Osu

[Urgan]

1 hour ago, Kishi said:

I mean, it might work that way? I'm on team "Just Because I'm Paranoid Doesn't Mean They Aren't Out To Get Me, And They Know Who They Are." (my team has a branding problem. Doesn't quite roll off the tongue).

 

No even gonna lie, I can't blame you. Even people who aren't rocking all black can tell it's witch-burning season. The main thing is, I want you to know that not all girls gonna do you that way and you deserve to find one that won't leave you looking over your shoulder after every interaction. 

 

1 hour ago, Kishi said:

Not sure if this is us dating or what, but truthfully, I don't consider friendship to be a consolation prize in this case either. She wanted to see me again before the next time we both could make it to a dance, so I invited her out to the Night Market on the 17th which it turns out she's always wanted to see. So.

 

One date and your dating; two+ dates and you're Dating? Giant shrug. Sounds like this was more of an unqualified good time than the last girl, she's a bit more direct?

 

Addit: good to hear your pain is down, dancing is more than reason enough for a possible DOMS-y flare-up.

[Kishi]

52 minutes ago, Urgan said:

No even gonna lie, I can't blame you. Even people who aren't rocking all black can tell it's witch-burning season. The main thing is, I want you to know that not all girls gonna do you that way and you deserve to find one that won't leave you looking over your shoulder after every interaction. 

 

Thanks. It's actually really good to hear that.

 

53 minutes ago, Urgan said:

One date and your dating; two+ dates and you're Dating? Giant shrug. Sounds like this was more of an unqualified good time than the last girl, she's a bit more direct?

 

Yeah, that's kind of what it feels like. This was absolutely more of an unqualified good time. She's quite a lot more direct, which I appreciate.

 

54 minutes ago, Urgan said:

Addit: good to hear your pain is down, dancing is more than reason enough for a possible DOMS-y flare-up.

 

Nah. Dancing didn't do it. It was my Vengeful Bridge what did it; felt that DOMS rather sharply after, but it was really reduced even in the immediate hours after and it's better today, like I almost feel normal.

[Urgan]

8 minutes ago, Kishi said:

Nah. Dancing didn't do it. It was my Vengeful Bridge what did it; felt that DOMS rather sharply after, but it was really reduced even in the immediate hours after and it's better today, like I almost feel normal.

 

#saveawitchburnabridge

[Renate]

Oh nooo I totally missed the socialism vs.capitalism debate. Will have to check it out! 

 

Yeah, I also see your battle log as a safe space. However, I do not want to abuse it haha

 

With regards to courting rituals, I personally do not like being won over with fancy dates and gifts over good conversation, similar views on (home) finances, similar ideas about a potential future generation, similar sexual interests & strength of character because I am not afraid I will not be able to provide for myself and/or a family. I know how to provide stability for myself (and a partner who maybe has not learnt how to but is willing to, because a relationship has to be team work) and budget and manage taxes etc. 

 

However, good conversation can also be had with a good friend so to avoid misunderstanding & to act with understanding towards guys that are afraid to take the first step due to the current social climate, I opt for taking the first step. And luckily where I live that is not seen as unwomanly or whatever.

 

It is also completely within the culture to just split bills with your best friends and even when you are married here so there is that.

 

Also, I have not been brought up religious so my views are probably again, colored by humanist points of views, in combination with moderated hedonism (avoid pointless displeasure, strive for pleasure and joy in life in moderation. Aka eat cake but not one or two cakes because you do not want your stomache to hurt.)

 

So all of that probably colours my views. maybe as a bit of background? 

 

So again, I do understand your dilemmas and unwillingness to give up on the idea that there was nothing. Communication is necessary!

 

(EDIT: Though of course we need to take care of & protect people that are not outspoken, and correct once we realise we are wrong, we can also not take all of the blame if we simply could not know.

 

But that is why I also take the bold step of asking a guy where "we are" without an ultimatum, just informatively so to know whether we are on the same page or not? And it is okay not to know. But then I know he is on that page and I get to make an informed decision whether I want to keep going or not. Rinse and repeat. Communication!)

[Renate]

I second @Urgan , I wish you a future person that you can just relax around and have a "click" with. Based on what I have read you aim to treat people with respect & care and are not afraid to have a long conversation in order to reach understanding.

 

(Eff that advice that men have to learn how to say "Yes darling" in order to have a happy marriage. My opinion, will not judge people that think that way.)

[Tanktimus the Encourager]

2 hours ago, analoggirl said:

Eff that advice that men have to learn how to say "Yes darling" in order to have a happy marriage. My opinion, will not judge people that think that way.)

I agree. I was in one of those marriages. It's emotionally abusive. 

[Renate]

1 hour ago, Tanktimus the Encourager said:

I agree. I was in one of those marriages. It's emotionally abusive. 

Can imagine. But I have also seen some marriages where the 2 people are perfectly happy that way. They call the wife the neck and the man the head and all is good. 

 

I just like discussion and do not find satisfaction in getting my way just for the sake of it. And I do believe people miss out on a deeper more satisfying connection when they avoid discussion just for the lack of knowledge how. There are so many online resources about effective communication, effective discussion, not using fallacies in arguments and how to decide what needs to be said and what will solve itself with time.

 

Communication. Clarity. Not necessarily talking out evrry detail but the core issues before they become a problem. Not just (in my view, and I know it sounds judgemental) lazily accepting we are like Venus and Mars and not even trying to understand each other and adapting Around our seeming differences.

 

But yeah. Life is not A textbook and some dates & relationships are simply meant to be lessons. About yourself and others.

 

EDIT: I do sound like I am bragging like I am special (to my own eyes) but I have found what works for me & I am still learning.

 

Just giving background info and in case anyone sees anything useful at all. To share. Otherwise feel free to ignore my novel about myself up there.

 

 

[Kishi]

So, Monday was a day. We couldn't undertake the next steps in any games due to critical players being missing, so we missed out. Wound up in character creation instead.

 

And then out of nowhere I ran into one of my old roommates. Totally didn't see that coming. He's a good guy, or he was when I knew him last, and he's apparently involved in a game of Pathfinder on Monday nights. Totally didn't see that coming. I've updated his contact number and since messaged him for coffee or beer and general catching up. I hope that goes somewhere.

 

Anyway, decided to try out mixing Q&D and handstand work. It shows promise, but I had the DM who likes to run things late again and the cycle went vicious for all that I tried not to let it. I hate to say it, but I think Monday's probably not suitable for more than a little work. Which is fine, and good to know; I'm just trying to find ways to spread the load a little better; don't want to get stuck on 2adays again. Although, then again, my recovery seems to be pretty good, so maybe it's not that big a deal? Especially since one of the two these days is very often just lots of movement and not necessarily some asshole coach trying to burn me out.

 

Food for thought, I suppose.

 

Anyway, 2aday today.  It'll be various fight stuffs and strength work to follow.

[Kishi]

20 hours ago, analoggirl said:

Oh nooo I totally missed the socialism vs.capitalism debate. Will have to check it out! 

 

Yeah, I also see your battle log as a safe space. However, I do not want to abuse it haha

 

Oh, it was a doozy. It was fun, though, too. It probably wouldn't have been fun if it hadn't been for Nerds, though, because, uh, have you seen the internet lately?

 

Anyway, if I feel some abuse, I'll speak up. No worries.

 

20 hours ago, analoggirl said:

With regards to courting rituals, I personally do not like being won over with fancy dates and gifts over good conversation, similar views on (home) finances, similar ideas about a potential future generation, similar sexual interests & strength of character because I am not afraid I will not be able to provide for myself and/or a family. I know how to provide stability for myself (and a partner who maybe has not learnt how to but is willing to, because a relationship has to be team work) and budget and manage taxes etc. 

 

However, good conversation can also be had with a good friend so to avoid misunderstanding & to act with understanding towards guys that are afraid to take the first step due to the current social climate, I opt for taking the first step. And luckily where I live that is not seen as unwomanly or whatever.

 

Yeah. I mean, trying to win someone over like that feels entirely too transactional for me to comfy with it. But maybe that's just me too, you know? Like, I tended for a long time to view relationships as people extracting social capital from one another. It's the famed line from David Wong's piece that runs on New Year's at Cracked.com every year; to paraphrase: "Oh, you're a nice guy? Congratulations, that's the basics. The next guy is nice and also he plays guitar."

 

But then, this doesn't feel like that at all. I'm not sure what changed; I dunno if I figured out how to convert what I do into acceptable social currency, or if it's that I'm challenging a lot of my scripts right now in terms of what an acceptable outcome is, or if I just happened to get lucky enough to meet someone who values what I bring. Or maybe all three? Or maybe none of those things? Whatever it is, though, I ain't questioning it.

 

20 hours ago, analoggirl said:

Also, I have not been brought up religious so my views are probably again, colored by humanist points of views, in combination with moderated hedonism (avoid pointless displeasure, strive for pleasure and joy in life in moderation. Aka eat cake but not one or two cakes because you do not want your stomache to hurt.)

 

So all of that probably colours my views. maybe as a bit of background? 

 

Nah, I can see how that would happen. I've got a lot of religion in me, both for better and for worse. I've got a lot of good scripts running thanks to it, and more good than bad now for sure, but there's definitely some bad that I'm having to grapple with and pray for deliverance from.

 

Also, not sure where I am on the Stoicism-Epicureanism spectrum as a lot of what I do could conceivably be argued as taking pleasure from unusual sources. Maybe I'm an Aristotelian at heart and I'm striving for a golden mean between the two? Idek. (which makes me Socratic. )

 

20 hours ago, analoggirl said:

But that is why I also take the bold step of asking a guy where "we are" without an ultimatum, just informatively so to know whether we are on the same page or not? And it is okay not to know. But then I know he is on that page and I get to make an informed decision whether I want to keep going or not. Rinse and repeat. Communication!)

 

Yeah, and that was ultimately how I meant it when I did that. But I can also see how that would be seen as putting someone on the spot, and that's way out of step with my goals for all this. Like I said, I'm having to learn that there's a lot of acceptable outcomes, and I'm having to learn how to pursue them and... roll with what happens.

 

20 hours ago, analoggirl said:

I second @Urgan , I wish you a future person that you can just relax around and have a "click" with. Based on what I have read you aim to treat people with respect & care and are not afraid to have a long conversation in order to reach understanding.

 

(Eff that advice that men have to learn how to say "Yes darling" in order to have a happy marriage. My opinion, will not judge people that think that way.)

 

Yeah, there's a real man-as-a-martyr-in-marriage culture in the States, especially in the South. It sucks, but I'd be lying if I said that there weren't aspects of it that I find noble in a way.

 

17 hours ago, analoggirl said:

Communication. Clarity. Not necessarily talking out evrry detail but the core issues before they become a problem. Not just (in my view, and I know it sounds judgemental) lazily accepting we are like Venus and Mars and not even trying to understand each other and adapting Around our seeming differences.

 

Not to mention the different languages of affection that people use to communicate with one another. Throw that into the mix with a bunch of socialized expectations that vary from culture to culture and it Gets Complicated Fast.

 

But in other news, to hell with it. We gotta try, yeah?

 

*

 

So! Finally got on the mats to roll at the other school! It wound up being rather serendipitous - we got the chance to work on Triangles, which I'd just begun to study in earnest this month over at the main. The coolest part was finding ways to arm-bar people from there, which kind of blew my mind. Everyone was cool here too, though, pleased to say. Got to go with a purple belt, got smashed. Didn't mind at all.

 

Striking afterward was good too; lot of focus on immediate response, which felt good. The purple belt who smashed me is also a regular in striking; I smashed him back.  Stayed after to help clean up and... yeah, everything was good.

 

Good times. Strength work afterward was productive. One noteworthy thing is that I've got something going on in my adductors from all the Triangle work. Not sure if DOMS or what, but honestly not minding having the next couple of days off.

[Tanktimus the Encourager]

17 hours ago, Kishi said:

Also, not sure where I am on the Stoicism-Epicureanism spectrum as a lot of what I do could conceivably be argued as taking pleasure from unusual sources. Maybe I'm an Aristotelian at heart and I'm striving for a golden mean between the two? Idek. (which makes me Socratic. )

 

Paul threw some shade at both the Stoics and the Epicureans.

Romans 8:28 is a shot at the Stoics saying everything is for good.

1 Corinthians 6:13 is a shot at the Epicureans.

[Kishi]

1 hour ago, Tanktimus the Encourager said:

Paul threw some shade at both the Stoics and the Epicureans.

Romans 8:28 is a shot at the Stoics saying everything is for good.

1 Corinthians 6:13 is a shot at the Epicureans.

 

I mean, not to countermand St. Paul. It's not like I've ever been dropkicked off my horse by the Lord or anything like that. But Romans 8:28 doesn't really work as shade versus stoicism. Stoic philosophy believes in the idea of "The Logos," or a sort of working out of all things in accordance with divine reason. The implication being that no matter what hardships one encounters or obstacles in the way of the cultivation of virtue, none of it is set without purpose and none of it is meant for evil.

 

So St. Paul says, "we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose," and the Stoic says, "Um. Yes?" It could be that the translations I'm seeing don't do it justice.

 

Granted, it could work as a diss on the modern Stoics who gave up the idea of the Logos to focus on cultivating virtue, but it doesn't seem to track as a contemporary shade.

 

*

 

Wednesday down. Wednesday quiet. Still working our way through Young Justice S3, but got sidetracked to watch Superman vs The Elite. Which is super freaking good as a sort of response to the gritty 90s anti-hero who kills for a cause; what happens when that runs up against a god who doesn't kill? And it explores the ethics and the morality of the choices the characters make, and it's exactly what Snyder should have done in his run on the Man of Steel.

 

Anyway. After TV we consoled the friend's wife who lost her softball game, and then ate blueberry goat cheese and talked about socialism. Good times.

 

Today I'm off to visit that friend I mentioned last week who I ain't seen in a minute. It'll be fun, but no training. Also, check engine light is on in the car again. I'm hoping that's just a gas cap problem again.

[Tanktimus the Encourager]

34 minutes ago, Kishi said:

I mean, not to countermand St. Paul. It's not like I've ever been dropkicked off my horse by the Lord or anything like that. But Romans 8:28 doesn't really work as shade versus stoicism. Stoic philosophy believes in the idea of "The Logos," or a sort of working out of all things in accordance with divine reason. The implication being that no matter what hardships one encounters or obstacles in the way of the cultivation of virtue, none of it is set without purpose and none of it is meant for evil.

 

So St. Paul says, "we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose," and the Stoic says, "Um. Yes?" It could be that the translations I'm seeing don't do it justice.

 

Granted, it could work as a diss on the modern Stoics who gave up the idea of the Logos to focus on cultivating virtue, but it doesn't seem to track as a contemporary shade.

 

Some Greek sources have the verse phrased "God works all things together for good" as opposed to "All things work together for Good." The New Revised Standard Version translates the verse with the former reading based on the Greek texts and variants. That would seem to be a more direct statement to the Stoics. To be fair, a lot of scholars see Stoic Influence in Paul. I'm remembering things from Undergrad and Seminary I heard anywhere from 12 to 20 years ago.

[Renate]

20 hours ago, Kishi said:

 

 But in other news, to hell with it. We gotta try, yeah?

Yup!

 

20 hours ago, Kishi said:

Nah, I can see how that would happen. I've got a lot of religion in me, both for better and for worse. I've got a lot of good scripts running thanks to it, and more good than bad now for sure, but there's definitely some bad that I'm having to grapple with and pray for deliverance from.

 

 

The reason I mentioned the religious upbringing factor is because the abrahamic religions sort of... make it impossible to be a Godly Woman without a man, which would put pressure on me to find a man and therefore make it more difficult for me to just Go with The Flow.

 

At least as far as I have studied the bible until now & the various views on godly womanhood and manhood. That is what I got from it.

 

So, although I am seeking "the truth", and as a christened European I find a lot of wisdom in Christian texts, I feel free to form my own view on that topic which gives me freedom to act from a place of abundence and not fear to end up alone.

 

Again, that is all my interpretation and understanding. But I believe a relationship of mine cannot work if I absolutely need a man to live according to my life philosohy (and/or religion). Or if the man feels obliged to stay with me because that is the word of God.

 

Because then I would have felt quite the phobia everytime my ex threatened to leave me, not only because I loved him but also because I would not have a man to rapport to? (Or is it not, man is responsible to God, woman is responsible to husband who is responsible to God?)

 

I do not know. Luckily I have a lifetime to study about it/meditate/pray etc.

 

And I would not know for sure my partner is staying with me for us. And that is kind of important to me? I just cannot reconcile the thought of that just being my human arrogance or me "insisting to rely on my own power instead of submitting to the Lord."

 

I do not MIND depending on a partner. I would not mind being a stay at home parent, even. I would treat that "occupation" with the utmost care. Just have this pesky idea in my mind that both my partner and I must have the choice to leave whenever we would truly want to. So staying together is a concious act.

 

(and that involves motivating each other to stay involved, have some emergency finances, have a social life, etc.)

 

But that is again, background and not seeking to be convinced

 

[Kishi]

3 hours ago, Tanktimus the Encourager said:

Some Greek sources have the verse phrased "God works all things together for good" as opposed to "All things work together for Good." The New Revised Standard Version translates the verse with the former reading based on the Greek texts and variants. That would seem to be a more direct statement to the Stoics. To be fair, a lot of scholars see Stoic Influence in Paul. I'm remembering things from Undergrad and Seminary I heard anywhere from 12 to 20 years ago.

 

Yeah, that sounds more like Paul. He was big on claiming the Unnamed Unknown God of the Greeks as the God he was preaching, as I recall it, although you probably have a way better bead on that than me.

 

3 hours ago, analoggirl said:

The reason I mentioned the religious upbringing factor is because the abrahamic religions sort of... make it impossible to be a Godly Woman without a man, which would put pressure on me to find a man and therefore make it more difficult for me to just Go with The Flow.

 

At least as far as I have studied the bible until now & the various views on godly womanhood and manhood. That is what I got from it.

 

So, although I am seeking my truth, and as a christened European I find a lot of wisdom in Christian texts, I feel free to form my own view on that topic which gives me freedom to act from a place of abundence and not fear to end up alone.

 

Again, that is all my interpretation. But I believe a relationship of mine cannot work if I absolutely need a man to live according to my life philosohy.

 

Because then I would have felt quite the phobia everytime my ex threatened to leave me, not only because I loved him but also because I would not have a man to rapport to? (Or is it not, man is responsible to God, woman is responsible to husband who is responsible to God?)

 

I do not know. Luckily I have a lifetime to think about it.

 

Well, the way it's supposed to work is that man and woman are equal partners. Wives submit to husbands and husbands submit to wives. It's a sort of mutual arrangement, in theory. Admittedly, it's not exactly common for it to be practiced that way, and then you factor in that a lot of Christianity is interpreted through a patriarchal lens that diminishes and demotes women - cover your hair, be silent in church, and so on - and... yeah.

 

I'm quite happy to rant and rave about how it's misapplied, but academic outrage at the harm that shouldn't happen does nothing to unmake the harm that's done. Which is all to say that... I get it.

[Renate]

10 hours ago, Kishi said:

I'm quite happy to rant and rave about how it's misapplied, but academic outrage at the harm that shouldn't happen does nothing to unmake the harm that's done. Which is all to say that... I get it.

 

Yeah I also get why it happened the way it did. And why sometimes it still happens. 

 

(EDIT: deleted two paragraphs of musings that I do not feel like ordering in a coherent manner )

 

Being concious of the problems and striving to be the best we can be with the knowledge and experience we have (and not giving up when we make mistakes or feel like it's a drop in the bucket) = breaking the cycle. 

 

Stil does not unmake the harm that has been done but I am learning to just take everything a step at a time.

[Tanktimus the Encourager]

20 hours ago, analoggirl said:

The reason I mentioned the religious upbringing factor is because the abrahamic religions sort of... make it impossible to be a Godly Woman without a man, which would put pressure on me to find a man and therefore make it more difficult for me to just Go with The Flow.

 

One interpretation of the creation narrative (Specifically God taking a rib from Adam to make Eve) is that God did not take something from Adam's feet, so that he would be above her, nor from his head, so that he would be below her, but from his side, so they could walk together. The word in Genesis often translated "helpmeet" does not imply any disparity in the relationship, and in fact implies equality. It is not till the fall (after sin enters the world) that any change in equality is mentioned, and it is presented as a consequence of sin, not part of God's design. Now, to be fair, many patriarchal interpretations blame Eve (and therefore all women) for sin entering the world, and claim subjugation of women is a Godly consequence of that. I find that view, if you'll forgive my technical language here, complete and utter bullshit.

 

Jesus and Paul viewed through the lens of contemporary viewpoints can seem mysoginistic, but in their own context were actually radical egalitarians. Jesus spoke openly to women in public, something that was simply Not Done in those days. He treated them as equals. As Kishi already mentioned, Paul has suffered from the same misinterpretation as the creation narrative.

16 hours ago, Kishi said:

 

Well, the way it's supposed to work is that man and woman are equal partners. Wives submit to husbands and husbands submit to wives. It's a sort of mutual arrangement, in theory. Admittedly, it's not exactly common for it to be practiced that way, and then you factor in that a lot of Christianity is interpreted through a patriarchal lens that diminishes and demotes women - cover your hair, be silent in church, and so on - and... yeah.

 

I'm quite happy to rant and rave about how it's misapplied, but academic outrage at the harm that shouldn't happen does nothing to unmake the harm that's done. Which is all to say that... I get it.

So the whole "Wives Submit to your husbands" bit is easy to misread, and the passage has suffered from some bad translation that persists to this day. Here is the passage of Ephesians, specifically 5:20-28

 

²⁰ giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, ²¹ submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Wives and Husbands

²² Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. ²³ For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. ²⁴ Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, ²⁶ that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, ²⁷ so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.^[a]28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.

 

See verse 22? It should be a continuation of 21. When this was all originally written, Greek had only capital letters, no punctation, and no spaces. The division into verses was arbitrarily done much, much later to aid people in referencing certain parts of scripture. In the greek, there is no verb present in what today is called verse 22. A more literal rendering is "Wives, to your husbands, as to the Lord. Why is that important? It's because there shouldn't be a division in sentences there, much less a new heading implying Paul is changing gears. "Wives, to your husbands" flows directly out of the thought that EVERYONE in the church is to submit to EVERYONE else, and husbands should submit to their wives also. It's one thought. Furthermore, the Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church is essentially saying the same thing. Christ came as a servant and called us all to be servants. He specifically forbade Christians from exerting power over one another. One cannot interpret the above to mean inequal relationships are ok without, as my professors used to say, "Doing violence to the text."

 

 

The cover your hair bit is from Corinthians. Again, a bit of historical context helps us out here. Corinth is on a small Isthmus of land connecting southern and northern Greece.

Ships would land at Corinth and be dragged on logs to the other side of the Isthmus and put back in the water. It took a while, but it was still faster than sailing around. Now during that time the sailors had nothing to do. There just so happened to be a temple to Aphrodite in Corinth. How did you worship Aphrodite? I'm glad you asked. You worshiped her by partaking of the services of a temple prostitute. It's amazing how religious sailors became in Corinth. Pauls instructions to cover hair and remain silent in church were to distinguish Christian Women from Women who worked for Aphrodite, many of whom had uncovered hair and were raucous in Aphrodite's Temple. That passage also mentions offhand that it's a disgrace for women to cut their hair. This is not presented as a command, but an observation of the style of the times. 

 

Much of the problems come, not from the text, but as Kishi said, from patriarchal misinterpretations. 

[Renate]

Well, I do enjoy reading about interpretations. Almost feel inclined to study some form of theology.

 

However! I was not referencing the bit about the (by some, proclaimed and necessary) submisison of men to women  That bit can be discussed indeed, and viewed through patriarchal lenses or not.

 

(One could say it's a bit unequal to have wives submit to their husbands IN ALL THINGS, while the husbands submit to their wives like they do to the church, cleansing her and whatnot, but that's semantics anyhow.)

 

I was referring to the fact that the man is the head of the family, he stands in front of God, if I understand correctly. The woman needs the man (or her father) as a medium between herself and God when it comes to responsibilities. So the man is basically the manager, although the woman speaks and converses directly with the Director, she has to answer to her husband.

 

I don't know, for some reason I feel like I'm setting myself up for trouble if I start living according to a philosophy where my partner is responsible for my good or wrong doings.  You can have a real informal and equal partnership with your manager, however he is first in the ladder and gets reprimanded for by the higher up if you mess up.

 

Also, I kind of like my relationship consisting of two persons that are not submitting to each other. Because in my experience, being submitted to places quite the burden on someone. We're both responsible for our own actions, and need to own up to it when we make mistakes. If someone is so hurt by my actions he feels he cannot suffer being in a relationship with me, then I would not want him to stay because he has Submitted himself to me, and vice versa.  That kind of thing. I'm still working it out :p

 

Not to say I am so mischivious that I would have my man constantly worrying for the lord's smite haha, but I think it's just better if we're just our own people.

[Urgan]

50 minutes ago, Tanktimus the Encourager said:

One interpretation of the creation narrative (Specifically God taking a rib from Adam to make Eve) is that God did not take something from Adam's feet, so that he would be above her, nor from his head, so that he would be below her, but from his side, so they could walk together. The word in Genesis often translated "helpmeet" does not imply any disparity in the relationship, and in fact implies equality. It is not till the fall (after sin enters the world) that any change in equality is mentioned, and it is presented as a consequence of sin, not part of God's design. Now, to be fair, many patriarchal interpretations blame Eve (and therefore all women) for sin entering the world, and claim subjugation of women is a Godly consequence of that. I find that view, if you'll forgive my technical language here, complete and utter bullshit.

 

Jesus and Paul viewed through the lens of contemporary viewpoints can seem mysoginistic, but in their own context were actually radical egalitarians. Jesus spoke openly to women in public, something that was simply Not Done in those days. He treated them as equals. As Kishi already mentioned, Paul has suffered from the same misinterpretation as the creation narrative.

 

Indeed indeed. And to compound this, I've heard it pointed out that Adam failed as a leader, because he knew what God had told them not to do, but he listened to the Serpent by way of Eve and did it anyway. They both sinned knowing better.

 

There is a habit of judging the past by the standards of the present--context be damned.

 

56 minutes ago, Tanktimus the Encourager said:

Much of the problems come, not from the text, but as Kishi said, from patriarchal misinterpretations. 

 

Certain individual men will try to use the Bible as a cudgel to intimidate women in their local orbit because they have a need to control, whether that's due to misogyny or gaping personal insecurity or what have you. It's pretty obvious when a man is harping on "wives submit to your husbands," has 9 kids, and runs the household like it's a navy vessel with the wife barely distinguishable in "rank" from the kids that he might not be worth taking seriously as Biblical authority. Does make my skin crawl nonetheless.

[Kishi]

8 hours ago, analoggirl said:

 

Yeah I also get why it happened the way it did. And why sometimes it still happens. 

 

(EDIT: deleted two paragraphs of musings that I do not feel like ordering in a coherent manner )

 

Being concious of the problems and striving to be the best we can be with the knowledge and experience we have (and not giving up when we make mistakes or feel like it's a drop in the bucket) = breaking the cycle. 

 

Stil does not unmake the harm that has been done but I am learning to just take everything a step at a time.

 

Yup. Do your best until you know better. Then, do better.

 

21 minutes ago, Tanktimus the Encourager said:

One interpretation of the creation narrative (Specifically God taking a rib from Adam to make Eve) is that God did not take something from Adam's feet, so that he would be above her, nor from his head, so that he would be below her, but from his side, so they could walk together. The word in Genesis often translated "helpmeet" does not imply any disparity in the relationship, and in fact implies equality. It is not till the fall (after sin enters the world) that any change in equality is mentioned, and it is presented as a consequence of sin, not part of God's design. Now, to be fair, many patriarchal interpretations blame Eve (and therefore all women) for sin entering the world, and claim subjugation of women is a Godly consequence of that. I find that view, if you'll forgive my technical language here, complete and utter bullshit.

 

Jesus and Paul viewed through the lens of contemporary viewpoints can seem mysoginistic, but in their own context were actually radical egalitarians. Jesus spoke openly to women in public, something that was simply Not Done in those days. He treated them as equals. As Kishi already mentioned, Paul has suffered from the same misinterpretation as the creation narrative.

 

Right, like the word that we translate as helpmate is apparently a combination of two words meaning "rescue" and "strength." Women are the badasses God made to save us because we were too weak to bear the weight of life alone.

 

1 hour ago, Tanktimus the Encourager said:

So the whole "Wives Submit to your husbands" bit is easy to misread, and the passage has suffered from some bad translation that persists to this day. Here is the passage of Ephesians, specifically 5:20-28

...

See verse 22? It should be a continuation of 21. When this was all originally written, Greek had only capital letters, no punctation, and no spaces. The division into verses was arbitrarily done much, much later to aid people in referencing certain parts of scripture. In the greek, there is no verb present in what today is called verse 22. A more literal rendering is "Wives, to your husbands, as to the Lord. Why is that important? It's because there shouldn't be a division in sentences there, much less a new heading implying Paul is changing gears. "Wives, to your husbands" flows directly out of the thought that EVERYONE in the church is to submit to EVERYONE else, and husbands should submit to their wives also. It's one thought. Furthermore, the Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church is essentially saying the same thing. Christ came as a servant and called us all to be servants. He specifically forbade Christians from exerting power over one another. One cannot interpret the above to mean inequal relationships are ok without, as my professors used to say, "Doing violence to the text."

 

1 hour ago, Tanktimus the Encourager said:

Ships would land at Corinth and be dragged on logs to the other side of the Isthmus and put back in the water. It took a while, but it was still faster than sailing around. Now during that time the sailors had nothing to do. There just so happened to be a temple to Aphrodite in Corinth. How did you worship Aphrodite? I'm glad you asked. You worshiped her by partaking of the services of a temple prostitute. It's amazing how religious sailors became in Corinth. Pauls instructions to cover hair and remain silent in church were to distinguish Christian Women from Women who worked for Aphrodite, many of whom had uncovered hair and were raucous in Aphrodite's Temple. That passage also mentions offhand that it's a disgrace for women to cut their hair. This is not presented as a command, but an observation of the style of the times.

 

Good points. It's also worth pointing out that Scripture is a mirror in that it comes to reflect the person who's reading it. If you're a product of a patriarchal culture, it's going to change the lens through which you read, and it's going to change what parts you pay attention to and what you ultimately apply, which for all practical purposes is the religion.

 

One of the most striking things I ever saw in my days as a door to door salesman was a Pentecostal bible study where the woman was, for all intents and purposes, covered in sackcloth and remained silent. Another was the application of Scripture to the gender relations in the church I went to, where a bunch of strong, badass, educated women were given the Complementarian lines about "separate but equal" with a straight face. Some went with it, and some went away. Couldn't hold that against them.

 

It's also complicated by the fact that Christianity, as an evangelistic religion, is more concerned with social cohesion and getting butts in the seats - and money in the offering bins - than pushing people to engage with the Scripture in a critical way. Also that, ever since it was instated as the state religion in Rome, it's been linked to hierarchical power structures and as such hasn't really been part of the ongoing evolution toward democracy and the end of hierarchies until relatively recently. And even then, Christianity that advocates for this kind of thing (Christian Socialism, liberation theology, Christian Anarchism, etc.) is still considered relatively radical.

 

So... yeah. It's all complicated. We've been in the world long enough for us to be of the world, and we never even saw it coming.

 

*

 

Surprise! My friend that I was going to hang with was slated to go have dinner with his wife's parents, and they'd made those plans before he'd made plans with me. So he had to go do that. Now I'm off to see him on Saturday instead.

 

So I wound up doing strength work instead. It was good stuff, although I can tell my body is a little tired. Deload week is next week for handstands and Q&D, and even though the strength program doesn't call for structured deloads, I'm still thinking about hitting it that way anyway. I have thoughts about how I'd accomplish that.

 

In the meantime, Open Mat tonight. Not sure if there will be drinking or not; training plans will be made based on how this all works out.

[Renate]

On 10/11/2019 at 7:21 PM, Kishi said:

It's also worth pointing out that Scripture is a mirror in that it comes to reflect the person who's reading it.

In that, Scripture is just like any other literature  [EDIT: correction: any written piece. I am of the camp that finds that no words are clear as they are. Words require discussion, and agreement/consensus. Meaning depends on context, can very from person to person, family to family, micro to macro societies, cultures and so on.]

 

As much as I try to look at it objectively and have tried to read commentaries that take in account, without ad hominems or straw men etc., dissenting views...  

 

But then again, awareness is important. When you realise you are bound to be partial, your views colored and so forth, you can take measures to minimalise the effect of that subjectivity

 

Fun times, thanks for the conversation. Am looking forward to when I will have time to do more again than just read some verses and then move on. 

 

[WhiteGhost]

Hmmm, seems like I missed a great religious discussion while I was out.  Not much to add, though, because it seems Tank has already said my thoughts, and way better than I could have done  

[Urgan]

What have we learned this week? We do not sleep on Kishi's thread.

 

[Kishi]

On 10/12/2019 at 3:48 AM, analoggirl said:

In that, Scripture is just like any other literature  [EDIT: correction: any written piece. I am of the camp that finds that no words are clear as they are. Words require discussion, and agreement/consensus. Meaning depends on context, can very from person to person, family to family, micro to macro societies, cultures and so on.]

 

As much as I try to look at it objectively and have tried to read commentaries that take in account, without ad hominems or straw men etc., dissenting views...  

 

But then again, awareness is important. When you realise you are bound to be partial, your views colored and so forth, you can take measures to minimalise the effect of that subjectivity

 

Fun times, thanks for the conversation. Am looking forward to when I will have time to do more again than just read some verses and then move on. 

 

 

Hey, glad to be a part of it. Stick around. It'll happen again. Just can't say when.

 

18 hours ago, WhiteGhost said:

Hmmm, seems like I missed a great religious discussion while I was out.  Not much to add, though, because it seems Tank has already said my thoughts, and way better than I could have done  

 

@Tanktimus the Encourager's pretty great about that kind of thing. Sorry you missed it! For that matter, sorry I haven't been around to your threads either. You're always dropping by to like or to say cool and thought-provoking things, and it seems like the least I could do is drop by and offer my support instead of navel-gazing and ranting about training.

 

I'm not in a position to fix this immediately, but I can at least say I'm grateful for you (and also @Sloth the Enduring, you're just cool, and also @Teirin, seriously). So thank you.

 

3 hours ago, Urgan said:

What have we learned this week? We do not sleep on Kishi's thread.

 

 

 

*

 

So! Open mat happened! It's notable in that this is the first time I've gone after having been exposed to BJJ as flavored by other bodies and other perspectives. Like I said, we worked Triangles on Tuesday and it showed through really strongly Friday night. I wound up tapping the other white belts I rolled with - one with armbar from Triangle, and the other with Americana from Kesa Gatame. I went with my teacher and almost got him with Triangle. I didn't, but it was still a good roll. He's had me watching video of Roger Gracie, as our body types are very similar, and while I can't quite appreciate everything he does, one thing I can appreciate is his pressure via position, which was something I was able to apply as well.

 

But yeah, I definitely had the kind of performance that's enough to give a man an ego. I'mma get smashed tonight, I just know it. Oh well.

 

Drinking happened afterward, so no additional training. Which was fine.

 

Saturday, my friend and I both slept in and he wound up having things to do, so we missed that. Did Q&D and strength work instead. Got a hair to start working on splits again, which feels like a good way to stretch out the sore spots. Further results pending.

 

Today, finally got together with my friend! We got on about as well as I remembered; he was surprised to learn that I was so close and apparently he's been going to a nearby drafthouse after his comedy bits on the weekend, meaning that we've had all these opportunities to hang out and didn't even know it! So. I'mma try to fix that.

 

Anyway, like I said, off to do BJJ tonight and get smashed. And then blessed, blessed deload. Since the deload period is a time for testing capacity in Q&D I'm not sure what to do next; I dunno if I'm going to try to do banded swings or if I'm going to try to start working snatches into the rotation. I can't do snatches indoors, but I do have deck space outside and I can do that (although exposure to the elements will be... interesting).

[Kishi]

Didn't get smashed! But didn't have a commanding performance either. Ah well. I guess Friday was just a good night.

 

Not that Sunday was a bad night! Got tapped by one white belt, tapped another twice, and managed to bridge the blue belt off of me. So, not bad. Not what I hoped for, but not bad.

 

Deload commences. I've gone back into the lit with Q&D and I see now that banded swings and such are meant for lighter bells rather than heavier, and only infrequently at that. Instead, going forward, it looks like it'll be jumps added into the rotation instead, with occasional banded work. Which means that, as far as testing protocols are concerned right now, the only things left to do are snatches and push ups. These will be done on separate nights; push up test tonight and snatch test toward the end of the week.

 

Gaming tonight. Push ups and handstand work to follow.

[Kishi]

Gaming happened, push ups progressed, handstand work happened. Need to work on wrist strength for a bit before going any further, but it's not like the added time is going to hurt anything.

 

Today should be BJJ and striking and deloaded strength work. It'll be a lot to do, but fun for all that.

 

Also, just realized that it's 3rd Friday this week, so there'll be a karate fight night on top of the rolling. I've also been told that there's another open mat nearby on Sundays; I can't do that this Sunday since I'm taking my mom out to lunch for her birthday, but I feel like that's something I need to go do at some point. Need or else will want to do.

 

Also also, gotta work on plotting out the novel. I've got a magic system that I want (finally!), but I need to figure out how the rest of this is going to actually, you know, uh, go. This week's goal is to flesh out characters somewhat, and next week is the actual plotting of the story, but that means I have to actually use my time well and not spend my lunch break browsing the news.

 

Aight. Let's get it.