ideas to consider, I’m going to try and tackle all of this paragraph by paragraph.

Nina, you’re right, there is a difference between religion and faith, but a lot of the extreme Christian/Islamic/Judaic groups interchange the two things. Their thoughts, ideologies and/or standards (sexual or otherwise) reflect their faith, and are embedded into their definition of (their) religion. Religion is an extension of faith (in their view).

Oh most certainly. Faith can exist independent of ‘religion’ — yet religion cannot exist without faith. It’s an interesting paradox, but is easily understood if we acknowledge one simple fact: Religion is a creation of men. Faith is about an individual’s own relationship with whatever spiritual force which makes sense for them.

They’re not going to use the word control, or even acknowledge that extreme religious ideology, expressed by extreme religious leaders is based on control, despite the adequate proof gathered by past and present examples of religious cults (that are Christian in flavor) or Islamic terrorist groups - both of which control followers.

Which brings me right to your next point: CONTROL. What is the purpose of religion if we accept that religion itself is not a prerequisite for faith? And the answer as you’ve so eloquently put is control. Men use religion and dogma as a means to an end — to secure their own power. It is a means for the few to subjugate the many. Now, I can accept that some people may find that their faith is enriched by religion — that’s entirely their business, but belonging to a religious group or order, whether that be the Catholic Church or a Baptist Mega Church, or an Islamic Terrorist group — the end result is still the same. Control.

In terms of how that impacts sexuality — well, it simply logically flows from the above argument that religion would indeed attempt to exercise control over its followers in terms of defining rules for that sexuality.

Is there any other purpose for any religion to impose rules on something as basic and human as sexuality if the goal isn’t control?

Your other points to Katie I feel stand on their own and don’t really need much more in addition from me except to say that I concur with what you’ve offered here.

I would certainly also concur with your synopsis of Papal supremacy and how a bunch of celibate men try to dictate (especially to women) how our sexuality fits in with their definition.

Here’s something else that I’d like to add. Men have persecuted women since the beginning of time, and they’ve also attempted to control female sexuality for just as long. Women have been persecuted under the guise and in the name of religion in the most grotesque of ways. The world is drenched in women’s blood in the name of serving some god.

Look no further than the Malleus Maleficarum or the Salem Witch Trials for your answers here.

Specifically regarding Salem:

Despite reverence for the Bible and antipathy towards “Popery,” the Puritans had established a type of theocracy akin to that of medieval Roman Catholicism, in which the church ruled in all civil matters, including that of administering capital punishment for violations of a spiritual nature. A relative few Protestants (such as Roger Williams) prior to this period had contended that this was contrary to the pure teachings of the New Testament, in which the church was separate from the State (Mt. 22:21; 1Cor. 5:12, 13 1 Pet. 2:13, 14), and unrepentant sinful behavior that merited serious spiritual discipline was administered by supernatural means (Acts 5:1-10; 1 Cor. 5:1-4; 1 Tim. 1:20).

The Puritans believed in the existence of an invisible world inhabited by God and the angels, including the Devil (who was seen as a fallen angel) and his fellow demons. To Puritans, this invisible world was as real as the visible one around them.

And as you’ve offered here –

A thesis isn’t required to outline the similarities, and rave on at length to justify something like religious guilt and morality to justify sexual control.

It certainly is not.

Thanks so much hon,

nina

Lazy Ichi, Old Historian,

I often wonder wonder why faith requires that people check their brains and critical thinking at the door.

I’m not sure that it’s so much that faith demands that we lose critical thinking — I mean, by its very definition, faith cannot be proved or disproved by any empirical means. For example: My own faith as Buddhist is a system of beliefs, not a religion. I think the danger, and as it was said in the very first line of this post:

Something from the Dangers of Organized Religion File

I think it’s an important distinction to make. And I’ll make the point again — with all the suffering in the world, this is the best religion can come up with? Picking on some 22 year old girl running a little store in West Chester, PA?

Whatever.

The knock against most christians and catholics, and rightfully so, is they forget to follow their own teachings, and at more like businesses that have become.

Oh most certainly — and like any corporation, there is greed, corruption, self interests, power struggles — all for control. So again, as I’ve said to Anastasia; Having Faith does not demand belonging to a religion. The problem isn’t faith or anyone’s faith or system of beliefs — it’s the corrosive influence of a man made creation of religion and its ever increasing lust for more power and more control.

You see, we can never remove the human animal from any of these discussions — whether we’re discussing human sexuality or the human ego. We can’t get around humanity. And because religion is a creation of men — this is the end result. Take a look at the billion dollar grossing mega churches which pay no taxes, enjoy full protections under the law, and ask yourself if we can really trust men not to be corrupted by the power that brings.

I think not.

Thanks hon,

nina

Nina,
you’ve got your margarita; I’ve got my wine.
Cheers!
Katie

Dear Anastasia,
I don’t suppose we’ll be able to come close to agreement on these things, but I’ll say a few things in reply to your note anyway, before bowing out. I really feel like a fish out of water here. But it’s been engaging. A good way to spend a rainy Saturday while my husband is out of town.
“Firstly, whether it’s Catholicism or Islam, there is no difference in the why and how.”
No? Do you hear of honor killings among Catholics? Or genital mutilation? Hear of religious leaders endorsing wife beatings? Do you see “child brides” being given to middle aged men? See polygamy being endorsed by Catholics? Do you find women being kept indoors unless heavily robed and escorted by husbands or other male relatives? Hear of women being forced into marriages they don’t want?
“The Catholic Church and Islamic leaders forbid sexual autonomy for women.”
Wrong. The Catholic Church insists on the sexual autonomy of women (and men.) It absolutely opposes all forms of coercion. In Catholic understanding, a marriage is not valid unless it is freely chosen by both spouses. This is not true in Islam. Also, the Catholic Church upholds the sexual equality of men and women. Fornication and adultery, for instance, are as wrong for a man as for a woman. Polygamy is considered a grave moral crime because in its structure it denies the equality between the sexes and tends to put women in an undignified, dependent relation to men. Pornography is condemned because it objectifies women and tends to make men more brutal towards them…
“Since when do Catholic women ‘own’ their sexuality when a Pope dictates what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’?”
If I buy a chemistry set, I own it. I can do whatever I want with it. But if I don’t want something blowing up in my face, I’d be wise to read and heed the warnings that come with it. That’s how Catholics view the teachings of the Church. They’re not invented by popes; they’re given by God (who made us and loves us, wants us to be fully alive and free of misery) and upheld by the popes. (Even the worst and most despicable popes in history never dared to change the teachings of the Church.)
“I’d say that they’re both the same: giving up virginity to the man after marriage.”
In Catholicism, the man and the women give themselves to each other, exclusively and until death. It goes for both of them. This is not true in Islam, where a man can have many wives. He can even have a “temporary wife”—someone he pays to “marry” him for a day or month or whatever. Look it up.
“On your second point about procreation. Why do you think that marriage is a mandatory requirement? Marriage isn’t a prerequisite for love. Love usually develops before marriage occurs”
Love begins before marriage; it impels the lovers to commit themselves to each other. Marriage seals the love and raises it to the level of a sacrament. In other words, love is completed in marriage, at which point it becomes a fitting cradle for new life. (Benedict XVI recently called marriage between a man and woman the “natural cradle” of human life. I thought it was beautiful.)
“ so in theory, one doesn’t need marriage (in accordance to Catholic views) to have children, but the church always has some representative discussing the merits or the sanctity of the marriage, which is why they still frown upon children being born outside of marriage.”
Yes, because the life-long, monogamous bond of marriage between a man and woman is the only fully adequate environment for the raising and nurturing of new life. Every study ever done on the subject confirms that children thrive best in a stable, two-parent home.
“And I find it incredibly amusing that you refer to the church in the feminine.”
Why? This is the normal pronoun Catholics use in referring to the Church, because we view her as both as our “Mother” and the “Bride of Christ.” All the saints refer to her that way. She is served and tended, “husbanded” by popes and bishops, not ruled by them. At least that’s the way it’s supposed to be. I don’t need to remind anyone here how far short she’s fallen at times from her own ideals.
Wishing you well,
Katie

Matt,

I’ve found myself internally debating just how much energy I wish to expend on answering a comment which can truly only be described as coming from a condescending, self aggrandizing yet incredibly frightened individual.

I don’t say these words to inflict wounds — in fact, they make me rather sad to even feel that I have to say them to what I’m assuming is a grown adult.

Your words remind me of every struggle that every woman has ever had to fight in this world, and it deeply saddens me as a woman to know just how deep the veins of misogyny run and how men like you hide behind their religion and abuse that religion to mask an utter disgust for everything which makes women beautiful.

And yet — because I have spent my entire life fighting these struggles, I must willingly once again set down my chalice and raise my blade in battle — and I will answer every word you’ve used to try and shame not only me, but every woman and man who understands that we are not servants to you or your church of misogyny and hypocrisy.

In order to correct all of the historical, philosophical, theological, and physcological errors contained in this discussion thread would take a book length response. So I will leave that aside.

Well, Matt — starting off by insulting people and suggesting that anyone who doesn’t adhere to your way of thinking must be psychologically damaged in some way is hardly a way to win yourself any respect in my eyes. So I will leave that aside.

I find the comments on this page to be full of anti-Catholic dogmas which amount to very few subsantial claims against the Church, and those opposing the sex novelty shop in West Chester, PA.

Really? Would you like to try that one again? It appears that you might have begun one thought and wound up somewhere else — not entirely surprising, but such as it is, I will state that this is not about being Anti-Catholic. And the only dogma here is what’s come out of your own mouth.

I have simply asked a question.

I’m just one woman asking a question — why can’t you keep your religion in your home and your church? Does it give you a sense of power to try and intimidate a 22 year old woman like Jill McDevitt? I don’t make a habit of broadcasting my professional credentials or those of others who participate here — but we’re not little girls here, m’kay?

I do find this comment telling though, ‘A woman exploring her own sexuality on her own terms is not dishonoring that sexuality in any way. Sex toys and indulging our own erotic core is in fact very healthy, especially for women.’

lmao! It’s Telling? Really? Why? Are you a woman? Do you have the first clue about female sexuality or what goes on within the mind of a woman or what she may desire or what she may feel or what she may think? Or what her life is all about?

What’s telling here Matt is that in the balance of your entire comment, it’s more than obvious that you haven’t got the first clue about women!

I consider the existence of sex toys to be thought provoking for many reasons, but a few of these thoughts lead me to conclude that they are ridiculous and detrimental to a healthy, fulfilling living out of one’s sexuality.

Thought provoking? Okay. So what? Want a clue Matt? Here’s how long Sex Toys have been around. And guess what, they’ve been around a lot longer than your church has!

I believe they point to a mistaken solution addressed to the obvious concern of sexual dissatisfaction. One would add the use of such toys to their sexual activity most likely out of boredom or a lacking in some other area of their lives.

Are you for real??? I mean, seriously, are you? Could you really be this dense? Do tell me Matt what sort of empirical evidence you’ve gleaned to support such a conclusion, if you might. So, by using your logic, a woman who uses a vibrator is lacking in her life in some way?

Hmmm. Tell me Matt — Is your wife faithful? Is she satisfied in bed? How do you know? Because she tells you? Does she have orgasms when you make love to her? How do you know? Because she tells you? Does she masturbate? How do you know?

You think that nice little wife of yours tells you all her secrets? You have no idea, do you? :lol:

I would argue that those opposing the novelty shop appreciate, esteem, and respect to a greater degree, and look upon the sexual embrace with more wonder and awe than those who support the shop.

Why’s that? Because that’s what you want them to believe? Maybe they’re the ones lacking in their own lives, especially in their sex lives. Why else would they be so preoccupied with what someone else does in the privacy of their own bedroom?

Ever look at porn Matt? Ever sneak a peek at that pretty girl in your office with the big breasts? Ever go to a strip club? Ever get a lap dance? Ever pay a hooker?

If you say No to all of the above you’re not only a hypocrite, you’re also a liar.

What makes you think that people who enjoy sex toys don’t also look at the sexual embrace with wonder and awe too? Is that too complicated a thought for you? Seems pretty small minded to me, and it sounds like your objections to women having access to sex toys is all about your fear that maybe you really aren’t enough for your wife. How do you know that you are? Because she tells you?

One faction turns to rubber penises, the other sees the physical union between husband and wife as an exchange of the intimate core of the person, the whole person, body, soul, emotion, capacity for pleasure, the lifegiving capability of the union, and at its most beautiful a reflection and share in the inner life of the Triune God, the eternal exchange of love that has, and will, exist for eternity.

Rubber penises? LMAO! Again I have to ask… are you for real? What a perverted little mind you have! Here’s a hint Matt — the most popular sex toys are designed BY women FOR women! And guess what?? They’re NOT shaped like a penis either! LOL! Typical male — he thinks his wife’s whole world revolves around his cock! LOL!

And quite frankly Matt — who are you to pass judgment on anyone anyway? Isn’t that up to your God to figure out later on?

One faction pushes, ‘live for the share in the novelty of it,’ the other, ‘live for the share in the eternity of it.’

You think it’s that black and white Matt? No wonder why this shop scares the living daylights out of you.

For my part I will throw my hat in with the eternity of it, and in that I will find all the pleasure, joy, and happiness that I would not find in the sedated, mundaneness of the view of sexuality put forth by those advocating for this ‘adult’ sex novelty shop; which in reality ought not be called ‘adult’ by any means since in perpertuates a view of sexuality perpetually stuck in a middle school-esque indulging of any sexual whim that fancies to enter one’s awareness.

Hmmm, seems to me that quite a few of those Catholic priests had this little problem with little boys — but please, don’t let the facts get in your way! You haven’t yet, why start now? And correct me if I’m wrong here — they were adults, right?

And more to the point — I’m quite happy that you’ve made your choice for your own life. Now answer my question — why is it impossible for you to keep your own beliefs or faith or religion in your church and your home? Why does it matter so much to you what someone else is doing?

Envy? Jealousy? Do you harbor sinful desires and lust in your heart and the only way you can handle it is by pointing the finger at someone else?

Wow — where have we seen this before?

And of course a person can choose as they wish, as long as that choice harms no one else. But what one does in the bedroom does effect everyone else, since the mentality one takes into the bedroom is the mentality one takes out of the bedroom, into the world, where one interacts with people other than their bedroom partners, even if that partner is in reality not a partner but one’s self.

It does?? Well — I’m happy that you agree that we’re allowed to have a choice, but of course, now we take our “mentality” out into the world!

Wow! Sexually satisfied women! We can’t have that now can we Matt? I mean, that might reinforce your own sexual insecurities, right?

Do you know why women cheat Matt? Because they’re unsatisfied. Know what the divorce rates are in this country? Care to venture a guess why?

And in one’s choices one has to realize they choose to reject all other options, in this case, a rejection of the Christian understanding of sex is choice against greater joy, self-respect, and personal integrity.

They do? Why? Because you say so? It is? Why? Because you say so?

I really could care less what your beliefs are Matt… I’m just trying to find out why mine scare you so much.

I wish you all the best, and some of the best I have found is the Theology of the Body, which I highly recommend, thanks for the opportunity to voice these thoughts.

No, you really don’t — so please at least be honest in that. I represent everything you fear, everything you resent, everything you want, and everything you cannot have.

I’m a woman with a brain and the independence to make her own choices about her own life, and despite whatever you need to tell yourself, I’m pretty happy with that too.

Sure — ya’ll come back now, y’hear?

nina aoki

Dear Lazy Ichi, (Lazy Ichi?)
To your hypothesis that “ Catholicism…is the most violent religion in the history of the world”, I’d suggest some wider reading. It’s a popular view (for sure the Catholic faith is the most despised and maligned in history, though Jews are contenders), but not a fair one.
“The Founding Fathers of this country were correct in their premise to make the wall between church and state.”
I agree.
“I’m just saying, all good religionists should clean up their own house and tell the world how sorry they are.”

Did you notice John Paul II doing just that in the year leading up to the Jubilee in 2000? He asked the whole Church to engage in an extended, collective examination of conscience. Then he went about publicly repenting in the name of the Church for the sins of her past, including the defamation of Galileo, the excesses of the Crusades and the Inquisition, the treatment of the Jews, and so on. Benedict XVI has followed suit, repeatedly lamenting the sins of priests in our time, etc.

See any other religious leaders doing that sort of thing? It says something, don’t you think?

Now tell me if you find any other religion similarly committed to all that is good in the world: To human rights, to disaster relief, to caring for the poor, to fighting disease, to protecting the environment, to encouraging the arts, to discouraging violence, to calling for justice in economic structures and international relations, to insisting on the dignity of women and the rights of the disenfranchised of all stripes, to deploring war, to supporting education…It goes on and on. NO RELIGION, I maintain, COMES CLOSE to Catholicism on these points.

Now I really should go. I find this kind of discussion hard to resist.

Lazy Ichi,

Last time I looked, christians and catholics alike had not produced one single shred of empirical evidence to prove their beliefs.

Until that happens, this belongs in the category of Christian Mythology, along with the windbags like William Donohue.

Again — I will refer you above to my comments about religion vs. faith — but I’m with you here. Faith is a belief in something which cannot be proved or disproved.

People like William Donohue and his, what is it, The Catholic League? Again, yet another example of how man takes faith and turns it into religion and claims power.

I would have so much MORE respect for Christians if they managed to practice what they tell the rest of us to do or not do, and if they kept their religion out of everyone else’s life.

If you want to preach to your flock — be my guest. But stay off my block or we’re gonna go.

On the other hand, there have been quite a few cases of evidence of priests molesting children. With substantial payouts. Some people are taking that to the bank.

You know I’m in Boston — and this single issue really traumatized the city — which has a large percentage of Catholics. There actually was genuine outrage that Cardinal Bernard Law was scurried off to the Vatican to avoid prosecution. Personally, the Catholic Church can throw all the money it wants at the victims of sexual abuse at the hands of priests — and no amount will ever heal the lifetime scars inflicted by these men. But let’s be honest here, this kind of sexual abuse didn’t just happen one day. It’s been going on for a long, long time within the church and within ALL religions.

Just take a look at those fucked up Mormons.

Thinking and facts are sure a bitch for some people.

Always will be too I’m afraid.

Thanks babe,

nina

Ichi Baby,

I forgot to add, it sounds like someone wants to tell women how to have orgasms.

It’s ok as long as it’s under their supervision.

ha! I think I just cleared that one up for Matt, kwim? :lol:

nina

Now Nina, go easy on ole Matty boy here, ok. He’s working up to 30 seconds. That’s Man of Steel territory and puts him in good company like bowtie-boy (who’s blabber show was cancelled) Tucker Carlson, ok. Heh!

Ps: instead of one of the Apostles’ names, maybe he should use one of the seven dwarfs’ names. maybe like Dopey.

Btw, welcome to the reality-based community, folks. ;)

Ok Lazy Katie.

If they did, they still have a long way to go.

Ps1: I really don’t care about any other religions. There’s too many of them as it is.

Ps2: for italiczzzz, you can use this:
“” no spaces and this “” no spaces

Katie,

Thanks for a respectful reply, and for giving someone with views so foreign to your own a voice in your forum. Clearly this is all stuff for many long, in-depth conversations—too much for a blog. But at least we can make a start.

Certainly, and you’re most welcome. You have been kind and gracious, and you will receive those responses in kind. Clearly, these are large issues, and yet, very basic issues too. I see this in terms of the rights of women and an attempted infringement upon those rights by religion. What’s difficult here is that while any religion may be representative of a belief system or its own dogma — that doesn’t automatically mean that all of a religion’s followers fall into line on every point.

I can respect a person’s faith — as I’ve tried to make the distinction. I can also respect a person’s choice to belong to a religion if that is how they choose to express that faith. These are personal choices.

Oh — Italics are done with opening and closing HTML tags. If you don’t know how to do that, use my contact form to email me and I’ll explain that to you.

You wrote: (I don’t know how to italicize here)
“The point I believe Anastasia was making was more to do with how religion attempts to control and influence human sexuality, especially with regard to women — and in that regard, she’s absolutely correct.”

I don’t agree that she’s correct, though her view is understandable and widespread.

Well — as I wrote in my previous comment to you — I am not at all prepared to debate the vagaries and differences between Islam and Christianity — However, offering the caveat that I view many of the world’s religions as being detrimental to women. As I wrote in another comment — the world has been soaked in women’s blood for centuries at the hands of such “godly men of the cloth” — these are indeed historical facts, and as Lazy Ichi described it, also grotesquely violent.

I’m more than happy to start citing examples of this, but, I don’t know that it will add anything here.

It’s a sad fact, though, that Catholics are often poor exemplars of the teachings of their Church, and responsible for a lot of the misunderstanding surrounding them. I’m sorry about that. We need to do much better.

Well — you owe no apology to me, tho I think any considered person is compelled to be honest about whatever shortcomings and failures may exist in their belief system. Above all else, we are imperfect, kwim?

You wrote: “The issue I take, most directly, is why it seems as tho Christians in general cannot seem to mind their own business when it comes to “other people’s choices”?”

Two answers: First, because no man is an island. Personal choices have social ramifications, especially when it comes to something as deep and potent as sexuality. Think, for instance of STD’s; think of sex-trafficking; think of the social costs of divorce and fatherlessness; think of the of the well-documented effects of post-abortion syndrome, etc.

All good points — now rationalize why this church is against condoms and birth control if it wants to be against abortion. The spread of STDs is greatly reduced by the use of condoms. We have empirical evidence of this. We also have empirical evidence that the spread of STDs including HIV has risen under the Bush Administration’s “No Condom Abstinence Only” program. These too are facts. So — the problem here is that you (the collective you) seem to want to have it both ways and according to your rules. That doesn’t work!

Sex Trafficking is a crime; but yet another example of how men try to exploit and control a woman’s sexuality for their own gain or interests. Divorce is sad, but would be greatly improved if couples were sexually satisfied and were encouraged to explore that sexuality together. There’s lots of reasons for divorce — most of them bad. And as well, I won’t argue the issue of abortion. I’m personally against abortion, but I also support a woman’s right to choose. Why? Because we do not live in a black and white world and there are many, many reasons where a woman would require an abortion which have nothing to do with irresponsibility. And, I’d also add, that if condoms, comprehensive sex education, and information were made available to young people instead of this irrational abstinence only idea that simply does not work — you’d see less young girls dealing with unwanted pregnancy.

And secondly, the Catholic Church cares about every single individual person and wants every person to fully thrive. Therefore, she can’t help but urge against destructive behaviors, even when doing so makes her extremely unpopular. If you see your friend ruining herself through drug use or bulimia or an abusive relationship, do you say, “Well that’s her personal choice; it’s none of my business”? The Church fights against the misuse of sexuality for the same reason she fights for human rights in totalitarian societies or against poverty and injustice in the third world.

This is such an unfair comparison. A woman being free to explore her own sexuality is not the same thing as a person with a drug problem. That’s really a nonsense argument.

And more importantly — the Catholic church, or any religion for that matter, does NOT have the obligation or responsibility to police MY life or make MY choices for me. That is not its place or purpose. Belonging to a religion or holding a particular faith is YOUR choice.

Are only irreligious people allowed to have a say in the public square? Is their view of the moral life to be declared the valid one and imposed on everyone else? Was it wrong for Christians to fight the evil of slavery and segregation? Is it wrong for Christians to decry the exploitation of the environment or the poor? Shouldn’t we deplore and work against the abuse of women in Islamic countries? And if we hold that certain uses of sexuality are destructive of human life and well-being, wouldn’t we be radically unserious as persons if we stood by and said, “Oh well, not my problem”?

As Lazy Ichi (I saw) left you a link — we have a separation of church and state in this country. The founding fathers saw the wisdom of such a separation and it has served us well.

You are certainly entitled to your voice, but not at the expense of someone else’s! THAT is what this is all about.

But I agree with you this far: Christians have often been guilty of failing to properly respect the freedom of others. We have often become impatient with the demands of proposing, and have tended to impose. We have to keep working on this.

Well — this would very well be easily solved if people kept their religion and faith in their homes and in their churches where it belongs. We all must be compelled to fight injustice in this world when we see it, but the danger here is when the lines between a Representative Republic and a Theocracy get blurred.

And quite frankly — the only difference between a Christian Theocracy and an Islamic Theocracy or even Political Fascism is which invisible man in the sky you choose to pray to. Power is power. Men are Men. Humans are Humans. When we organize these things under the banner of faith and attempt to merge that with government of people, that’s starting down a very dangerous path.

You wrote: “Why must it find its way into a young woman’s life like Jill McDevitt’s — who is doing nothing wrong and is actually trying to do some good?”

Because her idea of good is our idea of bad. We see bad, not good, in the trivialization and commercialization of sex. Many of us find it deeply objectionable that matters that ought to be treated with profound discretion, because of their essential intimacy, are thrust rudely into the public sphere. We find it objectionable that young children are exposed to things that violate their innocence. I have five children. They walk past her store, with its advertisements for foreplay and outercourse seminars, etc., on their way into town. I wish she were not in the business she’s in at all, but in any case, it doesn’t belong downtown. Surely this is something the overwhelming majority can agree on? Just as I don’t have to be a teetotaler to agree that the sale of alcohol should be restricted for minors, you don’t have to embrace the whole Catholic vision of sexuality to agree that sex shops shouldn’t be set up where children will be exposed to them.

But that Good or Bad decision is NOT yours to make for everyone else! It just is