Tuesday, March 5, 2024

Proper Penis Etiquette

As I was reading about the history of the Olympic Games, I came upon this picture of an athlete from ancient Greece. Now, I remembered that the Olde Tyme Greeks greatly appreciated the naked male body—and consequently they demanded that athletic competitors perform unclothed—obviously for the greater delectation of the spectators. But I was rather surprised to see that this particular youth had, it seems, tied a pretty little bow around his penis. Well, I asked myself: what’s THAT about? Was this a fashion statement? A less-than-subtle invitation to admire the “package” thus wrapped up? Phallically fascinated, I quickly googled “penis tied with bow” and came upon this explanation in Wikipedia: 


“Kynodēsmē ("dog tie") was a cord or string or sometimes a leather strip that was worn primarily by athletes in Ancient Greece and Etruria to prevent the exposure of the glans penis in public (considered to be ill-mannered) and to restrict untethered movement of the penis during sporting competition.” (for more more contemporary illustrations, see : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kynodesme )


So, this was a kind of (truly) bare-minimum jockstrap intended to prevent two things: 1)penile flopping and 2)foreskin slippage. Apparently, it was quite bad form to reveal one’s glans penis in public—so for the sake of modesty, the concealing foreskin needed to be kept firmly in place and tied shut—hence the string-around-the-tip.


The fancy bow was probably mostly decorative.


It occurs to me that, originally, at least, circumcised athletes, with their immodestly exposed glans—would have been quite unwelcome at the Olympics. (The Greek sports commentators would undoubtedly have been scandalized.) Perhaps that is why nowadays Olympians tend to coyly veil their goods in Spandex and Speedos. Thus the spectators can still enjoy the view, with no risk of being offended by a glimpse of glans.

 

I kinda miss the bow, though.


Sunday, March 3, 2024

The Bad Faith of Both Liberal Christians and Christian Nationalists


I was once a member of a very liberal, “inclusive” Episcopalian church, whose congregation was zealous in extending “Christ’s love” to everyone, everywhere and in denouncing “Christian nationalism” as bigotry. But in recent years, I have grown quite skeptical of “religious” people (even liberal Episcopalians) who, out of a sense of fairness—or perhaps just indifference—glibly espouse “freedom of religion,” as a basic tenet of their “Christian” faith. They understand and accept, of course, that American law legitimately gives everyone the right to practice any or no religion—it’s up to the individual, not the state, to decide. But I think their faithful allegiance to the Constitution may reveal a pretty unfaithful (and perhaps counterfeit) commitment to basic Christian doctrine. 

Because the notion of freedom of religion does not accord very well with Christian claims of exclusivity and salvation through Jesus. Consequently, there is considerable cognitive dissonance involved when an individual opts to “believe” in one transcendent, extra-legal path to truth, while simultaneously affirming that other religions (or no religion at all) might ALSO be the “best way” and therefore have an equal claim to ultimate truth. In other words, it seems to me that an allegiance to “freedom of religion”—when adopted by a self-proclaimed “religious” person—amounts to little more than a disingenuous paraphrase of Orwell’s formula: “all animals are equal but some are more equal than others”. Aren’t these “Christians against Christian nationalism” actually asserting (with maybe a virtuous wink?) that all religions are equally worthy, but ours is really more worthy?

If so, that’s Orwellian newspeak, i.e., delusional, complacent hypocrisy, well-meant, perhaps, but fundamentally insincere—language intended to reduce the possibility of actual understanding. Bad faith, both literally and philosophically.


But, as someone is sure to object, what if this belief in the collegiality of all belief systems is a genuine intellectual and emotional stance, held with no reservations whatsoever? Well, then, it seems to me that the liberal “Christian” needs to recognize the utter shallowness (indeed, fatuity) of his Christianity. After all, if one religion (say Christianity) IS really no better than any other religion (or no religion), then what, for goodness’ sake, is the point of clinging to that particular religion (except, maybe, for the comfort of familiar rituals and communal potlucks)? Why not just commit ourselves to the human race (a cause we can all—more or less—agree on) and resolve to devote our lives to being decent human beings? 


So, then, does freedom of religion remain a “good thing”? Well, as a legal matter, yes, of course. Absolutely. In the U.S., the land of the free and the home of con-men and pyramid schemes, the Constitution guarantees that all citizens have the right to choose any religious affiliation they like. My only quibble here is that the very act of making such a choice—among a bunch of equally fantastical and equally unprovable creeds—seems pointless and absurd.  Why not just choose freedom FROM religion?

I’ll end my rant by revisiting the tired but occasionally useful metaphor of a baby in bathwater. Personally, I am convinced that ALL religions, including both Christian nationalism and liberal Episcopalianism, amount to little more than fantastical bathwater, grown opaque over the centuries, but with absolutely NO BABY soaking within. Though these waters are indeed murky, I remain confident that anyone exploring them thoroughly will find, as I did, that there’s nothing alive and nothing of value in the tub. Just worthless bilge. No. Baby. Nada.


So please, dear liberal Christians—simply acknowledge the futility of searching for a baby in the swill and, in an act of much-needed housekeeping, toss it ALL out. Once you do so—once you free yourself of ALL notions of Christian exceptionalism—you can much more effectively and “in good faith” combat the very real threat of “Christian nationalism.”







Sunday, February 4, 2024

Immigration Assholery



I’ve been studying my historical atlas and I’ve come to the conclusion that America’s so-called “border problem” is mostly manufactured, politically-driven (both parties love it), "assholery." Because, in the long run, as my atlas maps demonstrate, migration is best understood as a phenomenon arising from overwhelmingly powerful human instincts (self-preservation, self-betterment). Can such “natural” herd displacements be successfully and definitively halted? Well, the maps offer little evidence that walls and razor-wire are effective, at least in the context of groups over time. Hard as our neo-Know Knothings try, they simply cannot “do” much of anything to stifle the primordial human impulse to migrate toward a greener pasture whenever such a pasture becomes available and for as long as its grass remains greener and more desirable than the left-behind turf. In short, 
self-interested migration is basically beyond the control of individual governments, except in very limited and unsustainable contexts (eventually, the walls will be breached, the rivers forded, the rules circumvented, the posses outrun). 

Mass migrations do eventually end, of course. But they generally do so of their own accord, rather than in response to legislation or police action. They simply peter out when the destination country, hitherto considered golden, is no longer found particularly desirable—either because the home country environment has improved substantially or because the destination country has changed internally and grown appreciably less welcoming and “livable.”


Exceptions to these patterns do occur, of course—in cases such as involuntary displacements (slavery) and transitory impediments of the sort mentioned above—those desperate, stopgap attempts to legislate/regulate human movement with walls and incarcerations and deportations, etc. But none of this finger-in-the-dike stuff really works in the long term, does it? 

No, the uncomfortable (for some) truth is that immigration cannot, in fact, be definitively halted except by something too extreme for most reasonable Americans even to contemplate: accepting or inaugurating “negative” changes to our society and economy that would make the United States itself considerably less desirable—for outsiders, but also for us native-born citizens. This is the repressive, white supremacist agenda of the right-wing: keep the immigrants out by making America a thoroughly brutal, hate-based state—a place no “outsiders” (and, indeed, few sane insiders) would want to live in.

What, for goodness' sake, is the point of such willful, self-inflicted loss (of attractiveness and decency)? What sense can be made of a fight for national “purity” if this battle can be “won” only if we choose to make our country unattractive and unlovable—by deliberately altering our constitutional framework and by deliberately compromising our economy—which depends upon a workforce augmented by immigrants? What justifies such self-destructive behavior? Tribal loyalty? Racial prejudice? Religious bigotry? All amount to little but unpardonable “excuses.”

Surely we urgently need to "snap out of" such puerile clan mentality and confront the REAL problem—which is--yes--the necessity to change--but in desirable, positive ways. 

In my view, the best we can, and should, do at this juncture is strive to make the inevitable (absorption/ integration of newcomers) more humane and less disruptive—both for immigrants and for the society they are determined to enter. Yes, they are likely to influence and change that society, at least in some measure. Is that scary? Yes, of course—all change shakes and jerks us about. Nevertheless, as the cliché has it, change is inevitable and it is also a motor for growth, provided it is understood and shaped by creative minds. 


Let's get on with it, then! As I noted in consulting my migration maps--and this is an important point--the most successful of human societies throughout history have faced change without self-deception, adjusted to it, evolved and progressed in response to it and in alliance with it.


On the other hand, those societies that have recoiled into protectionism, nativism, xenophobia—all those defense strategies generated by atavistic fears-- have generally devolved into unhappy, repressive and fascistic states—North Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Guatemala, Colombia, Venezuela. 

Such places have no "immigration problem", of course, (lucky them??), because who, really, given an alternative, would choose to live in one of these miserable states? 


No, these are the undesirable countries people leave (if they can)--remember Donald Trump's pungent adjective "shithole"-- in order to move to the United States—precisely because the United States remains (for the moment, at least) a relatively desirable place to live. Let’s do our best to keep it that way and not, by committing immigration assholery, transform ourselves into an undesirable shithole just to keep "those people" out. We must find ways to welcome the migrants rather than seek futile and shitty ways to exclude them. Immigration has always made America great! (Just consult ancestry.com.)








Sunday, January 21, 2024

The Holiness of Lawlessness: Cults


I’ve been reading about how cults arise and evolve. In their early stages, they are marked by “apocalyptic enthusiasm,” i.e., unshakable conviction that the cult’s “messiah” will imminently “save” his followers by overthrowing the prevailing order and inaugurating a new kingdom—with either NO rules or, at least, NEW rules favoring the cult’s faithful. 

It is not entirely surprising, then, that this enthusiasm often manifests itself in brazen LAWLESSNESS regarding the current order—unabashed transgression of “old” laws and “irrelevant, oppressive, outmoded” legal conventions. All that stuff is viewed as fake and superannuated—something to be destroyed and discarded in order to hasten the arrival of the Golden Age. 


Usually the messiah himself makes a point of demonstrating this self-righteous, in-your-face lawlessness—as a kind of morality lesson for his followers, and as a gesture of contempt for enforcers of the existing (hence “crooked” and “disgraceful”) laws.


Tuesday, January 16, 2024

The Lament of an Ex-pat Iowan

My passport says that I was born in “Iowa, USA.” I am, therefore, an ex-pat Iowan, native of this town—Waukon, Iowa. When I was a kid, Waukon was a bustling county seat—lots of businesses, a first-run movie house, even a J.C. Penney’s. The churches were well-attended and the local farmers (like my grandparents) felt that their lives were “getting better” (indoor plumbing and telephones for the house, artificial insemination for the cows). Now, the town looks pretty tired, despite its single modern traffic light. Pretty empty. A few basic stores, but the pizza place burned down, alas. The schools are good, but once graduated, the kids move to Cedar Rapids or Des Moines or Minneapolis. Among many, then, there’s a sense that the “best” is in the past. (This is not necessarily true: the remaining population is pretty comfortably middle-class). But I understand the feeling of loss and (even) resentment—against, well, nobody in particular but everything in general—against the way things have changed. Trump and the MAGA crowd have tapped into this nostalgic hopelessness with promises of miraculous resurrection. Ultimately, of course, no messiah is going to bring Penney’s back to Main Street or crowds back to the First Presbyterian Church. Spilt milk can be wiped up, but not rebottled. Still, Trump (and nostalgia) won last night in Iowa—bigly. As an ex-pat Iowan, I am very sad. 😞 

Friday, December 15, 2023

The Gods Accuse Christians of Cultural Appropriation


A number of us pagan gods are quite put out with this new-fangled celebration of “Christmas.” We have nothing against the new god, Jesus, who decided to have a birthday around the same date that we have long held OUR celebrations. He seems friendly enough (though he lacks fashion sense), and at first we didn’t mind sharing the Winter Solstice with him. But, honestly, this guy’s FOLLOWERS have proved to be quite insufferable “pains in the a$$.” 

These uppity parvenus dare belittle us, insisting that WE wish THEM “Merry Christmas”—while at the same time they have unabashedly stolen all of OUR beloved pagan customs and traditions to use as embellishments for THEIR drab little barnyard birthday party which, thus gussied up, they call “Christmas.” Indoor evergreen trees, holly, ivy, mistletoe, gift exchanges, burning logs, elves, fairy lights, jolly beverages, singing in the streets, flying animals pulling chariots—they’ve just snatched it all—without the slightest thanks or acknowledgment. 


Enough! This is clearly an egregious and shameful example of CULTURAL APPROPRIATION. Very bad form. We old gods want the world to know that we are most seriously displeased by the disgraceful and ungodly behavior of so-called “Christians” celebrating so-called “Christmas.” Show us some respect! Make Yuletide and Saturnalia Great Again! Signed: Odin, Saturn, Yule, Sol, Mithra, et.al.




Sunday, November 5, 2023

Bad Guys


I find it nearly impossible to speak intelligently—or even intelligibly—about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It seems that there are no good guys—only “reluctant” bad guys on both sides who believe—sincerely for the most part— that they have no other choice (i.e., the only “good” thing they can do in this impasse is to commit what are normally condemned as “bad” acts—in the pious but delusional hope that these bad acts will somehow bring about a “good” outcome—or, at least a situation no worse than the status quo ante.)


Oddly, or perhaps just distressingly, 
this moral dissonance is precisely 
what so “appeals” to the rest of the
world and why such great swarms of people everywhere want to participate, on one (bad) side or the other (bad) side—albeit mostly vicariously, in marches and rallies. Human beings just LOVE to feel good about doing bad stuff—or cheering for others who do bad stuff—especially if there are no painful consequences. 


Don’t get me wrong: I’m sure that many of the pro-Israel or pro-Palestine demonstrators honestly believe that their side is “good” in some absolute, universal sense. But the evidence on the ground suggests otherwise. The facts point to a brutal, unending conflict between self-perceived good people (Israelis and Palestinians alike) who have nevertheless committed themselves to being bad guys in perpetuity, all in order to keep things from getting even worse.  This hallucinatory narrative strikes me, former teacher of both Macbeth and Slaughterhouse Five, as a quintessential “tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing.” Poo tee weet?