Ah Ha! So that's what's missing from my life!

I recently read Shel Silverstein's "The Missing Piece" and "The Missing Piece Meets the Big O".  They're categorised as children's books, perhaps because they're animated or have one line pages?  I dunno.  But there's some real deep stuff embedded that adults should definitely read too.

In the first one, there's this circular-like shaped creature missing a wedge (I'm gonna go ahead and say this creature is symbolic of a guy or a girl).  The thing is rolling around looking for the wedge it's missing.  The story tells of its adventures as it searches.

In the second, there's this piece, a wedge - looks like a slice of pizza (I'm still gonna go with the guy/girl symbolism) waiting around to be the fit for what's missing in others.  The story tells of its efforts to attract and fit into another so that it can begin to go around and have experiences.

In my mind, both characters are  striking reflections of what many waste chunks of their lives doing -  'searching for' or 'waiting for'.  We too often dream of saying (or hearing it said to us) "you complete me" (and don't get me wrong, I totally get it... cue Tom Cruise's enamouring green eyes while I swoon).  Movies, media in general, heck the whole social culture paints the picture that depicts us all as explorers or undiscovered, needing to find or be found by that better half to make us whole.  I'm gonna go out on a limb and call this notion baloney, horse radish, bull crap?  Or maybe this is just a nearing 40 years old spinster vent? LOLOL #whoKnows

And yes, I hear the pages turning (or the keypads clicking) as some bring up Genesis 2:18 and the extra depthly (no such word don't look it up) mentally adding that though God could definitely have created Eve independently, He opted to use a rib from Adam to perhaps further signify the symbiotic nature of male/female relationships.
It's a truth that being alone sucks, but (and that's such a big 'but' I should have gone ahead and used caps) that 'Emergency Contact' doesn't have to be a spouse.  You don't have to be (or have) a parasite draining the other person's being just so a claim to have found your yin or yang or whatever, can be made.

 #goshDarnItIsoundMoreCynicalThanIreallyAm #iPromise

In the first Silverstein book, the thing finds that 'missing piece', but when the piece fits exactly into the open spot it only screws up everything about the life of the creature #ouch
The creature decides to remove the piece from its life and continue being that 'incomplete' (but happy) being.  That's a pretty cool lesson on the fact that stuff can be 'picture perfect' but besides the optics, it's a living hell.

The creature's experience triggered a few questions in my mind:
1.  If by inserting the piece that seemed perfect, its life became messed up, does that mean it really didn't fit?
Or
2. Is it that the real problem was the creature was selfish to want to keep on doing its life the same as it did prior to including the piece in it?
Or
3.  Just maybe, there's no such thing as a real fit so everyone has got to be prepared to abandon some things they love doing in exchange for not being void of a piece?

In the second book, after numerous failed efforts at attracting one to which it would fit, the pizza slice looking piece meets a whole - The Big O - that advises it to be its own being instead of waiting to fit another.  When the piece starts doing that, it actually develops into a whole and is able to start its own journey, eventually running into the 'O' again.  The final page features no words, just two wholes seeming to swipe right on each other.  #Tinder #NowThatsWhatIcallRomantic #CaniGetAhallelujah

It's not that we don't need people.  It's that the bit missing from us as individuals is not another person (completely different post required for me to to take this to the required spiritual levels)

We must each be our own whole selves and then when whole people connect, they create a kind of facultative NOT obligatory symbiosis (I totally just Googled that and only hope I've used it correctly).
If this wasn't possible I don't think the Apostle Paul would have offered kudos to the folk who opted to stay unmarried.

So do I think I fall into this group Paul talked about? Nope.  I'm with the ones in the next verse LOL
But like the creature in the first book I'm unwilling to sacrifice myself for the sake of optics and the pressure to appear stereotypically whole.  Like the piece in the second I am my own whole being, rolling around and having adventures.

Who knows, maybe I get lucky and roll into another whole and we enjoy being individually whole together.  #IloveHowConvolutedThatSounds

If all this sounds familiar it's probably because I said it all before in that book I wrote back in 2012

Sex Toys & Religion #WarningRisque

Discussions around sex are as intriguing as they are taboo.

The topic is often handled with kid gloves in Christian religious circles.  But how sensible is it to tip toe around such a major component of our lives?  We must get our heads out of the sand because that elephant in the room is backing us all into a corner. 
[Ok no more mixed metaphors #ipromiseLOL] 

On a real serious note though, it is ironic that most religious leaders turn beet red [clearly a symbolic reference since black preachers aren't doing a better job at it], while the secular world has practically made it the crux of their industry.  From the sale of a car to that of a bottle of juice.  #sideEye@icoolDrinkAds  There are also movies and music videos #just2nameAfew 
Sexual innuendos are daily, commonplace images.  Why then do so many of the religious shy away from talking about it - as if it wasn't God who started the sex thing in the first place...  There was only one way Adam and Eve  could "be fruitful and increase in number" and, spoiler alert, there were no nearby fertility clinics providing artificial insemination services.

I learnt about sex around age eleven or twelve when I was about to hit puberty and my mother gave me a book titled "Teenagers".  There was no talk. She didn't say "if you have questions about what you read..."  In fact, the book actually focused on the customary puberty changes so the 'sex ed' was actually incidental.
On the sex front, it was a mere factual account of the reproductive elements - doing absolutely nothing to explain the feelings I would develop.  My first hard copy of sexually related visuals was somewhere around that time too when some kids had a dirty magazine on the bus.  But, it was a different time and the threat of excessive exposure far less imposing compared to the ease of access for post millennials (Google told me they're named Generation Z). 
I can  only pray that modern parents are not as hush-hush and shame faced because if they don't teach their kids about sex, others will.

On many levels the Bible is pretty clear to me in its position on coitus:
a. Forbidding that between men and women not married to each other
b. Forbidding that between the same sex
c. Forbidding that between humans and animals
d. Forbidding that with a dead body... wait a minute, is this last one actually Biblical?  My search yielded no specific condemnation against necrophilia so maybe it falls under the category of what is referred to as "sexual immorality"?

But this preamble has become a ramble.  We're here to talk about sex toys. 
So where do they fit?

Does the use of such fall into the aforementioned category of sexual immorality?  Before you snicker, sneer or snort, think about this: 
Hardly anybody hand washes their clothes anymore - we use machines. 
We don't walk to the corner store -  we drive our cars or call a cab. 
Heck, many of us hardly make meals from scratch since there are ready mixes for practically any meal we can think of. 

Forming relationships takes time and people are busy.  Then, when you consider the demands of marriage which takes work, and money, and the patience of Job to deal with people's issues and unpredictability on a long term basis, it makes you wonder if the sex is worth the trouble.  Isn't it less strenuous (and cheaper) to then let Amazon hook you up so that all you have to contend with is Silica gel, bubble wrap and batteries?  There's no risk of disease or unplanned pregnancy or infidelity or heartbreak; neither is there sin in the heart since it doesn't even involve looking at and desiring anyone.  Besides, I don't have to look far to find real, live examples of marriages between Christian people who after gliding down the aisle are now trudging that lonely road of separation and divorce.

A friend once told me of a talk given by an unmarried Christian woman at her church where the woman revealed that she kept a special cucumber in her freezer for needs that did not involve a salad.  In fact, at no time in that woman's use of the cucumber would she have been required to pare it... She found an alternative means of consumption.

Does the person in genuine pursuit of God violently wrestle with sexual urges and desires? 
If a Christian finds himself/ herself at the point of such struggles does it speak to their spiritual state?
Should they be concerned that their pursuits in righteousness lack diligence?
Is it that perhaps the problem with sex toys is they are gateway drugs - a path to the actual Biblically condemnable relations?  Should the fact that these are modelled to resemble male/female genitalia be an indicator?
On the other hand, could it be that the use of such is subjective and therefore the individual is to be guided by his/her conscience? "All things are lawful but..."

Maybe the answer lies in discovering the intended purpose of sex.  Was individual gratification  and pleasure ever meant to be one of its purposes (as opposed to being a mere byproduct)?  For if the answer to this question is 'no' then the answer to the sinfulness of sex toys is possibly 'yes'. 
So why was sex created?  Is its role truly multifaceted?
Here are three summations that I can effortlessly make:
1. Clearly for procreation - be fruitful 
2. Also for bonding  - leave father and mother, cleave
3. And let's not forget physical satisfaction - better to marry than burn with passion

So then Scripture does suggest that gratification is one purpose.  BUT, should one seek to benefit  from purpose 3 when the bed has not been laid?  After all, though Scripture has not said Thou shalt not use sex toys, marriage seems to be the only allowance for devouring sexual passion #ohSnap

But, as if this post isn't long enough already, I haven't even mentioned that, from the standpoint of  many religious women, there is a noticeable incongruence in the supply and demand of eligible partners #beNotUnequallyYoked

Maybe I should have titled this post "Bare Questions".

 #apologies4TackyPunOverkillLOL

Help! I've Been Sexually Harassed? Abused? Assaulted?

While watching a favourite comedy programme on YouTube recently, I noted a scene that depicted a young man in his 30s sitting at a table with four women perhaps 20 or 30 years his senior.  They were playing cards and the young man attempted to make conversation by asking about their sex lives, as (he said) the setting was Florida and he was excited to be hanging with "real live Golden Girls"  (If you remember that show then you know what I'm talking about). The women on the other hand complained of pain and wanted to show pictures of their grandchildren.  Frustrated, the young man threw his cards on the table and left.  However, as he did this the women turned to lecherously watch him leave.  One commented on his 'ass' and the other expressed desire to "crack that fortune cookie open" (the guy was of Chinese descent).

Funny enough I suppose, depending on your choice for humour; but when I got to the comments (the best part of any social media post) I realised that the writers were being blasted by some viewers for sanctioning sexual harassment (of course never mind the racially motivated joke).  One such critic even went on to ask why they were making it OK for women to purport sexual harassment. 

Until I read the comments, that had been furthest from my thoughts.  The comment then got me thinking about the definition of sexual harassment; so I of course sought clarity  from the possessor of all knowledge, Guguru (that's just Google in my Japanese accent). 
Being able to distinguish this phenomena  is profoundly important especially in light of the numerous incidences surrounding the issue.  But this is also pitted against the surge in the "PC Culture" ...Just how far is too far?

The first definition I found explained sexual harassment as
"(typically of a woman) in a workplace, or other professional or social situation, involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks"

I found this definition very limited on a number of levels. 
1. Obviously it's clearly archaic  "typically of women"?  Is it suggesting that men's preferences are chopped liver? Are they always welcoming of sexual advances and are therefore incapable of falling victim to unwanted  advances?
2.  It's not harassment until after it's been done?  Based on this definition, how else would the person be sure what they are offering is 'unwanted' or "obscene"? Those seem to be rather subjective constructs. 


I did however find a more comprehensive definition and so assuaged my fears a tad.
The second definition however turned out to be rather lengthy and contained a  few complexities, making me understand that there was no easy way to define it.  In fact, after reading I concluded that what had happened in the skit was not harassment since there was no evidence that the young man was offended by, or even heard, the women's remarks.  It wasn't sexual abuse either (since it was brief) and it wasn't assault (because nobody touched the guy).  I couldn't help but think that it's little wonder genuine victims are sometimes timid to broadcast experiences of this nature.

The recent situation surrounding former US Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, resonated with me on a personal level.  My sister, the human being to which I'm closest in this world, will perhaps stop reading here and call to ask "WTH?" (Maybe not in those words since she doesn't speak like that)  But she, like anyone else reading, will be learning of this experience through this post. 

I was a child.
I don't recall my age but I vividly remember the surprise and shame. 
I wonder why those would be among the natural responses...Is it because most times the ones responsible are not random unknowns and therefore victims believe their acts of betrayal are as a result of our failings in some way?

While watching excerpts of the Kavanaugh hearing I took note of the numerous cynical responses received by Dr Ford as she outlined the experiences she'd had:
'Why is she doing this now? It was such a long time ago'
'She went to a party with drinking college young men'
'It wasn't like she was raped'

I thought back on my experience that Saturday morning.  Why was the feeling still eerie?  After all,
It  was near some 30 years ago and he's now deceased
I was the one who'd gone and  sat on his lap
All he did was reach under my dress, pull at my panties and comment on how tight they were

It never happened again as after that day I kept a wide berth.  Then we moved away 
But even as an adult. when I sometimes saw him, I was never able to give beyond a courteous nod; every time wondering if he remembered.

By comparison, my experience pales next to the horror faced by thousands.  I believe I was lucky.  But  it has hammered home very strongly that fact that if I felt a sense of violation and shame, what of the persons who have endured much more? 

We cannot discount anyone's story as each carries its own pain.