Any female sexuality that involves men is sexist!!!!

http://jezebel.com/5961998/what-its-like-to-be-a-lesbian-in-the-lingerie-industry?utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_facebook&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

So, the article that set off this rant is linked above. Basically, I tired of making excuses for this meme in the feminist and lesbian community.

Masculine sexuality is overwhelmingly a part of feminine sexuality, and that's okay. I don't prefer it myself, and that's okay. This article, and so many like it, usually written by women who also don't prefer masculine sexuality in their own sexual expression, boils down to, 'These straight women are only expressing their sexuality to please men- that's sexist.' We need to continue to develop the feminist response to what's happening until we get to a place that validates the sexual expressions of straight people.

Here's what's really wrong with this situation: Lesbians are not represented by girl-on-girl and tons of people, including some lesbians, think they should be.

The author says that the fashion industry is homophobic because when same-sex attraction is modelled, the women in the picture don't have an identity or a voice. They actually do, their identity and voice is a straight one. One that is more interested in the absent masculine viewer than the feminine expression of sexuality in front of them. How many times have you heard a straight woman say something like, "I think other chicks can look hot, and I'll tell them they do, but I need a man." That is what the models in your "silencing" examples are saying. 'In order for me to feel like a sexual being, I need a man to be involved.' There should not be a problem with that, nor with women consensually engaging in sexual acts with one-another for the purpose of enhancing their straight sexuality.

It's easy to miss that as a lesbian for good reason. Of course, that's not how we would look in that photo. I'd be drooling over this other woman, they'd have to have an even hotter chick behind the camera to get me to look in that direction.

The other reason we are angry about these photos is that we are told that they represent our sexuality and so are people who do not know anything about our sexuality. Straight people often confuse the straight expression of girl-on-girl, (which is focused on the subject of attraction: men) for lesbian sexuality, (which is focused on the subject of attraction: each other). Neither of these expressions is sexist or invalid. Both should be celebrated and accepted.

Most of all, we should be fighting the problem and not other women. The problem is the silencing of lesbians in the lingerie industry. We should find lesbian models and photographers (or anyone who can model/photograph a lesbian picture) and rally behind those persons and their work. We should demand greater visibility from the industry and tell them to knock it off when they point to straight girl-on-girl action and tell us to be satisfied by that. We don't need to silence straight women to fight homophobia.

As always, I may be ignoring important points or facts. Feel free to contact me with questions, corrections, and comments.

Can openly gay people live a Christian life?

What did Jesus and the Early Church teach about homosexuality? It is very common for some groups to argue, “Jesus said nothing, we can do whatever we want,” and it is even more common for other groups to argue, “The law of Moses and Paul says that homosexuality is an abomination.” Both groups take things from the Bible out of context, and both have made their own facts about the matter.

Context for all matters of Christian faith should begin with the only two laws of Christianity:

1. Love the Lord your God with your whole heart
2. Love others as yourself

We are all sinners, we are all spiritually sick, but we are sick with different ailments of the soul. The treatment is going to be different for each of us. We do not know what the holy spirit is speaking into the soul of another, we are not qualified to judge another's heart. Even if you could justly try another person's soul, Jesus commands us not to in the famous, “Let one who is without sin cast the first stone,” story. So we cannot really judge if a person's sexuality is interfering with their ability to love God with their whole, undivided heart.

We can make approximations, projections, analyses of faith and intention using the impact of a person's conduct. Even then, there are mysteries, there are things we cannot know, and things we have no right to ask. Does homosexuality interfere with a person's ability to love God? What does the conduct of the gay person or couple in question tell you?

There are people who feel the love of God, who are changed through that love. They are merciful, they fight for the vulnerable, they take responsibility for their own conduct. I know there are gay people who have this type of love, I have met them, I hope to become like them. Even if you haven't met someone like this who happens to be gay, you should be able to find out about their existence from history. During the aids crisis, the majority of loving parents adopting aids orphans were lesbian couples. Gay people have and continue to become family to the children, the elderly and the others who have been failed by biological family and by society. When this conduct is based in love denying it denies the works of the Holy Spirit in their hearts. Denying the good works of gay people is a sin, and putting barriers between them and their good works is evil.

When people argue that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children, they often cite tradition. This is wrong, plain and simple. Both in society as a whole and in Christian tradition, caring for orphans with love, responsibility and respect is the greatest act of humanity and Christianity. It is my understanding that humans are the only species that cares for offspring that is not genetic kin. St. Joseph the betrothed cared for Jesus Christ, who was not his kin. Joseph was the first man to accept and love Christ, and his relationship with Christ was adoption. Joseph set aside his own plans and made room in his life for Jesus, because of an angel. Making room for children in our lives is a prayer, a consistent, daily pray and sacrifice. This is Christianity.

Those who cite tradition also say that children should have one mother and one father- this is also untraditional. This idea silences centuries of religious orders that cared for orphans. Most of these orders were segregated by gender, and the ones that cared for orphans were most often for women. This means that traditionally, many women took care of many children and this was a family. There are many saints in this tradition. This is what a Christian life looks like. How is this a threat to Christian values?

The work of the Gay couples who provide for Children suggest that they have deep connection to God. Many gay couples and gay individuals care for the elderly and sick in ways that straight people who have children would not be able to. Many Gay people work in education, health care, and social work even though this often means deciding to earn less money. There is an acronym for this, DINK: double income, no kids. Gay couples, and now because of birth control, straight couples can combine their resources in order to fill indispensable roles in society as opposed to having children or pursuing their own selfish desires. When they give up on wealth and possessions to do this, they have basically formed a two person religious order. If a couple is doing this, they are living Christian values, as defined by the beatitudes. Instead of making this work harder on them, other Christians should support them or mind their own prayers. It doesn't matter if they are sinning, if they live a loving Christian life, their sin is not your business.

I am not defending those who exploit the vulnerabilities of others for sex, money, drunkenness or vanity. I am not defending those who choose their own selfish desires over helping those in need, or those who make children unwelcome. I am just saying that the gay and the childless have a place in Christianity and they have Christian values to live by that aren't limited to praying away their identity or their calling.

Even if this were not the case, even if we could find no people of God among the gay community, we still have no Christian basis for demanding extra taxes from them, because of the Render unto Caesar teaching. We certainly have no Christian basis for denying them the human dignity of being with their loved ones in their hour of death- that is anti-Christian.

The God these anti-gay people worship has made millions of couples fall in love, purify their hearts, has seen their good works and integrity, has known their undivided, whole love for Him and then demanded that they lie about it. Or just demanded that they have no faith in His love, that they accept without question that God and mercy are for the chosen people alone, and they do not even deserve the crumbs from the table to the chosen people. This God is not a God worth worshiping, and he would oppose the teachings of Jesus and Isaiah and the saints.

Even if we could show that being openly gay prevents a person from being Christian and from living Christian values, we have no justification for legislating Christian morality. Even if we could support the legislating of Christianity, we would have to find harmful conduct, and legislate against that specific conduct. Being gay and being a same gender couple are not inherently harmful, when they are harmful, it is because a person or couple has failed to live up to other Christian values. We all fail to live up to Christian values, again and again. Being Christian is about minding your own soul. I already know my soul needs my full attention, so let me pray, let me love, let me reconcile myself to God. Peace to you.

Peace and Love,

Alison Joy