Isn’t it nice how people twist their religious scripture to suit their weds but when it’s used against them it’s suddenly not okay
I talked to a monk about this quote once (we have mutual friends, and he came to a New Year’s Eve party at my shared art studio). He said this isn’t even talking about homosexuality. That the bible never actually says homosexuality is wrong. What that passage means is this:
Women were treated as subservient and it that you shouldn’t treat other men as subservient, like they are beneath you. It is not talking about homosexuality. If it was, it would say it outright since the bible lists other things outright.
I take the word of a monk who have studied the bible extensively more than a self proclaimed Christian.
The above text, I would like to point out is from the point of view of this translation of the original Hebrew. I spoke with my cousin’s rabbi on the matter and his response was different, saying that it was a mistranslation. See, the true translation says that a man shall not lie with another in the bed of a woman, which is to say, the Hebrews had a shit ton of rules about when a man was or was not allowed in a woman’s bed and private quarters (including, if she didn’t want you there, you weren’t allowed there. Hebrew women were also allowed to divorce their husbands and the image of the ‘oppressive Hebrew people’ is an image that was propogated by Christianity which, historically speaking, doesn’t treat the Jewish people too well and liked to paint them as being rather barbaric and backwards and cultish with their traditions, which, another piece of fun info, their traditions were one of the main reasons why the Jewish people were less likely, in medieval times, to die of the plague. Because washing your hands and avoiding the dead and vermin and the like was a lot of help. Of course the Christians persecuted them for not dying but that’s another matter. I’m sidetracked). So the verse is literally saying ‘Don’t fuck in some lady’s bed because that’s just goddamn rude’
Also, whenever a Christian brings the book of Leviticus up, you should feel free to point out that these are rules that were given to make the Hebrew people prepared for when the son of God came to earth. In Christianity, it’s believed the son of God was Jesus. So by following the rules set in Leviticus or pushing them as things we should follow, they’re saying that Jesus was not the son of God, and that Jesus did not, in fact, die for our sins. Jewish people believe, in their faith, that the son of God hasn’t yet been born, so many choose to follow these rules.
Most people of course roll their eyes when I explain the translation of the verse (full breakdown found here) but it’s always fun to point out the nature of the rules in Leviticus and the implications of following them.
I’m a theology student and I am on the verge of crying because of how accurate this commentary is. Historical context is simultaneously the most interesting and most important part of interpreting any texts.
The original thugs.
Hiding their faces like cowards
The real terrorists.
But clearly the Black people aren’t afraid. Lol. They still think that shit work though.They hold rallies. Don’t nobody go “Oh.. the Klan is in town… let’s go on vacation for the weekend or hide in the basement.” No. Every time, they’re met with opposition! I love it.
With all my niggas
racism didnt end with slavery and sexism didnt end when woman got the right to vote homophobia wont end with equal marriage and transphobia wont end because of bathroom bills when the hell are you ignorant fucks going to realize that the state of the law does not effect the state of society as a whole
Racism didn’t end with a black president… Having a gay friend doesn’t give you open forum to infringe on the rights of the LGBTQ.
Guilermo Del Toro - How Pacific Rim saved his life
“I wanted to show that men and women can be friends without having a relationship,” says del Toro of the relationship between the two main characters Mako (played by Japanese actress Rinko Kikuchi) and Raleigh (“Sons of Anarchy” star Charlie Hunnam). “Theirs is a story about partnership, equality and a strong bond between partners. It’s important for little girls to know not every story has to be a love story and for boys to know that soldiers aren’t the only ones to triumph in war.”
Nice article, worth a read. (via nudityandnerdery)
OH FUCK YES
Submissions from email@example.com.
Pictures from a new exhibit by photographer Endia Beal called “Can I Touch It?” showcase several white women, all corporate execs, who agreed to get a “Black hairstyle” and then have their portrait taken.
Apparently, this very quotidian fixation with Black women’s bodies and Black women’s hair is now the stuff of art exhibits.
This project started when Beal began permitting many of her white corporate colleagues to touch her big red ‘fro, to pull it even, while she photographed them doing it.
Over the summer, a friend and I happened upon the “You Can Touch My Hair” exhibit that occurred in Union Square.
Incensed at such protests and convinced that the Black woman who facilitated such a moment had no understanding of history or the ways that white folks fetishize Black women’s bodies, I was incredibly happy to see the counter protests that emerged as well.
How dare the exhibit organizer put Black women on display and then grant permission for touch? Yes, there is something to be said for making it clear that permission is required, but what are we permitting?
This desire to intimately touch and engage with the body of the ‘other’ is one mark of what Sharon Patricia Holland might call “The Erotic Life of Racism.” There is certainly something undeniably erotic about inviting white men to pull a Black woman’s hair at work. I don’t use erotic in the positive sense here, mind you. But the touching of bodies is an intimate practice, touch being tethered to the erotic, like a teabag being steeped in steaming hot water. Racism happens here, too.
But I must admit, though, that I had a wholly different reaction to the Endia Beal exhibit. I laughed. I laughed heartily. I laughed the slightest bit with these women, but mostly at them.
A few of my friends were mad that these were called “Black hairstyles.” That feels a little bit culturally dishonest to me – no shade to the homies. There is a whole culture around Black hair. The first Black women millionaires made their fortunes from figuring out how to style and care for Black hair. And back then we weren’t talking about ‘fros, but perms and yes, like the white lady in these pictures, finger waves!
So though most of these styles were hot between 1985 and 1997, they are still Black girl styles.
Anyway, I get why Black women are uncomfortable. The fixation and demonization of our cultural style is a discomfiting thing. But I suspect that there is no exhibit, no version of this conversation other than one that drew a clear no-touching boundary and lambasted white folks for their continued ridiculousness that would make us comfortable.
In high school, a white classmate, someone I considered a friend, someone whom I knew came from a racist home because she told me that her dad didn’t like Black people, sidled up to me in AP English and asked to touch my hair. I let her. She touched it and remarked, “It’s soft!” I looked at her and asked, “what did you think it would feel like?” “A Brillo pad,” she replied in earnest.
This is racial absurdity. Just because Black people have used our disproportionate share of Brillo pads cleaning white people’s houses didn’t mean that our bodies magically morphed into the cleaning implements.
This is the kind of thing I wish I had said at age 17. But I simply went about my business. This kind of racism is to invoke Holland again, quotidian. Regular.
And it is the absolute absurdity of racism, the way it defies logic, that made me laugh at these photos. They are absurd in the most real way possible. They are Miley Cyrus tryin to twerk absurd. They are Robin Thicke tryin to approximate Black male swag absurd. They are GOP Obstructionists trying to play like they ain’t racists absurd.
Endia Beal hoped, I think, to cultivate a sense of white empathy and cross-cultural understanding, by facilitating opportunities for her white colleagues to experience Black hair.
These days I’m wholly uninterested in facilitating the racial understanding of any white people, other than the ones I’m paid to teach. At the same time, I recognize that there are some Black women who are more generous than I, who still see the value in breaking down racial barriers on an individual level, who recognize that racism works by facilitating white cultural ignorance of Black difference in such a way that Black difference becomes objectionable.
That we still live in a world where making Blackness less objectionable to White people is a part of anti-racist work should make clear how much we are not past or post race. And we know that many corporations have instituted policies banning Black hairstyles like braids. Hell, this summer taught us that even in Black communities, these kinds of policies surface and do harm in an attempt to make Black folks more respectable. Combing through these tangled webs of whiteness interwoven as it is with our own pain and internalized pathology is difficult shit. And ain’t nobody invented a detangling conditioner powerful enough for this.
So I can acknowledge that there is potentially a place for this work, though I won’t be the one to do it. And I can acknowledge that the work of detangling requires a wide tooth comb. In fact, as my hair goes, I’ve tossed out fine tooth combs altogether.
A wide-tooth comb allows us to attend to the subversiveness here.
And there is a subversiveness to these photos because they invert the gaze, making white women the object of ridicule or more politely put, the objects of cultural wonder. Now certainly one could argue that it is still Black hair being ridiculed, that is the black hair which is out of place here, not the white women. These photos certainly don’t invite Black girl presence, and as such they do reinscribe existing power structures.
I buy that argument. Turns out fine-tooth combs do have their place. Subversiveness is not inherently progressive. Political acts have limits. But this doesn’t read to me as a complete failure.
Another photographer in Philadelphia attempted a similar kind of project by asking to photograph men who harassed her on the streets. She captured their shame, defiance, reluctance, vulnerability – humanity – even as she called them out for their behavior.
The question for us is whether these attempts to subvert and reframe the white corporate gaze and the black male street gaze (not that these are equivalent, mind you) on our terms is powerful at any level? Even if these kinds of strategies don’t undo structural racism, do they potentially improve the quality of life in our immediate environs – the places where we work, the places where we live and shop? Do these incremental goals matter in the fight against racism?
We struggle with these questions daily. But sometimes it’s nice to able to laugh and keep it moving. Oh and to street harassers and white folks who need to know: Look, But Don’t Touch.