Human genitalia are ugly

If your response to this is "mine aren't, let me send you a picture", then please don't, and try not to be so predictable.

Just to clarify what I am saying here, they are erotic, exciting, and so can be very pleasurable to look at. Actually, the naked human form can be very pleasurable to look at, as a whole.

But genitalia are not. They are ugly and functional.That makes sense, because they have a function, and they are very good at fulfilling that function. those functions do not require them to be pretty.

So why am I writing this? Because there seems to be a strange trend of men sending pictures of their genitalia to women, because they are convinced that this will encourage the women to have sex with them. Now this might work for some, but I suspect these are the exceptions. Or maybe these are the women who would have sex with you whatever, they just wanted to be asked.

But there is another reason for raising this, not just because I want to discuss genitalia on the blog. I think the problem is actually more widespread.

Some people are not very attractive.

The usual response to this is that people are attractive in all sorts of ways - people are beautiful on the inside. I think this is sanctimonious drivel personally, because it promotes the core problem, which is that "beauty" is the prime driver that people are valued by. We value beauty so have to identify beauty in everyone.

Whereas I don't think we should value people by how attractive they are, in whatever way. I think we should value people because they are people, made in the image of God, and unique and wonderful as they are. People are not valuable because they are beautiful, attractive, intelligent or whatever. This is as bad as valuing people by their wealth or earning ability. David Cameron's desire to do away with the Human Rights Act is, I believe, because he does not accept that simply "being human" should confer rights. Trying to find "beauty" or "attractiveness" in people is a way of saying that they are not valuable without these qualities.

We are. I speak as someone who is not particularly attractive, outside or inside. I am an ugly person, broken, twisted, damaged and grumpy with it. I am twisted and callused, often stupid and unhelpful.

And God loves me like that.

Some people I find attractive. Others I don't. What is important is that this is not how I value them. Some people I get on well with, others I don't. All are valuable, all are worthy of respect.

So yes, genitalia are ugly, but functional. They don't have to be pretty to be appealing to others, and they have to be functional. Some people are ugly, and God loves them. So I should, and not try to find something worth loving in them.

Natalie Bennett

This last week Natalie Bennett - the leader of the Green Party - had a meltdown in an interview on LBC.

Having heard the interview, it was bad - she really couldn't answer the questions. She explained that she had a cold and I know that when your head is bunged up, it is difficult to think straight, it is hard to be coherent. And yet, this is not really an excuse. Politicians need to be on the top game all the time, illness or not. If she wasn't up to it, she should have cancelled.

I am embarrassed by the leader of my party making a cock-up like that. But does this mean that she is not able to play a leading role in politics, as some are saying? In truth, all of the party leaders have times when they are under par, and make a mess of interviews.That is part of politics - it is unfortunate that it happened at this time, but that is life.

So firstly, we demand such a lot from our politicians, particularly the party leaders. I don't have a problem with expecting them to behave in a moral fashion, to be exemplary in terms of their conduct if they are expecting to represent us, but in terms of their performance in interviews etc. We expect them to have all of the answers to all of the questions, meaning that we so often get pat answers to questions, because they cannot know the details of everything.

The answer to the question - on how building plans would be funded - is one that she should have known a basic answer to. If you want full details about the funding of the party plans, talk to the finance spokesperson. If you want to know what the policies are, and what the implications are, talk to the leader. She claims she had a "brain fade" - I know what that is like! - but I question whether she should have been expected to know all of the answers. She didn't because she is human, but we seem to expect something other than humanity in our leaders. this probably explains Milliband and Cameron.

Secondly, does the fact that the party leader had a moment mean that the policies of the party are all wrong? Does the failings of one person mean that people shouldn't vote for the party? I suppose it depends on what you are voting for

If you are voting for policies, ideas, principles that you would like to see enacted, then it doesn't matter at all. The party policies are just the same as ever. If you believed in them - and in the party's commitment to making them happen - then this should still be the case.

If you are voting for party leaders, then maybe you should vote for the ever-slick David Cameron. As a interviewee, he rarely stumbles - lies, dissembles, avoids questions, yes, but rarely stumbles. If that is what you want in a leader, he is your man.

Of course we tend to vote for people. I still believe that the people standing for the Green party are deeply committed people who want to make a difference: not just to the environment, but to your environment, our situation, and the direction we as a country take.

So yes, Bennetts stumble is embarrassing. She is embarrassed by it, quite rightly. But does it undermine the whole party? Unlike the main parties, the Greens are not a single person or small coterie of people. the Greens are represented by all our members, by a range of people, meaning that the mistakes one one - while serious - do not make the party irrelevant.

What is abuse, and what isn't?

This seems to be far more complex question than it should be. The problem is that context is crucial in determining whether abuse - in particular sexual abuse - is occurring or not.

I think there is a distinction made between abuse and sexual abuse, that is not always helpful or significant. Sexual abuse is abuse with a sexual element, or driven by sexual urges. And yes the urges or drivers behind abuse of any sort are complex - and abuse is abuse, whether there is a sexual element or not. I would question whether drawing a distinction is that helpful.

I think an interesting starting point is rape. Rape is non-consensual sex, pure and simple. And while rape is generally considered sexual abuse, the drivers and urges are power, not sex. Consent is straightforward and yet complex, but in simple terms, consent should be obtained for a sexual encounter. In a long-term relationship, consent can be far less formal - I am not suggesting that a couple in a long term relationship should obtain written permission each time. But it should be clear that there is consent.

In early stages, consent is far more important, because it can be far too easily assumed, when it is not present. I shouldn't need to say it, but "dressing in a provocative way" is not consent. Nor is accepting a drink, being prepared to talk to you, or anything else that is not clear consent.

This should be straightforward: if you are not clear that you have consent, then do not engage in sexual activity. And sometimes it is unclear, sometimes it is confusing (especially in the heat of the moment, or after chemical enhancement), and sometimes mistakes are made. But not often, not is care is taken, not if respect if maintained. You may well regret it in the morning, but then, we all do things we regret.


Lets take this to the other extreme. In the discussions that occur on places like Twitter, or workplace banter, comments are sometimes made that would, in another context, seem abusive. In my view, comments like "I would" - the implication of "I would have sex with them" - are not abusive. This is a shorthand way of saying "I find them very sexually attractive", which is a perfectly reasonable opinion to hold. Bear with me - I will return to this in a moment.

Of course, in a workplace, saying "I would" about a colleague, and then leering at them suggestively is abusive. There should be a caveat to the statement, along the lines of "but it will never happen". In fact, the problem is more about "don't leer at work colleagues", because that is abusive. You see, this is where it start to become complicated and difficult, but a rule of not making those you have to work with, or meet in any sense, feel uncomfortable by your words and actions is part of life in a social environment.

The other problem is when this becomes talking about people, not to them, or treating them as purely sexual objects. It is abusive to treat ANYONE as a sexual toy - as if their only purpose is to satisfy your sexual desires. To treat any person as less than a fully rounded, complex human being is abusive. To dismiss any person as less than a human being is abusive. To say that they are sexually attractive, and that is all there is to say about them is abusive. To say "they only got the job because they are sexy/slept with the boss" is abusive, even if it may have an element of truth in it. If they were hired because of looks, or because of favours, they have already been abused, so adding to that is not helpful. They are more than a sex object. they are a human being, even if a damaged and abused human.

Of course context is crucial. The recent video of a women getting catcalls as she walked through New York is a different context - and many of these comments are not acceptable. There is a huge difference between commenting on a persons behind in an environment where you are regularly talking, and they are free to tell you to piss off, and the same comments where they consist of the entire conversation, and they have no freedom to respond (or are unsure of how a response might be taken). In either situation, if they feel threatened, then it is wrong, and if you don't know or care if they feel threatened, then it is abusive. In particular, women having comments about their appearance thrown at them in the street are likely to feel threatened, not least because they don't know anything about the person making the comments.


OK, lets look into another complex area of abuse - the BDSM community. I should make it absolutely clear that the same principles apply here as anywhere else - consent is everything. While some of their practices may appear abusive, they are not as long as they are consensual.

I think one of the big problems is that some of these practices are more common than many might want to admit. At the least, they are part of the fantasies of some people, even if they cannot engage themselves (for all sorts of reasons). I think one of the problems with the 50 shades series - which I have not read, I should point out, this is based on comments of others who have read - is that the lines between legitimate BDSM behaviour and rape and abuse are blurred. It is not a case of a mutually fulfilling sexual relationship, but a case - once again - of a man abusing a vulnerable woman. It is the vulnerability of one partner that is problematic in this case, which means that consent is far harder to establish - I will touch on this later. What is more this is "romantic" fiction, not reality. To take the success of this as indicating that "most women like a bit of rough" is demeaning and abusive.

Actually, the BDSM community is interesting, in that they do have a set of rules governing practices - they should be "sane, safe, legal and consensual". Consensual is core to all sexual practice, but the others provide limits to what might be considered acceptable practice, and what would, even within this community, be considered abusive. There are sexual practices that exceed these limits, and no I am not going into details, but they are abusive. This community is well aware of abuse. I believe it is far less likely that abuse occurs within this community, while they stick within their own rules. Using their ideas and practices without the rules is, it would seem, abusive.


The issue of vulnerability of one partner leads onto the critical issue of children and abuse.Actually, the issue is, at core, one of a vulnerable partner and a powerful one. In the case of children and adults, the child is the vulnerable partner, and a vulnerable person cannot give informed consent. End of story, in many ways. But this is why matters like the age of consent are not the real issue here. In reality, it is no less abusive to have sex with someone on their sixteenth birthday (in the UK) as it is to have sex with them the night before. More legal, but no less or more abusive. What is abusive is having sex with someone who you have power over, because they are unable to give informed consent - if the options are "have sex with me or lose your job", maybe the sex seems like the better option, but that is not consensual, that is abusive.

Informed consent means that young children, animals, and even highly vulnerable people who have grown up in extremely abusive situations cannot agree. They may appear willing, but their lack of understanding means that consent is meaningless. So any sexual activity is abusive. Just don't.

Of course, there is a question about sexual activity between tow teenagers, who may be under the age of consent. I think this is a very complex issue, but it is not necessarily abusive. The concept of informed consent is crucial - are they both agreeing, knowing what they are agreeing to? If so, it is probably not abusive - still illegal, but I would want to be lenient with them. Others might disagree.


Finally (at least, you say - well, it is a big area to cover), I want to consider the issue of pornography.
From everything I have already said, it might seem that there is no issue here - there is, in fact, not sexual engagement involved here. Consent is hard to identify, but could be considered there by virtue of the images being available. Others would argue that in many cases, there has been abuse - or coercion - to achieve these images, and that constitutes abuse (it does). However, it is impossible to tell or to know. There is a parallel with prostitutes, some of whom - especially the higher class ones - may genuinely enjoy their work; others may find that they have been pressurised into it, and forced by economics into staying in the business.

There is another way of looking at this, which brings us back to one of the earlier discussions - pornography is about objectifying other people, using them as object to satisfy your own sexuality. In the end, failing to treat them as people, as human beings who are more than their genitalia, is abusive. There is a danger that pornography changes the users attitude to other people, into purely sexual objects. OK, this can also be said of Hollywood and the gaming industry at times, and is more about the user controlling their own behaviour. I would accept this, however I still consider that pornography is abusive, because there is a lack of explicit consent. If this is not there, the engagement is abusive.


Abuse is a huge topic. I hope that I have explored a number of areas that are relevant, and my conclusion is that a lack of explicit, informed consent means that there is a high chance of abuse, and abuse is wrong. the truth is, many of us have engaged in abusive behaviours, without it being deliberate. The challenge is to stop, and the bigger challenge is to ensure that more deliberate abuse is avoided. I don;t say that everyone should be perfect. I say that we should always respect other people as full, complex, divinely-created human beings.

Call yourself a feminist?

Actually, yes I do.

But there is more to me than that. The point is I am a feminist, but I am also all sorts of other things.

Some people might say "You can't call yourself a feminist, you make jokes at their expense!" Which is true - if you work with me, I will probably make jokes and comments to you and about you. I may even use your gender as part of that. Whether you are male or female. I will joke with you, not behind your back.

You see, I don't treat women as someone special. You will get treated exactly as anyone else. That is, I believe, the core aspect of feminism - it is not about treating women better as special, it is about treating them as people, irrespective of their gender.

Others might also say "You can't be a feminist, you are male." This is also true, and I am not ashamed of my gender, or of what it means. Let me be clear, I would prefer to look at pretty women, I find them attractive. That is reasonable and natural.

The point is that I don't judge women - or anyone - based on their looks. It is one aspect of a person - some are attractive, others aren't, some are intelligent, others aren't. I try to interact with people based on all sorts of factors, that combine to be a question of how much I respect them.

Feminism is - I believe - about treating women as people. I try to treat people with respect, although I would accept that do not tolerate fools. If you have a problem with the way I treat people, that is one thing. But the important thing is that I treat women as people. I do not "pretend" that they are men, or that they are not actually different.

Women are different. But they are still people. Anything else is mistaken.

You're my person

I have been watching "Grays Anatomy" - the TV series, not a film of the medical book (that would be so boring). One of the comments that the characters often make is that someone is "my person", by which they mean the person they go to tell everything to, that they go to in times of difficulty, and who offers them advice. This is their "person".

I wonder if we all need a "person". Someone who can help us in difficult times. They are not our partner, because sometimes we need to talk about our partner. It cannot be your pastor, because you might need to talk about church. It needs to be someone who understands all that we do and go through, but is not in charge, is not intimately involved in any of it.

That is difficult - someone who has enough involvement, but not too much. but in truth, I think very few of us do have people who we can talk to like this, which is sad. I also think there are very few of us who are prepared to do this -- listen without judgement, being prepared to offer our advice without fuss, to support people whatever their decisions. To be there for people whatever their route in life. To be someones person.

And yet, the more I hear and see, the more I think this is very needed. A place to be, to talk unreservedly. A place to say ""I think my marriage is breaking up", or "I don't know if I believe anymore", or "I don't want to go on living". And a person who can offer thoughts and insights - not patronising drivel, but an honest consideration of your problems. Who will help you work through your problems and decide what to do. Who can make suggestions, tell you to stop being ridiculous - yes sometimes aggressive responses are needed - and most of all, someone who will say "Do what you have to do, and I am here for you, whatever."

My experience has largely been that most people who will say "We will help you through your problems" tend to include an "as long as ...." with this. So "We will help you work out your faith issues, as long as you stay in the church," or "I will talk to you, but you need to see a doctor, or I can do nothing." But we need people who will say "I think you should stay in the church, but I am here for you whatever," and "You should try and work our your relationships issues, and stop sleeping with your mistress, but I am with you however it turns out."

Non-judgemental friends. People who will talk and listen and suggest and cajole, but never leave you. That would be exceptional. That would be special. that would be Christian.

Homosexuality

Something I have said I need to do for a while, is address whether homosexuality is biblically acceptable. There are many who say it is not, and others who say it is, and others who say that those passages are no longer culturally relevant and should be ignored. So I want to see if there is an interpretation of the bible that is acceptable of homosexuality, on a par, say, with having women teaching in church - something that is also clearly disallowed in 1 Cor 14, and yet arguments are made that the clear message of this should not be taken as the real meaning - something I agree with, BTW.

What is very interesting is that, if you search for "homosexual" in the NIV, it only turns up 1 reference. Yes one solitary reference. That is 1 Tim, and we will return to that later. In fact, more research into the Greek root finds a second reference, 1 Cor 6:9, in a similar list - 2 references. And it is a basic rule of biblical translation that the fewer occasions a word appears in context, the less reliable it is to translate. A word that appears twice in the biblical texts, and both times in lists, the translation into what we term homosexuality - as a sexual inclination - we have to be very cautious of.

The starting point is Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 where it ways "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman". Now the context of this is a whole lot of restrictions on sexual behaviour, including not having sexual relationship during a womans period, as well as not with close relationships. But you don't see the church up in arms about these. Actually, a number of these restrictions are covered by incest, a problem that the church seems to be less up in arms about than homosexuality.

The terms of this passage can also be interpreted as a challenge to bi-sexual behaviour - sexual relationships with male and female together. But more so, in the context of the preceding verse about  Molech, the command is about not being sexually promiscuous, not sleeping with anyone and anything, not giving into the demands of sex-worship. And, let me be clear, it is one command amongst a whole range that we tend to ignore - the strict Levitical legal structure is not one which we tend to be bound by these days.

OK, so what of the New Testament - because there are no other references directly in the Old. In Romans 1:26 we have this passage from Paul "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men", referring to Sodom and Gomorrah. So surely this is a condemnation of homosexuality? Surely Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for this? Well the problem with Sodom and Gomorrah was that they were promiscuous, abusive, given over to a worship of sex of all sorts. In the passage from Genesis, they want to have sex with Lots visitors. Actually, this is about a desire to rape and abuse guests - this is not about sexual inclination, it is about abuse and power. It is about people "inflamed with lust". The expression of this was that they wanted sex with everyone, not just their partners.

And sexual abuse - the use of sex as power, the context of rape as being a power act, not a sex act - is wrong. Completely, and utterly. The worship of sex that occurred in Sodom was wrong and an offense to God. And is something that we see a whole lot of in our society today. But this is not about inclination, it is about sex as power, sex as marketing tool. It is something that we are as vulnerable to even if we are not homosexually inclined. It is about sexual lust and sex as power - something that everyone is vulnerable to.

Finally, let us return to 1 Tim 1:10. "the law is made for ... the sexually immorality, those practicing homosexuality..." the context here is again about immorality, abuse and not sexual orientation. There is a possibility that homosexuality in this context is as much about a lifestyle than an orientation - that homosexuals were generally very promiscuous sexually, and it is this that is being condemned.A similar context is provided in 1 Cor. That would fit in with the context of the passage. To assume that because the term "homosexual" is used in our English translation means that it is the same as we understand it is something I tackled in a previous post, and we cannot make that leap. We need to understand context.

So the condemnation of homosexuality in the biblical texts appears to be all in the context of debauchery, promiscuity, sexual freedom and abuse. In the cultural context, homosexuality was a part of a lifestyle that included sexually promiscuous behaviour. The - rather scant - condemnation of homosexual behaviour seems to be always in this context, which would suggest to me that what is really under condemnation is promiscuous, abusive and debauched behaviour.

I am not convinced, that there is here a strong enough argument for rejection of a committed, monogamous, loving, homosexual relationship. At the very least, there would seem to be a whole lot more critical issues to address ahead of this - sexual abuse and promiscuity is a far more significant issue to challenge. And the small number of references suggests to me that this is not a critical matter. Most definitely not an issue that churches should divide on, or make as an important touchstone. Yes there are passages of significance, but it seems that stable relationships are what God wants. I have no doubt that others will disagree.

That's not my God

How does God deal with sinners? Now I am not trying to be condemnatory of anyone, but this is everyone, because the bible makes it clear that we are all sinners, it is part of who we are. So how does God deal with sinners?

Well, of course, he forgives us.That is the starting point, I accept, but I am afraid that is not my God. It is great that God forgives me, don't misunderstand, but that gets me nowhere, because I keep sinning, again and again, and keep coming back for forgiveness. It makes no difference if the forgiveness makes no real change to me. Yes I really like the fact that God forgives me, but actually, it is nothing.

Ah, of course, God forgives us and gives us a new start. Sorry to sound ungrateful, but that's not my God. Now it is great that God forgives me, wipes the slate clean, and gives me a new start. Sadly, most other people are not so generous. In the world that I live in, I don't get a new start. If your "sin" - or failing to live up to the expected standards - means that you are pregnant, then there is not "new start", because you are still pregnant. If your failure to live up to expected standards means that you are permanantly injured, then you stay injured.

What is more, of course, people don't forgive you. You are still injured, damaged, and often you still get the prejudice or stigma that it involves. When I am forgiven and given a new start by God, I still have to live with the results of whatever I have done. You see, it is not really a new start - it is not a complete re-beginning wiping everything that has happened before. It is a re-start, or a re-vitalising.

Hang on, aren;t we promised that we are "born again"? Well yes, but that is what I mean. It is a rebirth in the spirit, and I am renewed from inside, as a new, spiritually refreshed person. Who is, nonetheless, still broken, sinful, damaged. And as far as other people see, I still have that damage. I love being born again, but I would also like to start again without the baggage from the past.

So what does God actually do? The most exciting and wonderful thing is that God accepts me. The forgiveness, the new birth, are wonderful to have. But the astounding thing is that even as a sinner, even as a broken perons, even as a damaged individual, God accepts me.

All I now need is for people too as well.

Why we are losing people

91% of unchurched young people think that Christianity is anti-gay. Young adults are overwhelmingly in favour of marriage equality. According to Becky Garrison - Ancient Future Disciples. No wonder we are unable to reach them.

Now these figures are from the US, but it is probably not dissimilar in the UK - or at least the implications. For all of the reasons for and against homosexuality, if we - the church - insist on making it an issue, then we may win the argument, but we will lose a generation.

The truth is that I would rather win people than be right. I would rather people engaged with God and met him, and let him be the judge. He does it better than me.