The sporadic ramblings of Emily C. A. Snyder - devoted to God, theatre, writing, and much randominity.
![](http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h33/emilycasnyder/ATTWNFinalPosterPrices.jpg")
Vive la aristocracie!
Hmmm, I wouldn't say no...even if it is >shudder< Paris.
Today (nearly wrote toady there...!) I allowed Jules to drag me out to an actual beauty salon to get a foil wrap, a haircut, and a brow wax. Fascinating. Afterwards, feeling rather chic, I dragged Jules out to the manicure place at the mall and have only just arrived home. I'll list my thoughts below. I was going to continue the Thirteen Noble Khai of Djo-Khai (love worldbuilding on the sort-of-fly), but I think for the sake of all concerned I'll just keep to numbers right now.
1) It's a little frightening to me how easily I and all of us slip into letting others wait on us. I myself am but an indifferent conversationalist, but I overheard others talking up a storm, chatting and gossiping and complaining as though the hairdresser's chair were a cross between a confessional and a couch. A private investigator would do well to learn the craft of beauty salon-ing. There's much to be learned in such a fashion. But there's an absolute comfort, a brainless giving-over, a languid passivity that one falls into when others are "doing" for you. Even moreso if the "servant figure" doesn't speak one's language (or if there's a hair dryer going and thus making conversation impossible). No thanks, no verbal recognition of the other's presence except as someone who is competent at massaging one's hand or one's scalp. I can see why members of the aristocracy would become downright rude to servants, if not frequently oppressive or abusive.
2) And yet, just as curiously, although the one who is being "done for" seemingly has the greater prestige, power and position, she gives herself fully into the power of the one "doing for." My head is quite literally in the hairdresser's hands - she might, whilst my eyes are closed and I'm just thinking of the water running over my hair, slit my throat quite easily. My hands are captured, at the mercy of the manicurist. If one recognizes this - without the sinister overtones, of course, I'm just gearing up for writing a book which tends to heighten every aspect of life, including shadows - in a good, healthy, humble fashion, then you have GOOD relation between "servant" and "noble." The noble realizes that his job is entirely made or unmade by those under his control, and therefore that he is indeed under the control of those some might reckon "lesser."
3) This, I suppose is the difference between Aristotle's definitions of Aristocracy vs. Oligarchy. The former recognizes his place and the place of all men, and the duties that both owe to each other and acts accordingly in what we would call a Christian manner. It's the greatness of sworn fealty. But the latter is essentially delusional. I must wonder which most Americans fall into?
4) Strangely enough, the majority of the customers appeared to be not young chicks, as I had anticipated, but rather 40-something-year-old women. You know, the ones with tight faces, carefully made-up so that it's not quite an obscene amount of paint but just enough to be obviously "God [given] one face, and [they] paint themselves another," tans with hairline cracks that might be wrinkles, chic bright expensive T-shirts that show off the carefully kept bodies while hiding stretched wombs that have carried neglected children, gaunt and sagging jaws that retain their pride and sharpness along with the down-turned mouths.... These are the women with the money. These are the women who have only borne a few children - perhaps one or two - because they have been told that children are a burden and spend most of their time too far away from their own to learn whether or not this is true. These are the women who have had so few children because they believed in "sexual freedom" and so have used the pill, or condoms or both, and most likely had an abortion or three before they were married or even IN their marriage, and consequently have not motherhood to recommend them to their husbands, but only their fading shallow sexuality. These are the women who are clinging to their husbands with passing looks, because neither have become truly mother and father with bonds deeper than flesh and bone. These are women who have money and prestige because they abandoned their children to return to a cold and cheerless work, and must to keep their aging jobs keep lovely to compete with their own grown and orphaned daughters. These are women who believe that youth is everything and so flock to these spas, these places that promise youth in tin foil and purple gunk, and these are the women that walk away blonder and bleaker. These are the bleached women. They have bought the house of love, but have never been possessed - because the house of love is made of more than silken sheets, but is made of people, children, parents and blood and sweat and laughter and tears and held together with faith and the grace of God. Again, I hope my impression is worse than the actuality, except that I fear that there is more truth inwardly than even these women would care to admit.
What is it about women that we are so cursed to become stupid when it comes to men? I'll list a few of my thoughts - with the alphabet this time! Hurrah!
A. I was rewatching the Maggie/Harry dance last night (it works precious! The DVD works! Glory glory alleluia!), and Jules pointed out something that I'd thought of before (not whilst choreographing, however, rather whilst watching the performance and then the video): that really it could be taken that Maggie, desperate for Harry's love, sleeps with him. And he, after first pushing her away as a little girl, and then dancing with her because she is available, then pushes her away again when she tries to make their relationship more sacramental with the kiss. Gah - isn't that just the way our society is, though? I am furious with my girls who sleep with the boys, who make whores of themselves, in part because they are so clueless. Women are so desperate "for a man" that they will do anything to keep a man. What does this stem from?
B. The sin of Eve, of course! (More about this in a minute.) Basically, look at Genesis how you will, the fact is that we all undeniably partake in Original Sin - that is, every sin we perpetrate although they may SEEM varied are in essence the same sin. (As opposed to virtue which actually is multifarious.) It's the "I want what I want when I want it...whether or not I need it." It can be boiled down to this: "Gimme." Same thing Satan said to God on His throne: "Gimme." What Eve said, and then Adam said. What the envious Richard III said when he murdered his two nephews. What Paris said, and then fought the Greeks over the same thing. What the glutton and the spendthrift and the sloth and the wrathful and ALL the voice of sin says: "Gimme." What more childish (NOT childlike) sentiment is there? What more despicable, shallow and petty? Again, I'm going to return to this in a second.
C. While I was under the hair-dryer thing with the foil in my hair, I was handed the Cosmopolitan magazine to read, so I flipped to the table of contents and...BLECH! Oy! There were articles with pictures of how to "pleasure" a man. Every other article - literally (no pun ;) - was about "sex secrets" to keep him yours forever. The sin of Eve. Turning right around and tempting Adam to keep him with her even in sin. What's that Gin Blossoms song? "Any where you go, I'll follow you down, follow you down, but not that far." And such temptation is frequently done out of ignorance - out of a sort of Sleeping Beauty/Cinderella mentality that women will only find happiness in "the one." That once a girl has "found her man" she will be "complete," happy, and need nothing else again ever.
D. The ironic thing, of course, is that the sentiment is absolutely right. We none of us will ever be complete, happy and in need of nothing else until we have cleaved ourselves irrevocably to The Man, to "the one," to God-become-Man, to Jesus the Christ. More to the practical point, it's quite right to realize that men complete women, and vis versa. (I'll get to the inevitable paragraph on homosexuality in a second.) So we see again that sin is a narrowing, a shallowing, a pettinessing of Truth - it twists goodness, makes it small and feeble, it latches all importance onto a single piece of the whole, rather as though an elephant should hope to balance on a single grain of dirt in the middle of space. Were he to stand solidly upon the earth - with zillions of grains of dirt packed over hardened rock, packed over the warming core, and surrounded by the invisible grace of the atmosphere and the elements which make possible not only his life but flora and fauna which will keep that elephant alive - then all should be well and flourish and perpetuate vitality. But sin pins everything on that single piece of dirt that cannot possible sustain the elephant, much less the necessities for life. So do women need men, and many women are called by vocation to marriage to one man, and this is perhaps even a solid rock in the geography, but still needs more than itself to survive. Alone, isolated, it cannot bear the weight of life. So too our relationships and views of men. Let us not mistake them for the earth and moon and sun and stars. That is but a part of God. If we could just see that they in the sacramental bond with ourselves make up a small part of God's earth, we might be more content and less fearful lest we fall off our inadequate excuse for an "earth."
E. No wonder, then, if women perceive men as their earth that they are so willing to do anything to keep them! It's more perilous than The Little Prince! And yet, if we are to learn anything from our classical mythology, we would realize that the earth is frequently referred to as the female component, and the air the male. This makes sense: for women actively receive as much as men actively give. Things are topsy turvy indeed if we see men as the earth, when we are that ourselves. Things are topsy-turvy when men receive from us - apples, sexual favors - when it is their part both physically and metaphysically to give. Again, the sin of Eve, desiring "Gimme" power over men. And the sin of Adam, desiring "Gimme" all that the woman can give so long as it is not life. In this magazine, it taught women how to pleasure a man, how to keep him. Where are the similar magazines for men, if all things are post-feministically "equal." (HATE that word. It ought to be complementary - but this implies that there is no gender, nor any difference nor variety - the narrowness of sin again there folks!) No, rather men are given pornography which is entirely and quite literally gratuitous. Topsy-turvydom. No wonder we think God is upsidedown if we stand on our heads all day!
F. Along with that, was an article about how it is perfectly safe to use the pill in such a fashion that one only has one's period once every three months. Not only can this not be healthy (the article said that no one's conducted long-term studies to see what effects this has), but it again "unsexes" women far more than Lady Macbeth's avarice ever could. It denies the purpose and rhythm of the organs, as much as if there were some pill to make it so that we only needed to use the bathroom four times a year! What would that do to our bladders? What does this do to our ovaries, our uteruses, our ability to create REAL life?! More, what does it do to women's self image, this "jagged little pill?" It only feeds the notion that women are sex-objects, that we are not mothers in potentia, that we are not earth to bear fruit, that we are not to be respected as the bearers of life, but that we are orifices with interesting curvy bits. And we women believe it! Really, we don't need any more encouragement in this area. Every woman from Eve on down has been positively insane when within a ten-mile radius of testosterone - "And your desire shall be for your husband. And you shall long to have dominion over him [but you shall not have it]." We're utter wimps, we're willing to give in to his desires, forgetting that he too is struggling with original sin and self-control. We are feeding him the apple, shoving it into his mouth, and wondering why he behaves more like a beast than the Image of God. (Side note: This article also said that many women are afraid to not have their monthly period because they're afraid when they don't get that monthly reminder that they're not pregnant! Gah - what does this imply? That women are expected to be promiscuous and to again deny life. Sick sick sick.)
G. This brings me back to that Aristocracy/Oligarchy thing again. Women, because of the curse of Eve, don't see the power of receptivity. The power of being "lesser" is really the same power as the earth. Were the earth to disappear, all life would die. We are the solidity, we are the receptivity, the nurturing presence of this world. That is our power. A slower power, perhaps a less flashy power than the celestial stormy temper tantrums, and yet just as varied. The sun shines in shifting colors to compliment our multihued vegetation. The two require one another to remain in place. I don't intend to promulgate a return to paganism with this metaphorical imagery, except to point out that such imagery is completely fulfilled in Christ's relationship to His creation. And by understanding what metaphor He has ingrained into His creation we can understand Him and ourselves more completely.
H. Finally, the promised paragraph on recent observations in regard to the current seeming "rise" in homosexuality. This summer I've had the opportunity to grow close to many people who either consider themselves to possibly have a same-sex tendency (Captain Hook voice insert here: "Split me infinitives!" ;), or those who have natural sexual tendencies but who have been indoctrinated into the current culture that requires one to promote even the barest thought of same-sex tendencies. I would like to state right here and now that I continue and will continue to love and cherish these people's friendships. But that regardless, I am an author/director and so a sometime student of human behavior. And what I have discovered is that overwhelmingly "straight" women are keeping their "gay" guy friends in the jail of a box labelled "homosexual - do not interfere." Did you get that?
Straight girls are keeping boys gay.
Means of doing so include by and large referring to their friends as gay/homosexual to their faces and to others, constantly referencing their sexual tendencies "yeah, he'd like me if I was a GUY," constantly teasing and denigrating their friends "you're such a girl," promoting what are considered "homosexual" so-called symptoms (HA! Right - I'm indecisive, therefore I'm a girl. I'm decisive therefore I'm a guy. I'm vain therefore I'm a girl. I don't care how I look therefore I'm a guy. Gag me right here when we confuse personality with gender) by discouraging them to be "just" friends with guy friends, by dragging them to "girl" activities, so on and so forth.
One must ask why.
Or at least I do. I mean, it's so apparent that many of these normally sexually oriented girls are head-over-heels in passionate like with their so-called same-sex oriented guy friends that one would think these girls would go to extraordinary ends to convince their guy friend that he returns passionate eros feelings for her as well. And yet, here's where we get the confusion of sin again. The mentality seems to be that if the girl keeps the guy with other guys (sexually) then he will be hers personally. The sexuality with other guys the girl will pass-off in her own mind as unfortunate but shallow (usually it seems to be anyway - it's not confused friendship so often but a desire for ANY love - ever notice how often those who consider themselves same-sex oriented go out and break up?), and therefore his SOUL will be hers. Likewise, then, if the girl is the best friend of a guy who she encourages to "like" other guys, her fellow will not be looking at other girls and so the girl will have no competition.
Stupid, huh? Did I mention that women go positively psycho when a man's in the area?
But this indeed seems to be the case. Let's look at it from the side of virtue. This behavior is sprung from a desire for more than "just sex" - which is good. It is sprung from the girl who wants a man's heart as well as his body. It's not the Cinderella tale of the beauty salons, but rather Beauty and the Beast. However, these girls are forgetting that the happy ending comes when the Beast is transformed back into a man. These girls are keeping their guy friends in the unnatural fur of the Beast - tusks and raw meat and all. From the vice angle, these girls are attempting to assert power over these men by encouraging so-called "same-sex tendency symptoms" - esp. indecisiveness. It's Eve all over again, folks! It's Gollum vs. Smeagol.
What's the solution?
Humility, I'd say. That is, seeing our rightful position, our correct relationship to everything in this world and first of all to God. What is meant to be? That's what we should strive for. Women, we have power over men - all men. It is the subtle power of the earth. It is the power that turns a lump of coal into a diamond, that turns the grain of sand into a pearl. But it is a long process, a constant process, a patient process. We must encourage our men to BE men, in the Image of God-become-Man. We must not force-feed them the fruit of sin, or oppress them by what we press upon or rape from them. We should not be doormats, but guard our virtue so that we guard THEIR virtue and make ourselves more valuable in their eyes. Would you give the coal or the sand to him before it has become precious? Yet by throwing yourself at him, you are calling your sand a pearl and alas he has eyes to see and will discard you. Will you then convince him that he desires not diamonds or pearls at all, that instead he desires space without oxygen? Would you push him out of the atmosphere and so suffocate him? Will you smother him, keep him childlike, never let him grow to become the man he is meant to be? No, rather drape your fears upon the back of Him who bore them for you, have patience and cultivate your love for He who made you. Then, when the time is ripe, He will bring to you your bridegroom, himself upheld in the armor and likeness of God. Why keep men weak when God would strengthen him? Why make yourself mindless to please weakness? Rather let both of you mature until such a time as you may be suitably and equally yoked. And that yoke is the cross, and the road is to Calvary, and the promise is salvation.
Mood: Saddened
Music: "Mrs. Robinson" off of the Forrest Gump CD
What I must do now: Dust shelves. *sigh*
One for the Road:
Did I mention girls become stupid around men? Oh, BTW: claiming Karl Urban as Gethin for Niamh.
Hmmm, I wouldn't say no...even if it is >shudder< Paris.
Today (nearly wrote toady there...!) I allowed Jules to drag me out to an actual beauty salon to get a foil wrap, a haircut, and a brow wax. Fascinating. Afterwards, feeling rather chic, I dragged Jules out to the manicure place at the mall and have only just arrived home. I'll list my thoughts below. I was going to continue the Thirteen Noble Khai of Djo-Khai (love worldbuilding on the sort-of-fly), but I think for the sake of all concerned I'll just keep to numbers right now.
1) It's a little frightening to me how easily I and all of us slip into letting others wait on us. I myself am but an indifferent conversationalist, but I overheard others talking up a storm, chatting and gossiping and complaining as though the hairdresser's chair were a cross between a confessional and a couch. A private investigator would do well to learn the craft of beauty salon-ing. There's much to be learned in such a fashion. But there's an absolute comfort, a brainless giving-over, a languid passivity that one falls into when others are "doing" for you. Even moreso if the "servant figure" doesn't speak one's language (or if there's a hair dryer going and thus making conversation impossible). No thanks, no verbal recognition of the other's presence except as someone who is competent at massaging one's hand or one's scalp. I can see why members of the aristocracy would become downright rude to servants, if not frequently oppressive or abusive.
2) And yet, just as curiously, although the one who is being "done for" seemingly has the greater prestige, power and position, she gives herself fully into the power of the one "doing for." My head is quite literally in the hairdresser's hands - she might, whilst my eyes are closed and I'm just thinking of the water running over my hair, slit my throat quite easily. My hands are captured, at the mercy of the manicurist. If one recognizes this - without the sinister overtones, of course, I'm just gearing up for writing a book which tends to heighten every aspect of life, including shadows - in a good, healthy, humble fashion, then you have GOOD relation between "servant" and "noble." The noble realizes that his job is entirely made or unmade by those under his control, and therefore that he is indeed under the control of those some might reckon "lesser."
3) This, I suppose is the difference between Aristotle's definitions of Aristocracy vs. Oligarchy. The former recognizes his place and the place of all men, and the duties that both owe to each other and acts accordingly in what we would call a Christian manner. It's the greatness of sworn fealty. But the latter is essentially delusional. I must wonder which most Americans fall into?
4) Strangely enough, the majority of the customers appeared to be not young chicks, as I had anticipated, but rather 40-something-year-old women. You know, the ones with tight faces, carefully made-up so that it's not quite an obscene amount of paint but just enough to be obviously "God [given] one face, and [they] paint themselves another," tans with hairline cracks that might be wrinkles, chic bright expensive T-shirts that show off the carefully kept bodies while hiding stretched wombs that have carried neglected children, gaunt and sagging jaws that retain their pride and sharpness along with the down-turned mouths.... These are the women with the money. These are the women who have only borne a few children - perhaps one or two - because they have been told that children are a burden and spend most of their time too far away from their own to learn whether or not this is true. These are the women who have had so few children because they believed in "sexual freedom" and so have used the pill, or condoms or both, and most likely had an abortion or three before they were married or even IN their marriage, and consequently have not motherhood to recommend them to their husbands, but only their fading shallow sexuality. These are the women who are clinging to their husbands with passing looks, because neither have become truly mother and father with bonds deeper than flesh and bone. These are women who have money and prestige because they abandoned their children to return to a cold and cheerless work, and must to keep their aging jobs keep lovely to compete with their own grown and orphaned daughters. These are women who believe that youth is everything and so flock to these spas, these places that promise youth in tin foil and purple gunk, and these are the women that walk away blonder and bleaker. These are the bleached women. They have bought the house of love, but have never been possessed - because the house of love is made of more than silken sheets, but is made of people, children, parents and blood and sweat and laughter and tears and held together with faith and the grace of God. Again, I hope my impression is worse than the actuality, except that I fear that there is more truth inwardly than even these women would care to admit.
What is it about women that we are so cursed to become stupid when it comes to men? I'll list a few of my thoughts - with the alphabet this time! Hurrah!
A. I was rewatching the Maggie/Harry dance last night (it works precious! The DVD works! Glory glory alleluia!), and Jules pointed out something that I'd thought of before (not whilst choreographing, however, rather whilst watching the performance and then the video): that really it could be taken that Maggie, desperate for Harry's love, sleeps with him. And he, after first pushing her away as a little girl, and then dancing with her because she is available, then pushes her away again when she tries to make their relationship more sacramental with the kiss. Gah - isn't that just the way our society is, though? I am furious with my girls who sleep with the boys, who make whores of themselves, in part because they are so clueless. Women are so desperate "for a man" that they will do anything to keep a man. What does this stem from?
B. The sin of Eve, of course! (More about this in a minute.) Basically, look at Genesis how you will, the fact is that we all undeniably partake in Original Sin - that is, every sin we perpetrate although they may SEEM varied are in essence the same sin. (As opposed to virtue which actually is multifarious.) It's the "I want what I want when I want it...whether or not I need it." It can be boiled down to this: "Gimme." Same thing Satan said to God on His throne: "Gimme." What Eve said, and then Adam said. What the envious Richard III said when he murdered his two nephews. What Paris said, and then fought the Greeks over the same thing. What the glutton and the spendthrift and the sloth and the wrathful and ALL the voice of sin says: "Gimme." What more childish (NOT childlike) sentiment is there? What more despicable, shallow and petty? Again, I'm going to return to this in a second.
C. While I was under the hair-dryer thing with the foil in my hair, I was handed the Cosmopolitan magazine to read, so I flipped to the table of contents and...BLECH! Oy! There were articles with pictures of how to "pleasure" a man. Every other article - literally (no pun ;) - was about "sex secrets" to keep him yours forever. The sin of Eve. Turning right around and tempting Adam to keep him with her even in sin. What's that Gin Blossoms song? "Any where you go, I'll follow you down, follow you down, but not that far." And such temptation is frequently done out of ignorance - out of a sort of Sleeping Beauty/Cinderella mentality that women will only find happiness in "the one." That once a girl has "found her man" she will be "complete," happy, and need nothing else again ever.
D. The ironic thing, of course, is that the sentiment is absolutely right. We none of us will ever be complete, happy and in need of nothing else until we have cleaved ourselves irrevocably to The Man, to "the one," to God-become-Man, to Jesus the Christ. More to the practical point, it's quite right to realize that men complete women, and vis versa. (I'll get to the inevitable paragraph on homosexuality in a second.) So we see again that sin is a narrowing, a shallowing, a pettinessing of Truth - it twists goodness, makes it small and feeble, it latches all importance onto a single piece of the whole, rather as though an elephant should hope to balance on a single grain of dirt in the middle of space. Were he to stand solidly upon the earth - with zillions of grains of dirt packed over hardened rock, packed over the warming core, and surrounded by the invisible grace of the atmosphere and the elements which make possible not only his life but flora and fauna which will keep that elephant alive - then all should be well and flourish and perpetuate vitality. But sin pins everything on that single piece of dirt that cannot possible sustain the elephant, much less the necessities for life. So do women need men, and many women are called by vocation to marriage to one man, and this is perhaps even a solid rock in the geography, but still needs more than itself to survive. Alone, isolated, it cannot bear the weight of life. So too our relationships and views of men. Let us not mistake them for the earth and moon and sun and stars. That is but a part of God. If we could just see that they in the sacramental bond with ourselves make up a small part of God's earth, we might be more content and less fearful lest we fall off our inadequate excuse for an "earth."
E. No wonder, then, if women perceive men as their earth that they are so willing to do anything to keep them! It's more perilous than The Little Prince! And yet, if we are to learn anything from our classical mythology, we would realize that the earth is frequently referred to as the female component, and the air the male. This makes sense: for women actively receive as much as men actively give. Things are topsy turvy indeed if we see men as the earth, when we are that ourselves. Things are topsy-turvy when men receive from us - apples, sexual favors - when it is their part both physically and metaphysically to give. Again, the sin of Eve, desiring "Gimme" power over men. And the sin of Adam, desiring "Gimme" all that the woman can give so long as it is not life. In this magazine, it taught women how to pleasure a man, how to keep him. Where are the similar magazines for men, if all things are post-feministically "equal." (HATE that word. It ought to be complementary - but this implies that there is no gender, nor any difference nor variety - the narrowness of sin again there folks!) No, rather men are given pornography which is entirely and quite literally gratuitous. Topsy-turvydom. No wonder we think God is upsidedown if we stand on our heads all day!
F. Along with that, was an article about how it is perfectly safe to use the pill in such a fashion that one only has one's period once every three months. Not only can this not be healthy (the article said that no one's conducted long-term studies to see what effects this has), but it again "unsexes" women far more than Lady Macbeth's avarice ever could. It denies the purpose and rhythm of the organs, as much as if there were some pill to make it so that we only needed to use the bathroom four times a year! What would that do to our bladders? What does this do to our ovaries, our uteruses, our ability to create REAL life?! More, what does it do to women's self image, this "jagged little pill?" It only feeds the notion that women are sex-objects, that we are not mothers in potentia, that we are not earth to bear fruit, that we are not to be respected as the bearers of life, but that we are orifices with interesting curvy bits. And we women believe it! Really, we don't need any more encouragement in this area. Every woman from Eve on down has been positively insane when within a ten-mile radius of testosterone - "And your desire shall be for your husband. And you shall long to have dominion over him [but you shall not have it]." We're utter wimps, we're willing to give in to his desires, forgetting that he too is struggling with original sin and self-control. We are feeding him the apple, shoving it into his mouth, and wondering why he behaves more like a beast than the Image of God. (Side note: This article also said that many women are afraid to not have their monthly period because they're afraid when they don't get that monthly reminder that they're not pregnant! Gah - what does this imply? That women are expected to be promiscuous and to again deny life. Sick sick sick.)
G. This brings me back to that Aristocracy/Oligarchy thing again. Women, because of the curse of Eve, don't see the power of receptivity. The power of being "lesser" is really the same power as the earth. Were the earth to disappear, all life would die. We are the solidity, we are the receptivity, the nurturing presence of this world. That is our power. A slower power, perhaps a less flashy power than the celestial stormy temper tantrums, and yet just as varied. The sun shines in shifting colors to compliment our multihued vegetation. The two require one another to remain in place. I don't intend to promulgate a return to paganism with this metaphorical imagery, except to point out that such imagery is completely fulfilled in Christ's relationship to His creation. And by understanding what metaphor He has ingrained into His creation we can understand Him and ourselves more completely.
H. Finally, the promised paragraph on recent observations in regard to the current seeming "rise" in homosexuality. This summer I've had the opportunity to grow close to many people who either consider themselves to possibly have a same-sex tendency (Captain Hook voice insert here: "Split me infinitives!" ;), or those who have natural sexual tendencies but who have been indoctrinated into the current culture that requires one to promote even the barest thought of same-sex tendencies. I would like to state right here and now that I continue and will continue to love and cherish these people's friendships. But that regardless, I am an author/director and so a sometime student of human behavior. And what I have discovered is that overwhelmingly "straight" women are keeping their "gay" guy friends in the jail of a box labelled "homosexual - do not interfere." Did you get that?
Straight girls are keeping boys gay.
Means of doing so include by and large referring to their friends as gay/homosexual to their faces and to others, constantly referencing their sexual tendencies "yeah, he'd like me if I was a GUY," constantly teasing and denigrating their friends "you're such a girl," promoting what are considered "homosexual" so-called symptoms (HA! Right - I'm indecisive, therefore I'm a girl. I'm decisive therefore I'm a guy. I'm vain therefore I'm a girl. I don't care how I look therefore I'm a guy. Gag me right here when we confuse personality with gender) by discouraging them to be "just" friends with guy friends, by dragging them to "girl" activities, so on and so forth.
One must ask why.
Or at least I do. I mean, it's so apparent that many of these normally sexually oriented girls are head-over-heels in passionate like with their so-called same-sex oriented guy friends that one would think these girls would go to extraordinary ends to convince their guy friend that he returns passionate eros feelings for her as well. And yet, here's where we get the confusion of sin again. The mentality seems to be that if the girl keeps the guy with other guys (sexually) then he will be hers personally. The sexuality with other guys the girl will pass-off in her own mind as unfortunate but shallow (usually it seems to be anyway - it's not confused friendship so often but a desire for ANY love - ever notice how often those who consider themselves same-sex oriented go out and break up?), and therefore his SOUL will be hers. Likewise, then, if the girl is the best friend of a guy who she encourages to "like" other guys, her fellow will not be looking at other girls and so the girl will have no competition.
Stupid, huh? Did I mention that women go positively psycho when a man's in the area?
But this indeed seems to be the case. Let's look at it from the side of virtue. This behavior is sprung from a desire for more than "just sex" - which is good. It is sprung from the girl who wants a man's heart as well as his body. It's not the Cinderella tale of the beauty salons, but rather Beauty and the Beast. However, these girls are forgetting that the happy ending comes when the Beast is transformed back into a man. These girls are keeping their guy friends in the unnatural fur of the Beast - tusks and raw meat and all. From the vice angle, these girls are attempting to assert power over these men by encouraging so-called "same-sex tendency symptoms" - esp. indecisiveness. It's Eve all over again, folks! It's Gollum vs. Smeagol.
What's the solution?
Humility, I'd say. That is, seeing our rightful position, our correct relationship to everything in this world and first of all to God. What is meant to be? That's what we should strive for. Women, we have power over men - all men. It is the subtle power of the earth. It is the power that turns a lump of coal into a diamond, that turns the grain of sand into a pearl. But it is a long process, a constant process, a patient process. We must encourage our men to BE men, in the Image of God-become-Man. We must not force-feed them the fruit of sin, or oppress them by what we press upon or rape from them. We should not be doormats, but guard our virtue so that we guard THEIR virtue and make ourselves more valuable in their eyes. Would you give the coal or the sand to him before it has become precious? Yet by throwing yourself at him, you are calling your sand a pearl and alas he has eyes to see and will discard you. Will you then convince him that he desires not diamonds or pearls at all, that instead he desires space without oxygen? Would you push him out of the atmosphere and so suffocate him? Will you smother him, keep him childlike, never let him grow to become the man he is meant to be? No, rather drape your fears upon the back of Him who bore them for you, have patience and cultivate your love for He who made you. Then, when the time is ripe, He will bring to you your bridegroom, himself upheld in the armor and likeness of God. Why keep men weak when God would strengthen him? Why make yourself mindless to please weakness? Rather let both of you mature until such a time as you may be suitably and equally yoked. And that yoke is the cross, and the road is to Calvary, and the promise is salvation.
Mood: Saddened
Music: "Mrs. Robinson" off of the Forrest Gump CD
What I must do now: Dust shelves. *sigh*
One for the Road:
Did I mention girls become stupid around men? Oh, BTW: claiming Karl Urban as Gethin for Niamh.
posted by Emily C. A. Snyder | 2:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home