Church Leader Sacked After Speaking Out Over Suspended Priest
MJS
http://orthodoxreform.org/cases/fr-nicholas-katinas/dean-siotos-wfaa-report/
Channel 8 News: Church Leader Sacked After Speaking Out Over Suspended
Priest
April 21, 2007
On April 21st, WFAA featured the following news story on the Friday
Ten O'Clock news broadcast in Dallas (view the video broadcast
online):
<<"Church leader sacked after speaking out over suspended priest"
A high-ranking Dallas church leader has been dismissed from his
duties. He says it's for leading the charge for a harsher penalty
against a suspended priest accused of molestation. Channel 8's Craig
Civale reports.>>
They gave the background on Fr. Katinas, the Greek Orthodox priest at
Holy Trinity who "... sexually abused minors while a priest before
coming to Dallas. He is also currently under investigation by the
archdiocese for allegedy abusing a child at Holy Trinity."
The report said:
<<The church is in flux - the parish is divided - and it appears it's
lost at least one member who has been part of the congregation his
whole life.>>
Dean Siotos says he is leaving the church over this issue:
<<This would be the first Sunday since this action. I certainly don't
intend to go this Sunday and I don't have any plans to come back any
time soon.>>
Holy Trinity admits its actions, but offers no apology for the message
this sends to the public regarding its failure to defrock Fr. Katinas,
and offered no explanation why the Archdiocese knew of the sexual
misconduct allegations for many months while not disclosing this
information to Holy Trinity parishioners.
<<A spokeperson here at Holy Trinity did confirm that they did let go
of Mr. Siotos because of this petition of this petition but they would
not discuss that incident any further nor would they discuss the
ongoing allegations against that priest which are currently still
under investigation.>>
The way the Greek Orthodox is handling this scandal is cause for
continued cause for Orthodox parishioners everywhere.
leushino
> Submitted by Melanie Jula Sakoda
>
> http://orthodoxreform.org/cases/fr-nicholas-katinas/dean-siotos-wfaa-report/
>
> Channel 8 News: Church Leader Sacked After Speaking Out Over Suspended
> Priest
>
> April 21, 2007
>
> On April 21st, WFAA featured the following news story on the Friday
> Ten O'Clock news broadcast in Dallas (view the video broadcast
> online):
>
> <<"Church leader sacked after speaking out over suspended priest"
>
> A high-ranking Dallas church leader has been dismissed from his
> duties. He says it's for leading the charge for a harsher penalty
> against a suspended priest accused of molestation. Channel 8's Craig
> Civale reports.>>
He says... big deal. Means nothing unless it can be proven. Do you even
understand the niceties of the law, MJS?
> The way the Greek Orthodox is handling this scandal is cause for
> continued cause for Orthodox parishioners everywhere.
>
No... the real scandal is your treatment of anyone who is accused of
sexual abuse. You are a scandal to the Church... the Body of Christ and
all because of your own inability to work out your own demons. Please,
do us all a favor and seek professional help.
TyMeDwn1st
You could do a *lot* of people a favor by ceasing your vexacious comments to
her.
--
Ty
Who is mostly just a
slightly skewed
Donna Reed
It is easier to fight for one’s principles than to live up to them.
- Alfred Adler
OrthoNews
"leushino" <leushin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:m7fXh.511$DZ3...@newsfe02.lga...
> MJS wrote:
>> Submitted by Melanie Jula Sakoda
>>
>> http://orthodoxreform.org/cases/fr-nicholas-katinas/dean-siotos-wfaa-report/
>>
>> Channel 8 News: Church Leader Sacked After Speaking Out Over Suspended
>> Priest
>>
>> April 21, 2007
>>
>> On April 21st, WFAA featured the following news story on the Friday
>> Ten O'Clock news broadcast in Dallas (view the video broadcast
>> online):
>>
>> <<"Church leader sacked after speaking out over suspended priest"
>>
>> A high-ranking Dallas church leader has been dismissed from his
>> duties. He says it's for leading the charge for a harsher penalty
>> against a suspended priest accused of molestation. Channel 8's Craig
>> Civale reports.>>
>
>
> He says... big deal. Means nothing unless it can be proven. Do you even
> understand the niceties of the law, MJS?
***MJS didn't write the article. Another instance of shooting the messenger
for something another person wrote. Geesh!
>
>> The way the Greek Orthodox is handling this scandal is cause for
>> continued cause for Orthodox parishioners everywhere.
>>
> No... the real scandal is your treatment of anyone who is accused of
> sexual abuse. You are a scandal to the Church... the Body of Christ and
> all because of your own inability to work out your own demons. Please, do
> us all a favor and seek professional help.
***MJS is performing a service. Keep up the good work, Melanie. If more
people knew about the Church's dark side the greater the chance that the
dark side wil be eliminated.
OrthoNews
"TyMeDwn1st" <tymed...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f92r23l1t3gdltbp7...@4ax.com...
***Some people find it fun to shoot the messenger.
Dan
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:49:37 -0700, leushino <leushinonos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >MJS wrote:
> >> Submitted by Melanie Jula Sakoda
>
>
> >> Channel 8 News: Church Leader Sacked After Speaking Out Over Suspended
> >> Priest
>
> >> April 21, 2007
>
> >> On April 21st, WFAA featured the following news story on the Friday
> >> Ten O'Clock news broadcast in Dallas (view the video broadcast
> >> online):
>
> >> <<"Church leader sacked after speaking out over suspended priest"
>
> >> A high-ranking Dallas church leader has been dismissed from his
> >> duties. He says it's for leading the charge for a harsher penalty
> >> against a suspended priest accused of molestation. Channel 8's Craig
> >> Civale reports.>>
>
> >He says... big deal. Means nothing unless it can be proven. Do you even
> >understand the niceties of the law, MJS?
>
> >> The way the Greek Orthodox is handling this scandal is cause for
> >> continued cause for Orthodox parishioners everywhere.
>
> > No... the real scandal is your treatment of anyone who is accused of
> >sexual abuse. You are a scandal to the Church... the Body of Christ and
> >all because of your own inability to work out your own demons. Please,
> >do us all a favor and seek professional help.
>
> You could do a *lot* of people a favor by ceasing your vexacious comments to
> her.
Most of the Orthodox posters here (as opposed to those who have
migrated here to commune with SWMNBN) agree with leushino.
Melanie has lost all sense of balance. She apparently doesn't care
that some of her posts may well be defamatory libels against innocent
people. If she concerned herself only with those actually found guilty
of these terrible offenses, it is unlikely that anyone here would
object.
OrthoNews
"Dan" <pras...@communitymail.net> wrote in message
news:1177417402....@o40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> Most of the Orthodox posters here (as opposed to those who have
> migrated here to commune with SWMNBN) agree with leushino.
>
> Melanie has lost all sense of balance. She apparently doesn't care
> that some of her posts may well be defamatory libels against innocent
> people. If she concerned herself only with those actually found guilty
> of these terrible offenses, it is unlikely that anyone here would
> object.
***The problem with your argument is that you are blaming Melanie for what
has been written by a reporter and published in a newspaper or on a news web
site. If there is "libel", then it is the news reporter, nor Melanie, who
has published libel.
***BTW, when a person is accused, and/or is arrested, it is legitimate news.
Troia
I haven't seen anything akin to "defamatory libels" in her posts, but
I've admitted my own bias as a mother. She seems to stick to the
published facts, i.e. not claiming an "accused" person is guilty but
simply reporting that they are accused.
But imagine yourself the parent of a child who is abused by someone in
authority (esp. clergy) who had decades of incidents of abusing other
children ... and that one of the major reasons that abuse could happen
was because everyone hushed up any known incidents of prior abuse out of
fear of it becoming known.
It seems to me that those in authority already have the balance of power
and credibility on their side; what of acting to protect the innocent
victims, and shining a bright light on it? Does someone falsely accused
really have more to gain by keeping it secret than by having it known
and examined under bright light to determine innocence or guilt?
For example, it is common for kids to go to a favored teacher for a
private discussion, seeking help with a problem at home. Suppose the
teacher takes that child's trust and uses it, coupled with the request
for a private discussion, as an opportunity to molest the child instead.
Pretty easy to do especially with children who already have
communication problems at home. Would you then suggest that the child
should be shut up if they report such molestation, because the accused
person -might- be innocent and the child -might- be making it up?
Are there other crimes that you feel should be hushed up until someone
is convicted, or is it only this one where such innocence is preyed upon?
Nor can I imagine why an innocent person accused would wish to keep the
situation in darkness, rather than having it exposed to light so that
their innocence could be established! It should be the wicked who seek
the darkness, hoping to shroud their actions in secrecy; what need have
the innocent for such secrets?
-- Troia
leushino
> "leushino" <leushin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:m7fXh.511$DZ3...@newsfe02.lga...
>> MJS wrote:
>>> Submitted by Melanie Jula Sakoda
>>>
>>> http://orthodoxreform.org/cases/fr-nicholas-katinas/dean-siotos-wfaa-report/
>>>
>>> Channel 8 News: Church Leader Sacked After Speaking Out Over Suspended
>>> Priest
>>>
>>> April 21, 2007
>>>
>>> On April 21st, WFAA featured the following news story on the Friday
>>> Ten O'Clock news broadcast in Dallas (view the video broadcast
>>> online):
>>>
>>> <<"Church leader sacked after speaking out over suspended priest"
>>>
>>> A high-ranking Dallas church leader has been dismissed from his
>>> duties. He says it's for leading the charge for a harsher penalty
>>> against a suspended priest accused of molestation. Channel 8's Craig
>>> Civale reports.>>
>>
>> He says... big deal. Means nothing unless it can be proven. Do you even
>> understand the niceties of the law, MJS?
>
>
> ***MJS didn't write the article. Another instance of shooting the messenger
> for something another person wrote. Geesh!
>
>
reported the article just like YOU rushed to report the article on the
reposed Met. Anthony Bloom's alleged sexual abuse. You both seem to have
a strange fascination for this sort of thing. She is NOT performing a
service for the Church. The Church can get along quite nicely without
her daily gutter sessions on the internet just as it can exist without
your reports. It has and it always will.
leushino
until we finally were able to convince you of the errors of your ways.
It's NOT fun. It's a scandal.
leushino
No, Dan is not doing that just as I did not. We're both quite capable of
reading, OrthoAl. What we object to is Melanie's reporting this. Why?
What service has she performed by publishing an article for us to read
regarding a man who has NOT been found guilty but rather accused of
something? Please... use some reason and exercise a little compassion
for someone besides yourself.
OrthoNews
***And I was tackling SWMNBN for HER words, not some newspaper reporter's
words. HUGE difference.
***And the scandal is the scandalous situation that caused the news article
to appear in the first place. But, you never criticize the newspaper or the
individuals involved in the scandal...only the messenger.
OrthoNews
***Then we should NEVER report anyone who is accused...religious or
otherwise. That is supression of free speech, something I would expect from
the Democratic liberal left.
OrthoNews
***Only through publicity will enough people gain the knowledge necessary to
stop covering up Church misdeeds and finally act to correct the problem.
I'll takde your hdsat for NOT supressing problems. I have every intention of
continuing.
Dan
> "Dan" <prass...@communitymail.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1177417402....@o40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Most of the Orthodox posters here (as opposed to those who have
> > migrated here to commune with SWMNBN) agree with leushino.
>
> > Melanie has lost all sense of balance. She apparently doesn't care
> > that some of her posts may well be defamatory libels against innocent
> > people. If she concerned herself only with those actually found guilty
> > of these terrible offenses, it is unlikely that anyone here would
> > object.
>
> ***The problem with your argument is that you are blaming Melanie for what
> has been written by a reporter and published in a newspaper or on a news web
> site.
That's why I wrote "some of her posts". This thread began with
material pasted from a news source and clearly attributed. That is not
always the case with Melanie's posts.
Even when the dirt is dished out in the form of "cut and pasted" news
items, Melanie's attempts to spread it around tend to be gratuitous
and without regard to whether she might be causing greater harm to the
innocent.
>If there is "libel", then it is the news reporter, nor Melanie, who
> has published libel.
>
> ***BTW, when a person is accused, and/or is arrested, it is legitimate news.
Here we disagree. If someone is arrested and indicted, it is
legitimate news because prudent parents have the right to be informed
of a possible threat to the safety of their children.
Accusations, on the other hand, can be made by anyone; they are
sometimes malicious. It may be legal to report them (as allegations
rather than as established fact), but it may also be irresponsible and
unethical.
OrthoNews
***As a former j.ournalist, view it all a bit differently. So, I will
respectfully disagree.
M Shirley Chong
> Accusations, on the other hand, can be made by anyone; they are
> sometimes malicious. It may be legal to report them (as allegations
> rather than as established fact), but it may also be irresponsible and
> unethical.
In the case at hand, one of the articles posted here said that the priest in
question (Father Katinas? not sure I have the spelling correct) has
confessed to the crimes he has been accused of.
While a great deal of fuss has been made over the possibility of ruining an
innocent person's reputation, no proof has been presented that such a thing
has actually happened. Yet there is ample proof that the coverup of child
sexual abuse by clergy has allowed perpetrators to move from one location to
another (as in the case of the priest in question) and victimize more
children.
This is unpleasantly reminiscent of the attitude that used to prevail about
accusations of rape. It used to be that charging someone with rape required
extraordinary levels of proof because it was thought that a vengeful woman
could ruin a man's life with a false accusation. It is true that false
allegations have been made but the FBI study revealed that false allegations
of rape occur no more frequently than false accusations of any other sort of
crime but that rape was the most under-reported crime involving violence.
M. Shirley Chong
Olympiada
further. My mind is occupied with the honor killings in Iran and Iraq
where a woman who is raped is killed to protect the honor of the family
or a woman who loses her virginity is killed for the same reason. In
fact I got an article from the feminist group about a German judge
ruling a Muslim woman can not divorced her abusive husband. I was
thinking about posting it here, I think I will to see your commentary.
I am sorry for dismissing your rape case. It is hard for me to admit I
was statutorily raped because it was a consensual relationship, but
that's what it was according to the California courts. There are other
things I could write about what I won't. Needless to say virginity is
definitely still a commodity in today's world, especially in the Church.
It is hard to believe this is the 21st century.
Anyways, I was discussing this with a Catholic friend and he said
Catholic bishops move pedophiles around as a solution to the problem and
that's not the solution, of course. I find all this stuff shocking. As I
stated, that's never been an issue in my community.
I like what you said about vengeful woman, there is a lot that could be
said about that. Unfortunately when it comes to relationships, its up to
the woman to maintain boundaries, and if she allows passion to happen,
rejection is often the result, for if a man will entangle himself in one
passionate union, it is quite likely he will entangle himself in another
when he gets bored with the first and another and another and another,
and maybe even more than one at the same time. There is no respect in
those kind of relationships.
Olympiada
M Shirley Chong
> This is a very interesting subject and one I would like to study further.
> My mind is occupied with the honor killings in Iran and Iraq where a woman
> who is raped is killed to protect the honor of the family or a woman who
> loses her virginity is killed for the same reason. In fact I got an
> article from the feminist group about a German judge ruling a Muslim woman
> can not divorced her abusive husband. I was thinking about posting it
> here, I think I will to see your commentary.
Such things are terrible but I have to warn you--I am a cultural relativist.
I don't feel I can look into someone else's culture and condemn it because I
don't completely understand the context. Someone from Iraq or Iran could
justifiably look at my culture and see plenty that seems horrifying to them
(like,. say, invading a whole countryin order to look for non-exustant
weapons of mass destruction).
> I am sorry for dismissing your rape case. It is hard for me to admit I was
> statutorily raped because it was a consensual relationship, but that's
> what it was according to the California courts.
I was also involved in a relationsship that would be legally classified as
statutory rape. When I got involved with B (who was 44 at the time) I was
only 17 myself. It was completely consensual and more than 30 years after
the fact I look back on that relationship and feel that nothing but good
came out of it.
So I had both extremes; what happened when I was 12 was horrible and
damaging, what happened when I was 17 was terrific and (I believe) healing.
I certainly felt a lot better about older men after I started my affair with
B.
> Needless to say virginity is definitely still a commodity in today's
> world, especially in the Church. It is hard to believe this is the 21st
> century.
I agree that virginity is highly valued; I don't think it's a good thing. At
least, it's not a good thing that other people value a woman's virginity
(often more than she values it herself)--it's none of their darn business! I
think the world would be a lot better off if all of us kept our judgments
out of each other's bedrooms.
> Anyways, I was discussing this with a Catholic friend and he said Catholic
> bishops move pedophiles around as a solution to the problem and that's not
> the solution, of course. I find all this stuff shocking. As I stated,
> that's never been an issue in my community.
Well, if you read all the articles on the Pokrov site (which easily number
in the hundreds) you will learn that it most certainly has happened in the
Orthodox church. One instance that I could hardly believe was a an who had
multiple convictions for child sexual abuse being offered a place at an
Orthodox monastery that runs a school for children. To characterize this as
simply unwise does it an injustice--that was a criminally insane offer.
The biggest problem in dealing with crimes against children is that children
make very good victims from a predator's point of view. Young children are
often unable to adequately verbalize what happened to them (if they are able
to talk at all); older children are still so young and naive that they are
easily influenced by adult opinions.
Children often take on the blame for the actions of others, even when an
adult cannot see any logical cause. For instance,I read a heartbreaking
story about a man who joined the army and then died in Iraq. Part of the
reason he joined the army was because he felt he was responsible for the
death of his brother. His brother died in a car crash at two years old when
the older brother was only four years old and not even present in the car
during the crash! It seems completely illogical to adults but that's how
children think. Predators take as much advantage of this as they can.
Predators take advantage of secrecy to continue their predation.
Secrecy also sends out a powerful message of shame and children are very
sensitive to such messages (as are older people). Too often, the victims of
predators have been treated as though they were the wongdoers because they
were the ones who brought an unwelcome message into the light. Melanie
Sakuda (I hope I spelled that right!) and her familiy were treated in just
this way and the treatment apparently continues.
How can anyone be offered healing if they're also being shunned and looked
down on for telling the truth about the nature of their injury?
> I like what you said about vengeful woman, there is a lot that could be
> said about that.
I think due regard needs to be given to that possibility but no more than
the regard one would giuve the reporter of a burglary or any other crime.
Sure, some people report a burglary and claims items they never really owned
were taken... rarely. The overwhelming majority of the time, people who
report burglaries really have lost property. Many studies show that the same
is true of allegations involving sexual abuse. A very tiny percentage of
victims lie but the overwhelming majority tell the truth.
> Unfortunately when it comes to relationships, its up to the woman to
> maintain boundaries, and if she allows passion to happen, rejection is
> often the result, for if a man will entangle himself in one passionate
> union, it is quite likely he will entangle himself in another when he gets
> bored with the first and another and another and another, and maybe even
> more than one at the same time. There is no respect in those kind of
> relationships.
Well, I think it depends on the nature of the people involved. I have no
reason to think that my husband, who I love passionately, cheats or is in
any way tempted to cheat on me. As we're together close to 24/7, I'm in a
position to know.
The great trick is in being able to tell the difference between a passionate
love that will wilt and die once the initial rush is over and a passionate
love that will continue to grow and depend. Better minds than mine have
tried to predict the difference; all I know is that I have been lucky enough
to find it.
M. Shirley Chong
Olympiada
> Olympiada wrote:
>
>> This is a very interesting subject and one I would like to study further.
>> My mind is occupied with the honor killings in Iran and Iraq where a woman
>> who is raped is killed to protect the honor of the family or a woman who
>> loses her virginity is killed for the same reason. In fact I got an
>> article from the feminist group about a German judge ruling a Muslim woman
>> can not divorced her abusive husband. I was thinking about posting it
>> here, I think I will to see your commentary.
>
> Such things are terrible but I have to warn you--I am a cultural relativist.
> I don't feel I can look into someone else's culture and condemn it because I
> don't completely understand the context. Someone from Iraq or Iran could
> justifiably look at my culture and see plenty that seems horrifying to them
> (like,. say, invading a whole countryin order to look for non-exustant
> weapons of mass destruction).
>
from my writing. I meditated on posting that article before I did so, so
you can see I was conflicted as well.
>> I am sorry for dismissing your rape case. It is hard for me to admit I was
>> statutorily raped because it was a consensual relationship, but that's
>> what it was according to the California courts.
>
> I was also involved in a relationsship that would be legally classified as
> statutory rape. When I got involved with B (who was 44 at the time) I was
> only 17 myself. It was completely consensual and more than 30 years after
> the fact I look back on that relationship and feel that nothing but good
> came out of it.
>
> So I had both extremes; what happened when I was 12 was horrible and
> damaging, what happened when I was 17 was terrific and (I believe) healing.
> I certainly felt a lot better about older men after I started my affair with
> B.
>
I was 17. He wanted me to live with him or marry him when I was 17 but I
rejected him. Today I have learned that I am a "Born Again Virgin" from
a sober alcoholic. That makes me weep. Why this? Why now? Oh well, that
is the way it goes. After two years of celibacy, a born again virgin.
Praise God.
>> Needless to say virginity is definitely still a commodity in today's
>> world, especially in the Church. It is hard to believe this is the 21st
>> century.
>
> I agree that virginity is highly valued; I don't think it's a good thing. At
> least, it's not a good thing that other people value a woman's virginity
> (often more than she values it herself)--it's none of their darn business! I
> think the world would be a lot better off if all of us kept our judgments
> out of each other's bedrooms.
>
geisha world, one's virginity goes to the highest bidder. I have a very
artificial view of sexuality. I was dressed up as a flapper in the fifth
grade and that set me out on path to entertain men. I have grown wiser
as I have grown older, although not much as changed in some ways.
>> Anyways, I was discussing this with a Catholic friend and he said Catholic
>> bishops move pedophiles around as a solution to the problem and that's not
>> the solution, of course. I find all this stuff shocking. As I stated,
>> that's never been an issue in my community.
>
> Well, if you read all the articles on the Pokrov site (which easily number
> in the hundreds) you will learn that it most certainly has happened in the
> Orthodox church. One instance that I could hardly believe was a an who had
> multiple convictions for child sexual abuse being offered a place at an
> Orthodox monastery that runs a school for children. To characterize this as
> simply unwise does it an injustice--that was a criminally insane offer.
>
elsewhere. My best man is named Christopher Keating and he got violent
with a pedophile in New Mexico and made it into the papers, and the
Pokrov site.
> The biggest problem in dealing with crimes against children is that children
> make very good victims from a predator's point of view. Young children are
> often unable to adequately verbalize what happened to them (if they are able
> to talk at all); older children are still so young and naive that they are
> easily influenced by adult opinions.
>
> Children often take on the blame for the actions of others, even when an
> adult cannot see any logical cause. For instance,I read a heartbreaking
> story about a man who joined the army and then died in Iraq. Part of the
> reason he joined the army was because he felt he was responsible for the
> death of his brother. His brother died in a car crash at two years old when
> the older brother was only four years old and not even present in the car
> during the crash! It seems completely illogical to adults but that's how
> children think. Predators take as much advantage of this as they can.
>
to this day, and my mother encouraged this feeling in me. It damaged me
and my relationships with her and him.
> Predators take advantage of secrecy to continue their predation.
>
lovers, passion. Is this just an extension of the same thing? What of
courtesans? Perhaps being predated upon as a child sets one up for this
sort of life, to view sex as a commercial transaction. Mae West was said
to enjoy sex for power and revenge. Is this a perversion of sexuality?
Perhaps. What of Rodin preying upon Camille Claudel?
> Secrecy also sends out a powerful message of shame and children are very
> sensitive to such messages (as are older people). Too often, the victims of
> predators have been treated as though they were the wongdoers because they
> were the ones who brought an unwelcome message into the light. Melanie
> Sakuda (I hope I spelled that right!) and her familiy were treated in just
> this way and the treatment apparently continues.
>
although we have Japanese clergy. I know Melanie off list. I have heard
that the allegations were never proved and I asked Melanie about this
and she never answered. I am in the unfortunate position of knowing both
sides of the story and loving people on both sides of the story. She
sued the diocese. She used to be a member.
> How can anyone be offered healing if they're also being shunned and looked
> down on for telling the truth about the nature of their injury?
>
>> I like what you said about vengeful woman, there is a lot that could be
>> said about that.
>
> I think due regard needs to be given to that possibility but no more than
> the regard one would giuve the reporter of a burglary or any other crime.
> Sure, some people report a burglary and claims items they never really owned
> were taken... rarely. The overwhelming majority of the time, people who
> report burglaries really have lost property. Many studies show that the same
> is true of allegations involving sexual abuse. A very tiny percentage of
> victims lie but the overwhelming majority tell the truth.
>
Well perhaps the challenge for a Christian woman lies in forgiveness.
Yes, one must contact the police and the chaplain and the priest when
necessary, but one must also pray for the welfare of one's abuser. That
is the Christian way. There is no other way for a Christian.
>> Unfortunately when it comes to relationships, its up to the woman to
>> maintain boundaries, and if she allows passion to happen, rejection is
>> often the result, for if a man will entangle himself in one passionate
>> union, it is quite likely he will entangle himself in another when he gets
>> bored with the first and another and another and another, and maybe even
>> more than one at the same time. There is no respect in those kind of
>> relationships.
>
> Well, I think it depends on the nature of the people involved. I have no
> reason to think that my husband, who I love passionately, cheats or is in
> any way tempted to cheat on me. As we're together close to 24/7, I'm in a
> position to know.
>
> The great trick is in being able to tell the difference between a passionate
> love that will wilt and die once the initial rush is over and a passionate
> love that will continue to grow and depend. Better minds than mine have
> tried to predict the difference; all I know is that I have been lucky enough
> to find it.
>
> M. Shirley Chong
>
>
I am glad you have a trustworthy and honest husband. I would say that is
what I long for but there are trustworthy and honest single and divorced
men available to me and I don't want them. I don't know what it is that
I am seeking. All I know is I don't trust a man who loves me and leaves
me, I think too easy for him to do that with another. One should not
allow oneself to go from person to person like a bee gathering pollen.
One's pollen is precious and should be kept for one's king. One must be
intellectually and emotionally guarded and celibate, too easy for mental
intimacy, intellectual intimacy to burn a path to one's heart and one's
sexuality. The mind is the biggest sex organ. And smart men know exactly
where to aim their sexuality to get into a woman's heart and erotic
nature. It is true as someone told me, one must guard the mind at all
times with unceasing prayer least one fall prey to the Devil. Especially
on Usenet which is rife with sexual predators.
Olympiada
Troia
> "leushino" <leushin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:m7fXh.511$DZ3...@newsfe02.lga...
>> MJS wrote:
>>> Submitted by Melanie Jula Sakoda
>>>
>>> http://orthodoxreform.org/cases/fr-nicholas-katinas/dean-siotos-wfaa-report/
>>>
>>> Channel 8 News: Church Leader Sacked After Speaking Out Over Suspended
>>> Priest
>>>
>>> April 21, 2007
>>>
>>> On April 21st, WFAA featured the following news story on the Friday
>>> Ten O'Clock news broadcast in Dallas (view the video broadcast
>>> online):
>> He says... big deal. Means nothing unless it can be proven. Do you even
>> understand the niceties of the law, MJS?
>
>
> ***MJS didn't write the article. Another instance of shooting the messenger
> for something another person wrote. Geesh!
It certainly appears that she did, from this:
>>> Submitted by Melanie Jula Sakoda
>>>
>>> http://orthodoxreform.org/cases/fr-nicholas-katinas/dean-siotos-wfaa-report/
If she did not write it, who did and why did she put it that way?
It clearly is not taken from the TV station's site but is written up by
-someone- associated with "orthodoxreform.org" and it does not seem
unusual to assume that she wrote it, given the "Submitted by" (not
normal for a Usenet post but more appropriate to a website-based
reporting of this sort.)
And it appears that, if she did write it, much of the objection is on
that basis, but also it does present opinion as fact, though most of her
posts seem to be less a presentation of perspective and more direct
reportage.
-- Troia
++
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>excessively quoted text off topic with the subject line topic followed by
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>irrelevant ad hominem attack
>
>
>
>
M Shirley Chong
> I know, I remember. I contacted the man that I gave my self away to when I
> was 17. He wanted me to live with him or marry him when I was 17 but I
> rejected him. Today I have learned that I am a "Born Again Virgin" from a
> sober alcoholic. That makes me weep. Why this? Why now? Oh well, that is
> the way it goes. After two years of celibacy, a born again virgin. Praise
> God.
A "Born Again Virgin"? I'm not sure I understand how that can happen.
I mean, I'm married! But after I was hospitalized for three months with
necrotizing fasciitis I lost all sexual desire for about a year while my
body worked on healing--I just didn't have the energy to do much besides
heal up the open wounds. While I was in the hospital I met a man who had
also had nec/fasc and had lost nearly all the flesh on his leg from the hip
down; he'd been hospitalized for over 14 months. If my case had been as
severe as his, I can easily imagine not having sex for two years. Would that
mean I would then be a virgin?
My mind boggles.
My mind also boggles at the thought of staying in that hospital for 14
months. The cooks there didn't know there was any other sort of lettuce than
iceberg! After I finally got home, I ate salad three times a day for about
five months before my green, leafy veggie craving subsided.
And they didn't have anything on the menu that required soy sauce. I think
I'm still behind on my lifetime requirement for soy sauce (I think it's a
food group).
> Well I value virginity, I do think it is a high commodity, and in the
> geisha world, one's virginity goes to the highest bidder.
I see nothing wrong with valuing one's *own*virginity. I just think it's not
a good thing for someone to change their view of another based on their
virginity or lack thereof; it certainly seems wrong to me to treat anyone
differently in most matters based on their virginity or lack thereof.
And why the heck anyone wonders about the virginity or lack thereof of a
woman they are not planning to be intimately involved with is just something
I may never understand. Don't they have anything better to do with their
imagination?
> I have a very artificial view of sexuality. I was dressed up as a flapper
> in the fifth grade and that set me out on path to entertain men. I have
> grown wiser as I have grown older, although not much as changed in some
> ways.
I think most women are exposed to this attitude in this culture. Then they
go through menopause they they just don't give a darn anymore! Not every
woman but lots of them. I figure that since I've been waiting to go through
menopause since approximately five minutes after I had my first period, I
must have gotten a headstart on not giving a darn. I used to care but each
year sees me caring less about it.
Let men entertain me! And so long as most politicians are male, I suspect I
will rarely lack for entertainment. <snort>
I wrote:
>> Children often take on the blame for the actions of others, even when an
>> adult cannot see any logical cause. For instance,I read a heartbreaking
>> story about a man who joined the army and then died in Iraq. Part of the
>> reason he joined the army was because he felt he was responsible for the
>> death of his brother. His brother died in a car crash at two years old
>> when the older brother was only four years old and not even present in
>> the car during the crash! It seems completely illogical to adults but
>> that's how children think. Predators take as much advantage of this as
>> they can.
Olympiada wrote:
> Yes, I know, I still feel responsible for my younger brother's blindness
> to this day, and my mother encouraged this feeling in me. It damaged me
> and my relationships with her and him.
I suspect your mother was doing the best she could with what she had at the
time. Today is not too late to decide that you aren't going to buy into
those childhood messages any longer and start freeing yourself of that
injury.
I wrote:
>> Predators take advantage of secrecy to continue their predation.
Olympiada wrote:
> Ah, but what about secretive love affairs, paramours, concubines, lovers,
> passion. Is this just an extension of the same thing?
Perhaps. I suspect it depends on the people involved. Is there sexual
misconduct involved? I tend to think that the answer is probably yes if one
feels compelled to keep the fact of the relationship a secret.
> Perhaps being predated upon as a child sets one up for this sort of life,
> to view sex as a commercial transaction.
It does seem to for many survivors of child sexual abuse. As an adult, it's
important to assess one's self and make decisions about the way one wants to
be. Does viewing sex as a commercial transaction hurt one or help one? Does
it leave one feeling bitter or feeling joyful? Does it lead one into doing
good things or harmful things?
No one gets to pick their own parents or for the most part, the sort of
childhood they have but once one is an adult, ti's time to be independent
and decide whether to accept or reject the teachings of childhood. If one
decides to accept a teaching from childhood, then the results of that choice
are the responsibility of that adult.
> Mae West was said to enjoy sex for power and revenge. Is this a perversion
> of sexuality?
I would say yes; that sounds like a clear example of sexual misconduct,
particularly the part about revenge.
> What of Rodin preying upon Camille Claudel?
Difficult to say, I think.She suffered from her affair with him and his
other love also suffered. On the other hand, she saw him regularly for more
than ten years after she broke off the sexual part of their affair, so she
clearly didn't view him as completely awful. Without being able to talk to
both people, it's really impossible to know.
> Sakoda, she is Greek and not Japanese, she comes from a clergy family,
> although we have Japanese clergy. I know Melanie off list. I have heard
> that the allegations were never proved and I asked Melanie about this and
> she never answered.
As I understand it, there were at least three clear indications: the
testimony of her children, the testimony of another adult who saw the man
doing something borderline inappropriate to one of her children (but did not
speak up until later) and the fact that the man was convicted of child
sexual abuse in connection to acts he committed in the same time period.
Considering that it is thought that pedophiles typically have from 34 (the
low estimate) to close to 300 (the high estimate) victims by the time they
are caught, it seems to me to be quite likely.
Just because the district attorney chose to go with the victim they felt was
most likely to result in a conviction doesn't mean that the man was innocent
in all other cases. District attornies don't have unlimited funds to use to
pursue every possible case, they have to choose which cases are most likely
to result in convictions.
Apparently it was likely enough that the OCA chose to make a hefty financial
settlement rather than risk the case going to trial. Considering that one of
the children was less than three years old when victimized, I think the OCA
was correct in thinking that a judgment would be far higher. Especially when
you consider that this man was known to be a convicted pedophile by the man
who introduced him into the church.
> Well perhaps the challenge for a Christian woman lies in forgiveness. Yes,
> one must contact the police and the chaplain and the priest when
> necessary, but one must also pray for the welfare of one's abuser. That is
> the Christian way. There is no other way for a Christian.
Or for a Buddhist. Extending love, wisdom and compassion does not mean only
to people one approves of, it means to all people as they are. To all life,
actually, which also includes plants and even bacteria.
> I am glad you have a trustworthy and honest husband. I would say that is
> what I long for but there are trustworthy and honest single and divorced
> men available to me and I don't want them. I don't know what it is that I
> am seeking.
Frankly, it seems to me that you are rather afraid of intimate relationships
right now. I think this may tend to bias your view of people, both as how
they relate to you and as to how they relate to each other.
To use an analogy, I am afraid of spiders indoors. I'm not afraid of spiders
outdoors, just indoors. I have no idea why this is, I just know it is so.
This fear of spiders affects me in many ways and not just when I see an
actual spider. If I see a bit of fluff, I'm likely to jump back because I
fear it might be a spider. Since I have two dogs and four cats, there is
plenty of fluff flying around so I spend a lot of time in a state of alert,
peering suspiciously at things because I'm afraid it might be a spider.
If I feel a sort of tickling/sliding sensation, I jump because it might be a
strand of spider web. It almost always turns out to be a hair, of course,
one of my own or belonging to an animal.
Whenever vacuuming, all the corners and the top of the walls also has to be
vacuumed. I don't care if I can't see any webs or spiders, it just doesn't
feel done if it isn't done. And if it hasn't been done in a few days I start
to feel twitchy about it.
I always make my husband go into rooms first if I can so that if there is a
web across the doorway he's the one that will break it.
I once killed a laptop when a spider suddenly scuttled across the keyboard.
I screamed and threw the keyboard away from me. Unfortunately the keyboard
was attached to the rest of the computer.
I realize logically that I'm ridiculous about spiders and particularly about
the indoors thing. If I go outside to enjoy the day while computing (laptop
and wireless router), I don't mind if a spider gets on my computer. I
realize that my reactions to spiders are way, way over the top.
But all that knowledge doesn't make me less afraid and doesn't stop me from
looking suspiciously at the next hairball on the floor.
How do I think this applies to you? My theory is that you see sexual
interest where there is none because you're afraid of it, in just the way I
see spiders in every bit of cat or dog fluff. I think you see sexual
interest between others where there is none because you are so hyper-alert
to the possibility. And I think that since no one else is seeing things in
that way, that you sometimes make mistakes about other people's motives and
feelings.
M. Shirley "NO SPIDERS!!!" Chong
Olympiada
My mom worked as a dietitian in the hospital when I was a teenager. We
never had iceberg lettuce in the house.
>> Well I value virginity, I do think it is a high commodity, and in the
>> geisha world, one's virginity goes to the highest bidder.
>
> I see nothing wrong with valuing one's *own*virginity. I just think it's not
> a good thing for someone to change their view of another based on their
> virginity or lack thereof; it certainly seems wrong to me to treat anyone
> differently in most matters based on their virginity or lack thereof.
>
> And why the heck anyone wonders about the virginity or lack thereof of a
> woman they are not planning to be intimately involved with is just something
> I may never understand. Don't they have anything better to do with their
> imagination?
>
Well you have to remember that I look at the world through Christian
clerical standards, the canons, perfection. Like a priest is not
supposed to have a divorced wife, however if she was not married in the
Church, that can be worked around.
>> I have a very artificial view of sexuality. I was dressed up as a flapper
>> in the fifth grade and that set me out on path to entertain men. I have
>> grown wiser as I have grown older, although not much as changed in some
>> ways.
>
> I think most women are exposed to this attitude in this culture. Then they
> go through menopause they they just don't give a darn anymore! Not every
> woman but lots of them. I figure that since I've been waiting to go through
> menopause since approximately five minutes after I had my first period, I
> must have gotten a headstart on not giving a darn. I used to care but each
> year sees me caring less about it.
>
> Let men entertain me! And so long as most politicians are male, I suspect I
> will rarely lack for entertainment. <snort>
>
LOL! You are funny tonight. You know sometimes I find myself longing for
gray hair and not caring what men think of me, but then again I know
some very vain gray haired women.
> I wrote:
>
>>> Children often take on the blame for the actions of others, even when an
>>> adult cannot see any logical cause. For instance,I read a heartbreaking
>>> story about a man who joined the army and then died in Iraq. Part of the
>>> reason he joined the army was because he felt he was responsible for the
>>> death of his brother. His brother died in a car crash at two years old
>>> when the older brother was only four years old and not even present in
>>> the car during the crash! It seems completely illogical to adults but
>>> that's how children think. Predators take as much advantage of this as
>>> they can.
>
> Olympiada wrote:
>
>> Yes, I know, I still feel responsible for my younger brother's blindness
>> to this day, and my mother encouraged this feeling in me. It damaged me
>> and my relationships with her and him.
>
> I suspect your mother was doing the best she could with what she had at the
> time. Today is not too late to decide that you aren't going to buy into
> those childhood messages any longer and start freeing yourself of that
> injury.
>
Oh I don't hold it against my mother, I just know my relationship with
my brother is *sour*. And I feel guilt at having the gift of visual art
while my brother is visually impaired. I got it from my mom.
> I wrote:
>
>>> Predators take advantage of secrecy to continue their predation.
>
> Olympiada wrote:
>
>> Ah, but what about secretive love affairs, paramours, concubines, lovers,
>> passion. Is this just an extension of the same thing?
>
> Perhaps. I suspect it depends on the people involved. Is there sexual
> misconduct involved? I tend to think that the answer is probably yes if one
> feels compelled to keep the fact of the relationship a secret.
>
! There you go. I have been wracking my brain on that one. Secretive
love affairs, paramours, concubines, lovers, prostitutes, whores, and
are all sexual misconduct. So can one have a discreet love affair,
paramour, concubine, lover or geisha and escape the sexual misconduct
label? I can't believe I am having this conversation on the stage of
Eastern Orthodoxy. It seems obscene, and quite entertaining. If you can
figure out the secret or trick to having a discreet love affair and not
a secret love affair, let me know. I am glad you are up on sexual
misconduct. That means I can relax in your presence. Those good old
Buddhist morals. My dad was a libertine, I didn't grow up with sexual
morals it seems. Its complicated. What exactly was the role of a
flapper? I am going to have to look that one up.
I think I am trying to find some way around this "sexual misconduct"
label and in Buddhism and Christianity alike there is no way around it.
>> Perhaps being predated upon as a child sets one up for this sort of life,
>> to view sex as a commercial transaction.
>
> It does seem to for many survivors of child sexual abuse. As an adult, it's
> important to assess one's self and make decisions about the way one wants to
> be. Does viewing sex as a commercial transaction hurt one or help one? Does
> it leave one feeling bitter or feeling joyful? Does it lead one into doing
> good things or harmful things?
>
> No one gets to pick their own parents or for the most part, the sort of
> childhood they have but once one is an adult, ti's time to be independent
> and decide whether to accept or reject the teachings of childhood. If one
> decides to accept a teaching from childhood, then the results of that choice
> are the responsibility of that adult.
>
Well I have been told that I have a bitter perspective. I tend to
subscribe to the feminist perspective that marriage is prostitution.
There is a book about power being the greatest aphrodisiac. I want to
read it. Those kind of relationships, the femme fatale, put the woman in
control of the relationship. Not good. Not with the geisha, the man is
in control. That's better.
>> Mae West was said to enjoy sex for power and revenge. Is this a perversion
>> of sexuality?
>
> I would say yes; that sounds like a clear example of sexual misconduct,
> particularly the part about revenge.
>
Well I checked out not one but three biographies on her from the public
library, I am reading "Mae West: An Icon in Black and White" along with
"Memoirs of a Geisha". Mae West was outlandish and censored and quite
focused on sexuality. I have always been fascinated with bombshells as
well, the bombshell's manual of style is another one of my favorite
books, unfortunately I don't own it.
>> What of Rodin preying upon Camille Claudel?
>
> Difficult to say, I think.She suffered from her affair with him and his
> other love also suffered. On the other hand, she saw him regularly for more
> than ten years after she broke off the sexual part of their affair, so she
> clearly didn't view him as completely awful. Without being able to talk to
> both people, it's really impossible to know.
>
I read about her in this book I have called "Meeting the Madwoman" She
was both muse and rejected lover. AWFUL combination. She got impregnated
by him. I saw her film a while back and that made a very deep impression
on me.
>> Sakoda, she is Greek and not Japanese, she comes from a clergy family,
>> although we have Japanese clergy. I know Melanie off list. I have heard
>> that the allegations were never proved and I asked Melanie about this and
>> she never answered.
>
> As I understand it, there were at least three clear indications: the
> testimony of her children, the testimony of another adult who saw the man
> doing something borderline inappropriate to one of her children (but did not
> speak up until later) and the fact that the man was convicted of child
> sexual abuse in connection to acts he committed in the same time period.
> Considering that it is thought that pedophiles typically have from 34 (the
> low estimate) to close to 300 (the high estimate) victims by the time they
> are caught, it seems to me to be quite likely.
>
> Just because the district attorney chose to go with the victim they felt was
> most likely to result in a conviction doesn't mean that the man was innocent
> in all other cases. District attornies don't have unlimited funds to use to
> pursue every possible case, they have to choose which cases are most likely
> to result in convictions.
>
> Apparently it was likely enough that the OCA chose to make a hefty financial
> settlement rather than risk the case going to trial. Considering that one of
> the children was less than three years old when victimized, I think the OCA
> was correct in thinking that a judgment would be far higher. Especially when
> you consider that this man was known to be a convicted pedophile by the man
> who introduced him into the church.
>
I didn't know all that. I was shocked to find out what had happened. I
didn't know churches got involved in lawsuits. I am new to the church
and all this "stuff".
>> Well perhaps the challenge for a Christian woman lies in forgiveness. Yes,
>> one must contact the police and the chaplain and the priest when
>> necessary, but one must also pray for the welfare of one's abuser. That is
>> the Christian way. There is no other way for a Christian.
>
> Or for a Buddhist. Extending love, wisdom and compassion does not mean only
> to people one approves of, it means to all people as they are. To all life,
> actually, which also includes plants and even bacteria.
>
>> I am glad you have a trustworthy and honest husband. I would say that is
>> what I long for but there are trustworthy and honest single and divorced
>> men available to me and I don't want them. I don't know what it is that I
>> am seeking.
>
> Frankly, it seems to me that you are rather afraid of intimate relationships
> right now. I think this may tend to bias your view of people, both as how
> they relate to you and as to how they relate to each other.
>
Actually there is no one I am interested in having an intimate
relationship with in my life. And I do have a very romantic temperament,
so that is how I see things.
Sexual is part of erotic. I am very attuned to the erotic and always
have been. I wish I weren't but I know I am not the only one who notices
those sorts of things. I can't stand public displays of affection by the
way. At any rate, I have not started to write about my erotic
observations. Maybe I should. I appreciate your honesty. Its refreshing.
I admire the fact you use your real name, I love it, Meesoon is
beautiful. You do set a high standard and that's good.
Olympiada
> M. Shirley "NO SPIDERS!!!" Chong
>
>
I actually like spiders, I saw a red bellied spider when I went to pick
my daughter up from school today. And I like that song Lullaby by the
Cure too. Then there are black widows.
My editor and my critics are going to have a field day with our
conversation. I feel quite nervous about continuing it but you know
what? I was trained in the performance arts and every performance is
forever, the audience will always remember it. The same could be said of
the divine services, which could be said to be the performances of the
clergy, even in their own words, many times. All the world's a stage.
Olympiada
M Shirley Chong
> My mom worked as a dietitian in the hospital when I was a teenager. We
> never had iceberg lettuce in the house.
If she ever decides to move to Iowa, there's a hospital in dire need of her
services.
> LOL! You are funny tonight. You know sometimes I find myself longing for
> gray hair and not caring what men think of me, but then again I know some
> very vain gray haired women.
Maybe that's the secret--I started getting grey hairs when I was 12 years
old. When I showed my mother, she said that her grandmother was completely
grey by the age of 20. Somehow I did not find this comforting. <LOL>
> ! There you go. I have been wracking my brain on that one. Secretive love
> affairs, paramours, concubines, lovers, prostitutes, whores, and are all
> sexual misconduct.
Not necessarily. There are very few actions one can take in the world that
are completely good. So, a secretive affair? Depends on why the secret,
which granted does usually indicate some sort of misconduct. A paramour or
lover? Not necessarily sexual misconduct, it depends on the two people
involved. A prostitute? Depends on whether the prostitution is hurting
anyone else. Concubines? Again, depends on if some harm is being done. And
so on.
> So can one have a discreet love affair, paramour, concubine, lover or
> geisha and escape the sexual misconduct label?
Certainly. There is no requirement in Buddhism that two people be married or
even intend to permanently commit their lives to one another for affair to
not qualify as sexual misconduct. Both parties involved have to make an
honest assessment of both themselves and their lives in order to decide
whether an affair would be sexual misconduct or not.
> If you can figure out the secret or trick to having a discreet love affair
> and not a secret love affair, let me know.
Well, I've done it on more than one occasion. My first affair with a man, B,
was such an affair. He had no other attachments. I had no other attachments.
The affair had to be discreet because it was illegal due to my age but who
were we hurting? No one. A great good came out of that affair for me and I
hope he felt the same way.
In practical terms, if one wants to be discreet, the first thing is not to
talk about it to anyone who does not need to know. Don't offer explanations
or excuses, such as when one is going out to meet that lover. Just say "I'm
going out." If asked with whom, give as little information as is required by
the person asking. Since I can honestly say I've been friends with every
lover I've ever had, I could always honestly say "a friend." Don't do daft
things like doodle names on bits of paper, be ostentatiously secretive or
anything like that. Treat the subject of the lover in much the same way
you'd treat some other intimate, private fact, like having a period.
Everyone knows normal women have periods but it's neither necessary nor
desirable to reveal having that period with most other people.
> I think I am trying to find some way around this "sexual misconduct" label
> and in Buddhism and Christianity alike there is no way around it.
I think that in life there is no way around it. Most people's lives are
touched by sex in some way. Dealing with it in an ethical way is necessary
no matter what one believes.
> Well I have been told that I have a bitter perspective. I tend to
> subscribe to the feminist perspective that marriage is prostitution.
If so, then I owe my husband a lot of "services"! <G>
Needless to say, I don't view marriage in that light. I didn't marry my
husband for his ability to perform sexually and I don't think he married me
for that reason either. Sex is something that we can share, that brings both
of us pleasure. It's an equal exchange of like for like, rather than an
exchange of services for something else (money, status, etc).
Some marriages do end up being a form of prostitution and that would likely
be a form of sexual misconduct!
> I didn't know all that. I was shocked to find out what had happened. I
> didn't know churches got involved in lawsuits. I am new to the church and
> all this "stuff".
Well, in the USA the remedy for a wrong is usually made via money. This may
seem crass but it's quite civilized, I think. Perhaps it's less satisfying
than Beatrice snarling "Were I a man I would cut his heart out in the
marketplace and eat it!" but it does leave both parties with all body parts
intact.
>>
> Sexual is part of erotic. I am very attuned to the erotic and always have
> been. I wish I weren't but I know I am not the only one who notices those
> sorts of things. I can't stand public displays of affection by the way.
Any display of affection, such as holding hands? Does it matter if you know
what the relationship between the two people is?
M. Shirley Chong
OrthoNews
"++" <sp...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:f_qdnTrUQsJVRrPb...@rcn.net...
Olympiada
> Olympiada wrote:
>
>> My mom worked as a dietitian in the hospital when I was a teenager. We
>> never had iceberg lettuce in the house.
>
> If she ever decides to move to Iowa, there's a hospital in dire need of her
> services.
>
teacher, she got her credential for that as well.
>> LOL! You are funny tonight. You know sometimes I find myself longing for
>> gray hair and not caring what men think of me, but then again I know some
>> very vain gray haired women.
>
> Maybe that's the secret--I started getting grey hairs when I was 12 years
> old. When I showed my mother, she said that her grandmother was completely
> grey by the age of 20. Somehow I did not find this comforting. <LOL>
>
>> ! There you go. I have been wracking my brain on that one. Secretive love
>> affairs, paramours, concubines, lovers, prostitutes, whores, and are all
>> sexual misconduct.
>
> Not necessarily. There are very few actions one can take in the world that
> are completely good. So, a secretive affair? Depends on why the secret,
> which granted does usually indicate some sort of misconduct. A paramour or
> lover? Not necessarily sexual misconduct, it depends on the two people
> involved. A prostitute? Depends on whether the prostitution is hurting
> anyone else. Concubines? Again, depends on if some harm is being done. And
> so on.
>
You are right secret equals misconduct which is wrong. There is this
goth model "Little Miss Conduct" on +deV's site. That names sticks in my
head.
>> So can one have a discreet love affair, paramour, concubine, lover or
>> geisha and escape the sexual misconduct label?
>
> Certainly. There is no requirement in Buddhism that two people be married or
> even intend to permanently commit their lives to one another for affair to
> not qualify as sexual misconduct. Both parties involved have to make an
> honest assessment of both themselves and their lives in order to decide
> whether an affair would be sexual misconduct or not.
>
This is hilarious. Let's dice and splice sexual misconduct shall we? Oh
what a *good example* I am setting for the whole church! I hate having
these conversations out in public. I mean this is how I am, but in
person, its... different. More acceptable. Less shocking. Less scandalous.
>> If you can figure out the secret or trick to having a discreet love affair
>> and not a secret love affair, let me know.
>
> Well, I've done it on more than one occasion. My first affair with a man, B,
> was such an affair. He had no other attachments. I had no other attachments.
> The affair had to be discreet because it was illegal due to my age but who
> were we hurting? No one. A great good came out of that affair for me and I
> hope he felt the same way.
>
Now, what do you mean by attachments? The movie that keeps popping up
in my mind is Training Day where Denzel Washington even took one of his
co-workers? over to his girlfriend's house and she was _naked_ when she
answered the door with the two of them there. Yikes. And she had his
child. See, now that's going too far. Love affair is one thing,
concubine is another.
> In practical terms, if one wants to be discreet, the first thing is not to
> talk about it to anyone who does not need to know. Don't offer explanations
> or excuses, such as when one is going out to meet that lover. Just say "I'm
> going out." If asked with whom, give as little information as is required by
> the person asking. Since I can honestly say I've been friends with every
> lover I've ever had, I could always honestly say "a friend." Don't do daft
> things like doodle names on bits of paper, be ostentatiously secretive or
> anything like that. Treat the subject of the lover in much the same way
> you'd treat some other intimate, private fact, like having a period.
> Everyone knows normal women have periods but it's neither necessary nor
> desirable to reveal having that period with most other people.
>
LOL! Oh excellent. Yeah, good analogy, I never talk about that time of
month although I resent it when men use that to put me down "oh she must
be on the...".
>> I think I am trying to find some way around this "sexual misconduct" label
>> and in Buddhism and Christianity alike there is no way around it.
>
> I think that in life there is no way around it. Most people's lives are
> touched by sex in some way. Dealing with it in an ethical way is necessary
> no matter what one believes.
>
Yeah, I agree. The ethics of the Church, however, of course, are
different than the ethics of the world.
>> Well I have been told that I have a bitter perspective. I tend to
>> subscribe to the feminist perspective that marriage is prostitution.
>
> If so, then I owe my husband a lot of "services"! <G>
>
> Needless to say, I don't view marriage in that light. I didn't marry my
> husband for his ability to perform sexually and I don't think he married me
> for that reason either. Sex is something that we can share, that brings both
> of us pleasure. It's an equal exchange of like for like, rather than an
> exchange of services for something else (money, status, etc).
>
> Some marriages do end up being a form of prostitution and that would likely
> be a form of sexual misconduct!
>
Well you have a healthy and mature marriage, congratulations and I
really mean that. Some men marry to legalize sexual activity. I don't
think one should marry for status. That's disgusting.
>> I didn't know all that. I was shocked to find out what had happened. I
>> didn't know churches got involved in lawsuits. I am new to the church and
>> all this "stuff".
>
> Well, in the USA the remedy for a wrong is usually made via money. This may
> seem crass but it's quite civilized, I think. Perhaps it's less satisfying
> than Beatrice snarling "Were I a man I would cut his heart out in the
> marketplace and eat it!" but it does leave both parties with all body parts
> intact.
Ah, like The Merchant of Venice. I still disagree with lawsuits. I don't
like 'em, I think they are unnecessary.
>> Sexual is part of erotic. I am very attuned to the erotic and always have
>> been. I wish I weren't but I know I am not the only one who notices those
>> sorts of things. I can't stand public displays of affection by the way.
>
> Any display of affection, such as holding hands? Does it matter if you know
> what the relationship between the two people is?
>
> M. Shirley Chong
>
>
I suppose holding hands is ok, but I always admire stoicism, can't stand
mush and sentimentality. I don't like public displays of affection
because they exclude other people and make them feel bad. I think they
are insensitive. One does not need to broadcast or display one's
exclusivity, a wedding ring is enough, which is why sexual misconduct
doesn't fly: there's no guarantee of commitment and that's a surefire
recipe for pain and sorrow and suffering. Better to be alone than to
open oneself up to rejection and abandonment which is often the case
with passionate love affairs. As I stated if a man can get in one, whose
to say he couldn't get in a dozen more.
Olympiada
M Shirley Chong
> You are right secret equals misconduct which is wrong.
Not always. Buddhists are big on partiulars and not so hot on generalities.
For instance, during WW II, French families that hid Jews or helped them
escape the Nazis had to act secretly. The secrecy was because such behaviour
was illegal to the Nazis (hence would be regarded as misconduct) but a
Buddhist wouldn't just accept that argument. A Buddhist would want to know
the reasoning behind the law and the consequences both of obeying the law
and not obeying the law.
Secrets have reasons. Sometimes the reason is a good one, like keeping a
birthday present a secret until given. Sometimes the secret has a bad
reason. And sometimes a secret is the result of juggling the greaetest
amount of good while doing the least amount of harm.
I wrote:
>> Well, I've done it on more than one occasion. My first affair with a man,
>> B, was such an affair. He had no other attachments. I had no other
>> attachments. The affair had to be discreet because it was illegal due to
>> my age but who were we hurting? No one. A great good came out of that
>> affair for me and I hope he felt the same way.
Olympiada wrote:
> Now, what do you mean by attachments?
At the time the affair started B was not in a romantic relationship with
anyone else and neither was I. So there was no one who could be personally
hurt if we got involved with one another.
> The movie that keeps popping up in my mind is Training Day where Denzel
> Washington even took one of his co-workers? over to his girlfriend's house
> and she was _naked_ when she answered the door with the two of them there.
> Yikes. And she had his child. See, now that's going too far. Love affair
> is one thing, concubine is another.
Well, that's a playful notion (answering the door naked) that sometimes
backfires. Best done carefully with thought beforehand so as to avoid
backfires! I've never seen the movie but the situation is a staple in jokes.
What is the difference between having an affair and being a concubine? And
why is concubinage harmful?
I wrote:
> Treat the subject of the lover in much the same way
>> you'd treat some other intimate, private fact, like having a period.
>> Everyone knows normal women have periods but it's neither necessary nor
>> desirable to reveal having that period with most other people.
Olympiada wrote:
> LOL! Oh excellent. Yeah, good analogy, I never talk about that time of
> month although I resent it when men use that to put me down "oh she must
> be on the...".
And the timing of your period is no one's business except for your
gynecologist. So you don't feel the need to let anyone else know, even
though it's not something shameful. Every adult knows (or should) that
normal adult women menstruate but they don't need to know your particular
personal details.
> I suppose holding hands is ok, but I always admire stoicism, can't stand
> mush and sentimentality. I don't like public displays of affection because
> they exclude other people and make them feel bad. I think they are
> insensitive.
How other people feel is their business. In the USA certain displays of
affection are considered suitable for public environments, like holding
hands or hugging or kissing good bye. When such conduct is normal, then the
reaction of the beholders is the responsibility of the beholder. A
beholder's trigger is the property of the beholder and no one else is
responsible for avoiding it.
I kinda like seeing appropriate displays of affection. For instance when I
was at the hospital last week, there was an elderly couple walking down the
hall holding hands. It was so sweet to see the two of them together and
supporting each other. No one really wants to be in the hospital and to have
someone special there makes it so much more bearable. I think it was the
woman who was the patient since she was wearing a housedress sort of dress.
I hoped that whatever brought them there was minor and easily fixed. May
they have many more years to hold hands!
> One does not need to broadcast or display one's exclusivity, a wedding
> ring is enough
But the two people involved may not even be thinking of their exclusivity
but just of how much each loves the other.
I admit that I do hold hands and hug my husband in public. I can honestly
say I've never thought of it as displaying our exclusivity, it's just the
pleasure of contact with someone who means so much to me that is in my mind.
> which is why sexual misconduct doesn't fly: there's no guarantee of
> commitment and that's a surefire recipe for pain and sorrow and suffering.
Sometimes that is so and sometimes not. When I started the affair with B I
didn't imagine we'd be together forever. He was 44 and I was 17! Neither of
us thought it would be forever. He had his life, I had mine and it was
inevitable that our two lives would diverge. We parted as friends and
without undue sorrow when he decided to move to France.
I find that if I'm honest about my expectations and my partner is equally
honest, there's not much potential for pain.
> Better to be alone than to open oneself up to rejection and abandonment
> which is often the case with passionate love affairs. As I stated if a man
> can get in one, whose to say he couldn't get in a dozen more.
And many people (not just men) do that.
I remember one man I worked with long ago, in a different career. He slept
with most of the women in the agency I was working for, easily over 30 out
of the 120+ working there. Not one single woman had a bad word for him, felt
angry or hurt by him, they all had good things to say about him. He was
right upfront about the fact that he was not looking for a longterm
relationship, he was not in a position to marry (he supported his disabled
brother) and he just plain loved women. If I hadn't been married at the
time, I may well have slept with him too (he got rave reviews in that
department).
Honestly and clarity go a long way towards preventing most pain.
Shirley
Olympiada
> Olympiada wrote:
>
>> You are right secret equals misconduct which is wrong.
>
> Not always. Buddhists are big on partiulars and not so hot on generalities.
> For instance, during WW II, French families that hid Jews or helped them
> escape the Nazis had to act secretly. The secrecy was because such behaviour
> was illegal to the Nazis (hence would be regarded as misconduct) but a
> Buddhist wouldn't just accept that argument. A Buddhist would want to know
> the reasoning behind the law and the consequences both of obeying the law
> and not obeying the law.
>
> Secrets have reasons. Sometimes the reason is a good one, like keeping a
> birthday present a secret until given. Sometimes the secret has a bad
> reason. And sometimes a secret is the result of juggling the greaetest
> amount of good while doing the least amount of harm.
>
secret affair why not just label it as such and get it over with? One
can not be expected to keep a secret one does not know one is supposed
to keep. And where does friendship spill over into romance? And does
labeling something a secret make it bad? Like if I label it a secret I
can't do it but if I ignore the fact its a secret and pretend like its
all good, then its ok? I think to expect one to keep a secret without
saying "keep it secret keep it safe" is RIDICULOUS. If one wants one to
keep a secret, one needs to say so! And by the way, secrets are a part
of modesty.
> I wrote:
>
>>> Well, I've done it on more than one occasion. My first affair with a man,
>>> B, was such an affair. He had no other attachments. I had no other
>>> attachments. The affair had to be discreet because it was illegal due to
>>> my age but who were we hurting? No one. A great good came out of that
>>> affair for me and I hope he felt the same way.
>
> Olympiada wrote:
>
>> Now, what do you mean by attachments?
>
> At the time the affair started B was not in a romantic relationship with
> anyone else and neither was I. So there was no one who could be personally
> hurt if we got involved with one another.
>
profession. Guess what? This married dude tried to start an affair with
me, I said no way from the get go, and now things are going better with
his wife. Ha.
>> The movie that keeps popping up in my mind is Training Day where Denzel
>> Washington even took one of his co-workers? over to his girlfriend's house
>> and she was _naked_ when she answered the door with the two of them there.
>> Yikes. And she had his child. See, now that's going too far. Love affair
>> is one thing, concubine is another.
>
> Well, that's a playful notion (answering the door naked) that sometimes
> backfires. Best done carefully with thought beforehand so as to avoid
> backfires! I've never seen the movie but the situation is a staple in jokes.
>
not expecting him.
> What is the difference between having an affair and being a concubine? And
> why is concubinage harmful?
>
no? A child gives evidence to the affair. An affair is not Christian, so
if one is going to have an affair one should not expect a child out of
it, right?
> I wrote:
>
>> Treat the subject of the lover in much the same way
>>> you'd treat some other intimate, private fact, like having a period.
>>> Everyone knows normal women have periods but it's neither necessary nor
>>> desirable to reveal having that period with most other people.
>
> Olympiada wrote:
>
>> LOL! Oh excellent. Yeah, good analogy, I never talk about that time of
>> month although I resent it when men use that to put me down "oh she must
>> be on the...".
>
> And the timing of your period is no one's business except for your
> gynecologist. So you don't feel the need to let anyone else know, even
> though it's not something shameful. Every adult knows (or should) that
> normal adult women menstruate but they don't need to know your particular
> personal details.
>
I am on it then I will tell them "your right, I am on it, now shut up
and mind your own business".
>> I suppose holding hands is ok, but I always admire stoicism, can't stand
>> mush and sentimentality. I don't like public displays of affection because
>> they exclude other people and make them feel bad. I think they are
>> insensitive.
>
> How other people feel is their business. In the USA certain displays of
> affection are considered suitable for public environments, like holding
> hands or hugging or kissing good bye. When such conduct is normal, then the
> reaction of the beholders is the responsibility of the beholder. A
> beholder's trigger is the property of the beholder and no one else is
> responsible for avoiding it.
>
find them disgusting.
> I kinda like seeing appropriate displays of affection. For instance when I
> was at the hospital last week, there was an elderly couple walking down the
> hall holding hands. It was so sweet to see the two of them together and
> supporting each other. No one really wants to be in the hospital and to have
> someone special there makes it so much more bearable. I think it was the
> woman who was the patient since she was wearing a housedress sort of dress.
> I hoped that whatever brought them there was minor and easily fixed. May
> they have many more years to hold hands!
>
am thinking about, and that's tempered love, not passion. I am thinking
along the lines of the cover on the box of The Piano Teacher, or the
poster for The Lives of Others.
>> One does not need to broadcast or display one's exclusivity, a wedding
>> ring is enough
>
> But the two people involved may not even be thinking of their exclusivity
> but just of how much each loves the other.
>
> I admit that I do hold hands and hug my husband in public. I can honestly
> say I've never thought of it as displaying our exclusivity, it's just the
> pleasure of contact with someone who means so much to me that is in my mind.
>
kind of jaundiced, meaning having a wound that is not healing.
>> which is why sexual misconduct doesn't fly: there's no guarantee of
>> commitment and that's a surefire recipe for pain and sorrow and suffering.
>
> Sometimes that is so and sometimes not. When I started the affair with B I
> didn't imagine we'd be together forever. He was 44 and I was 17! Neither of
> us thought it would be forever. He had his life, I had mine and it was
> inevitable that our two lives would diverge. We parted as friends and
> without undue sorrow when he decided to move to France.
>
> I find that if I'm honest about my expectations and my partner is equally
> honest, there's not much potential for pain.
>
messing around so I'll bide my time. I have had enough of getting
burned. I can not love with out attachment so I won't love at all, at
least not passionately. That's the solution to that one.
>> Better to be alone than to open oneself up to rejection and abandonment
>> which is often the case with passionate love affairs. As I stated if a man
>> can get in one, whose to say he couldn't get in a dozen more.
>
> And many people (not just men) do that.
>
> I remember one man I worked with long ago, in a different career. He slept
> with most of the women in the agency I was working for, easily over 30 out
> of the 120+ working there. Not one single woman had a bad word for him, felt
> angry or hurt by him, they all had good things to say about him. He was
> right upfront about the fact that he was not looking for a longterm
> relationship, he was not in a position to marry (he supported his disabled
> brother) and he just plain loved women. If I hadn't been married at the
> time, I may well have slept with him too (he got rave reviews in that
> department).
>
> Honestly and clarity go a long way towards preventing most pain.
>
> Shirley
>
>
possessed by him. I don't want any fly by night affair. I want the real
thing, not some surrogate sugar coated candy.
Olympiada
M Shirley Chong
> I agree, there are secret baptisms. So if a person is going to have a
> secret affair why not just label it as such and get it over with? One can
> not be expected to keep a secret one does not know one is supposed to
> keep.
I'm not sure where you're going here. If it's a secret, why would anyone
outside the two people involved need to know anything about it?
> And where does friendship spill over into romance?
I think the two people involved in the relationship have to decide that for
themselves.
> And does labeling something a secret make it bad?
A label is just a label, it doesn't make the thing it represents good or
bad. The Dadaist artist Rene Magritte made that point when he displayed a
painting of a pipe and placed a label saying "This is not a pipe" under the
painting.
> Like if I label it a secret I can't do it but if I ignore the fact its a
> secret and pretend like its all good, then its ok? I think to expect one
> to keep a secret without saying "keep it secret keep it safe" is
> RIDICULOUS. If one wants one to keep a secret, one needs to say so! And by
> the way, secrets are a part of modesty.
I think the best way to keep a secret is not to tell anyone who does not
have a need to know. Period. Don't talk about it, don't hint about it, don't
introduce the subject as a topic of conversation, don't act all weird if
someone else brings up the topic, just keep it a secret. The minute one
person who doesn't need to know learns the secret, it's pretty much over
being a secret.
I'm not sure what part of modesty requires secrets.
I wrote:
>> Well, that's a playful notion (answering the door naked) that sometimes
>> backfires. Best done carefully with thought beforehand so as to avoid
>> backfires! I've never seen the movie but the situation is a staple in
>> jokes.
Olympiada wrote:
> I am not sure if that is what happened. He had a key. I think she was not
> expecting him.
<LOL> No one should walk in on us in the summer. We live where it gets hot
and really, really humid. There are some summer days were if I could take
off my skin, I would. If someone doesn't want to risk seeing me nude, they
should knock and wait for me to answer the door.
> An affair is childless, a concubine is for the point of having a child,
> no? A child gives evidence to the affair. An affair is not Christian, so
> if one is going to have an affair one should not expect a child out of it,
> right?
Well, setting aside the fact that many children come as a surprise, I think
whether or not to have children is up to the potential parents and no one
else (I'm assuming we're talking about normal adults).
I also think that it is not anyone else's business how a child was conceived
and born. If I meet a parent with a single child, I have no idea if that
person was married when the child was conceived and I don't particularly
care. If a single woman has a child, she may as well be assumed to have had
a virgin conception as to be assumed to be a harlot. It's her business and
not anyone else's.
I wrote:
>> And the timing of your period is no one's business except for your
>> gynecologist. So you don't feel the need to let anyone else know, even
>> though it's not something shameful. Every adult knows (or should) that
>> normal adult women menstruate but they don't need to know your particular
>> personal details.
Olympiada wrote:
> No and I never unless someone gives me a hard time about my mood and if I
> am on it then I will tell them "your right, I am on it, now shut up and
> mind your own business".
<LOL> Good for you! Heck, I'd be tempted to use that line no matter what
time of the month it is. If someone is being so rude as to speculate about
my menstrual cycle, they don't deserve a serious answer.
I once saw a T shirt that read "I have PMS and I am armed. Any questions?"
> Yeah, I know. Well I don't like looking at lovey dovey mushy couples. I
> find them disgusting.
That is an emotion within you. You can choose not to look, you can choose to
change that response. It would not be proper to tell such a couple "stop
that because I find it disgusting" so long as what they are doing is
generally considered appropriate behaviour.
> Well yes, you are right, but since I am not elderly, that's not what I am
> thinking about, and that's tempered love, not passion. I am thinking along
> the lines of the cover on the box of The Piano Teacher, or the poster for
> The Lives of Others.
I'm not familiar with either of those.
M. Shirley Chong
Olympiada
> Olympiada wrote:
>
>> I agree, there are secret baptisms. So if a person is going to have a
>> secret affair why not just label it as such and get it over with? One can
>> not be expected to keep a secret one does not know one is supposed to
>> keep.
>
> I'm not sure where you're going here. If it's a secret, why would anyone
> outside the two people involved need to know anything about it?
>
Church, I think that's sin, fornication, sex outside marriage, a union
not blessed by the Church. This is really not an appropriate
conversation for this newsgroup, come to think of it, I can't think of
any newsgroup this would be appropriate for, although I did just
discover alt.love and alt.romance. Perhaps those will be the groups to
work out those sort of musings.
>> And where does friendship spill over into romance?
>
> I think the two people involved in the relationship have to decide that for
> themselves.
>
romance spills over into friendship? All this stuff makes me so sick.
>> And does labeling something a secret make it bad?
>
> A label is just a label, it doesn't make the thing it represents good or
> bad. The Dadaist artist Rene Magritte made that point when he displayed a
> painting of a pipe and placed a label saying "This is not a pipe" under the
> painting.
>
the isolation of motherhood that is forever on my mind. Perhaps this
conversation might be better moved to an art group where one can talk
freely about the affairs of artist without fear of censor or scandal.
What I am trying to say here is that one person can not assume the other
person knows to keep something a secret without saying so. That makes me
sick to say that but its the truth. Does it take sophistication or
innocence to keep a secret?
>> Like if I label it a secret I can't do it but if I ignore the fact its a
>> secret and pretend like its all good, then its ok? I think to expect one
>> to keep a secret without saying "keep it secret keep it safe" is
>> RIDICULOUS. If one wants one to keep a secret, one needs to say so! And by
>> the way, secrets are a part of modesty.
>
> I think the best way to keep a secret is not to tell anyone who does not
> have a need to know. Period. Don't talk about it, don't hint about it, don't
> introduce the subject as a topic of conversation, don't act all weird if
> someone else brings up the topic, just keep it a secret. The minute one
> person who doesn't need to know learns the secret, it's pretty much over
> being a secret.
>
one wrong move can squash it.
> I'm not sure what part of modesty requires secrets.
>
conversation is making me so sick, what with my stalkers and my editor
and permanent archives. What good is coming out of it? Secrets are a
natural part of intimacy. But in the Christian life, one does not pick
and choose who tells one secrets. People come into one's life to make
their confessions, their confidences and people must hold them. Its not
about desire, its about self denial. I think I have some kind of
pathology in relation to this subject.
clandestine affair and got pregnant it would no longer be a secret. It
would be impossible for the mother to hide the identity of the father.
Times have changed. That's why affairs should be avoided with women of
child bearing age. Its too complicated. Passion might meet a serious
consequence: a child. Christians don't look favorably on that sort of
thing.
> I wrote:
>
>>> And the timing of your period is no one's business except for your
>>> gynecologist. So you don't feel the need to let anyone else know, even
>>> though it's not something shameful. Every adult knows (or should) that
>>> normal adult women menstruate but they don't need to know your particular
>>> personal details.
>
> Olympiada wrote:
>
>> No and I never unless someone gives me a hard time about my mood and if I
>> am on it then I will tell them "your right, I am on it, now shut up and
>> mind your own business".
>
> <LOL> Good for you! Heck, I'd be tempted to use that line no matter what
> time of the month it is. If someone is being so rude as to speculate about
> my menstrual cycle, they don't deserve a serious answer.
>
> I once saw a T shirt that read "I have PMS and I am armed. Any questions?"
>
>> Yeah, I know. Well I don't like looking at lovey dovey mushy couples. I
>> find them disgusting.
>
> That is an emotion within you. You can choose not to look, you can choose to
> change that response. It would not be proper to tell such a couple "stop
> that because I find it disgusting" so long as what they are doing is
> generally considered appropriate behaviour.
>
Of course not. I think I am just feeling icky all over because of my
romantic temperament. Best to divert my energies into singing, the
recorder and the guitar. Human relationships are making me ill right
now. Nothing is matching up and its tiresome.
>> Well yes, you are right, but since I am not elderly, that's not what I am
>> thinking about, and that's tempered love, not passion. I am thinking along
>> the lines of the cover on the box of The Piano Teacher, or the poster for
>> The Lives of Others.
>
> I'm not familiar with either of those.
>
> M. Shirley Chong
>
>
The Piano Teacher is a movie. Google it and you will see a very
passionate picture on the front of the box. The Lives of Others is a
movie currently playing in my city, again the picture on the poster is
of a couple in a passionate embrace. I read the review, it looks
interesting. I checked out Thirteen, American Beauty, The Sweet
Hereafter, Girl with a Pearl Earring (which I also have the book) and
Black Hawk Down from the library. I have not seen a movie since The
Merchant of Venice.
Olympiada
M Shirley Chong
>> I'm not sure where you're going here. If it's a secret, why would anyone
>> outside the two people involved need to know anything about it?
Olympiada wrote:
> They wouldn't, thing is, I don't think secret affairs are allowed in the
> Church, I think that's sin, fornication, sex outside marriage, a union not
> blessed by the Church.
I think there must be some sort of middle ground for couples who are
courting in order to find out if they are compatible enough for marriage.
And what such a couple might be doing or not doing is really no one else's
business, is it?
> What I am trying to say here is that one person can not assume the other
> person knows to keep something a secret without saying so. That makes me
> sick to say that but its the truth. Does it take sophistication or
> innocence to keep a secret?
I think it takes inclination, really. Some people are secretive by nature,
others not so much so. I know I am secretive by nature; if I have a secret,
I don't want to talk about it and I don't. I have freinds, though, for whom
a secret seems to burn inside of them until they tell someone else.
So I don't think it's a matter of sophistication or innocence, it's just a
matter of what that person is like by nature.
> Wendy Shalit wrote about it in A Return to Modesty.This whole conversation
> is making me so sick, what with my stalkers and my editor and permanent
> archives. What good is coming out of it? Secrets are a natural part of
> intimacy. But in the Christian life, one does not pick and choose who
> tells one secrets. People come into one's life to make their confessions,
> their confidences and people must hold them. Its not about desire, its
> about self denial. I think I have some kind of pathology in relation to
> this subject.
At the very least I think you have some confusion because the above
paragraph really doesn't make sense to me.
I honestly can't believe that Christians aren't allowed to keep secrets.
That would bar a Christian from many forms of work that require keeping
secrets--intelligence analysis, attorneys, anyone working with trade
secrets, etc.
> That's not the point. The point is in the Church if someone had a
> clandestine affair and got pregnant it would no longer be a secret. It
> would be impossible for the mother to hide the identity of the father.
Why not? If she does not want to reveal the name of the father, all she has
to do is say nothing. If someone is so impolite as to ask, she can say
"that's a rather personal question and one I choose not to answer."
M. Shirley Chong
Olympiada
> I wrote:
>
>>> I'm not sure where you're going here. If it's a secret, why would anyone
>>> outside the two people involved need to know anything about it?
>
> Olympiada wrote:
>
>> They wouldn't, thing is, I don't think secret affairs are allowed in the
>> Church, I think that's sin, fornication, sex outside marriage, a union not
>> blessed by the Church.
>
> I think there must be some sort of middle ground for couples who are
> courting in order to find out if they are compatible enough for marriage.
> And what such a couple might be doing or not doing is really no one else's
> business, is it?
>
I am trying to define my own reality, not anybody else's. I know when I
meet a man whether or not I want to marry him. I know he has to be
sadomasochistic. I know that's going to get the attention of my editor
and critics but oh well. What's the point in lying? Its really hard to
go out with guys or even talk to guys who I know don't understand me.
Its like I have this big secret. I don't even want to pose the question:
do you know what sadomasochism is? If I have to ask the question, he
doesn't know... It is kind of miserable to be in this boat. Other times
if a guy is interested in me I try to shock him by showing him my
editor's site. Well it has shocked nobody. Here in my mind I am thinking
it is some big awful thing when it is nothing at all. It doesn't even
phase most people I show it to. I am more ashamed and shocked by my
writing than my "audience"! Often times I don't know the impact of my
writing until I publish it. I always look it over, I am constantly
revising my writing, but the true "shock value" doesn't become known
until I get feedback. Its not deliberate. I am not trying to be
deliberately shocking. I know I am shocking to the Eastern Orthodox and
that is unfortunate, but I also know the clergy who know anything at all
know I am post modern and a product of my post modern culture and they
can deal. Not to many people on Usenet that I have met so far are post
modern.
>> What I am trying to say here is that one person can not assume the other
>> person knows to keep something a secret without saying so. That makes me
>> sick to say that but its the truth. Does it take sophistication or
>> innocence to keep a secret?
>
> I think it takes inclination, really. Some people are secretive by nature,
> others not so much so. I know I am secretive by nature; if I have a secret,
> I don't want to talk about it and I don't. I have freinds, though, for whom
> a secret seems to burn inside of them until they tell someone else.
>
> So I don't think it's a matter of sophistication or innocence, it's just a
> matter of what that person is like by nature.
>
"secret"that I don't feel like explaining to the guys, or girls, for
that matter that I hang out with. Most don't accept it. But if I totally
keep it a secret and don't discuss it all, I am going to be very
unhappy. Now this is not the appropriate group to discuss it in, but the
sadomasochism group doesn't want to talk about religion. So we have
found the goth group to be a happy medium.
I am learning how to keep secrets, like in regards to my ex husband for
example. And I keep secrets in regards to ecclesiastical gossip which is
deadly to the spiritual life. That's not really keeping secrets, that's
not spreading the gossip. I think a large part of keeping secrets is
letting gossip stop with me, keeping it inside of me, not letting it go
any farther.
>> Wendy Shalit wrote about it in A Return to Modesty.This whole conversation
>> is making me so sick, what with my stalkers and my editor and permanent
>> archives. What good is coming out of it? Secrets are a natural part of
>> intimacy. But in the Christian life, one does not pick and choose who
>> tells one secrets. People come into one's life to make their confessions,
>> their confidences and people must hold them. Its not about desire, its
>> about self denial. I think I have some kind of pathology in relation to
>> this subject.
>
> At the very least I think you have some confusion because the above
> paragraph really doesn't make sense to me.
>
> I honestly can't believe that Christians aren't allowed to keep secrets.
> That would bar a Christian from many forms of work that require keeping
> secrets--intelligence analysis, attorneys, anyone working with trade
> secrets, etc.
>
>
Well I don't mean professionally. I don't exactly know what I mean. I
guess secrets in regards to clergy misconduct? But then we aren't
supposed to implicate others. I think secret is the wrong word,
discretion is the right word. It is interesting that I have been
recommended to be an intelligence analyst or an attorney in my past. I
know I have a secretive nature, but trauma damaged it. I also know we
are called to be open and transparent to God, to be honest. I am not
sure how intelligence analysis and law fits in with that. I think there
is a certain amount of dishonesty inherent in intelligence analysis and
the law. I don't think either of those are morally good professions. I
think they rot the soul.
>> That's not the point. The point is in the Church if someone had a
>> clandestine affair and got pregnant it would no longer be a secret. It
>> would be impossible for the mother to hide the identity of the father.
>
> Why not? If she does not want to reveal the name of the father, all she has
> to do is say nothing. If someone is so impolite as to ask, she can say
> "that's a rather personal question and one I choose not to answer."
>
> M. Shirley Chong
>
>
Well there you go, but what if the child's features identify the father,
or what if everybody knows who she is involved with. I don't think its
possible to have a totally secret affair, do you? I mean what, sneak out
and meet in the dead of night? How do public figures have secret
affairs? Now that would be an interesting subject to research! How could
a public figure keep an illicit affair a secret. You know much of this
clergy misconduct stuff has nothing to do with secret affairs, right?
Olympiada
M Shirley Chong
>> I think there must be some sort of middle ground for couples who are
>> courting in order to find out if they are compatible enough for marriage.
>> And what such a couple might be doing or not doing is really no one
>> else's business, is it?
Olympiada wrote:
> Courting? I think the man should court the woman.
I think it takes two to court. If only one is courting, that's usually
called "harassment" or "stalking."
> Its really hard to go out with guys or even talk to guys who I know don't
> understand me. Its like I have this big secret. I don't even want to pose
> the question: do you know what sadomasochism is? If I have to ask the
> question, he doesn't know... It is kind of miserable to be in this boat.
My method has been pretty successful for me. It involves being completely
unaware that anyone might be interested in me. I get to know everyone as a
friend. The friends who became partners were the friends who were bright
enough to figure out that they had to hit me over the head with the clue
stick until I noticed.
By getting to know everyone as a friend first, without any ulterior agenda,
I have a pretty good idea of how compatible we're likely to be. And I don't
have to worry about figuring out the whole flirting/sending signals thing
because I don't know how. Have never needed to learn. There is so much to
learn and do in this world, my attention is taken up with other stuff.
> Other times if a guy is interested in me I try to shock him by showing him
> my editor's site. Well it has shocked nobody. Here in my mind I am
> thinking it is some big awful thing when it is nothing at all. It doesn't
> even phase most people I show it to. I am more ashamed and shocked by my
> writing than my "audience"!
Well, the site may be embarrassing to you but it's not drastically different
from anything you write over a months' time. So anyone who has read you for
about a month or so already has a pretty good idea as to what to expect.
> Often times I don't know the impact of my writing until I publish it. I
> always look it over, I am constantly revising my writing, but the true
> "shock value" doesn't become known until I get feedback. Its not
> deliberate. I am not trying to be deliberately shocking.
I do believe you. That's why the frequent advice to "re-read what you've
written" doesn't seem to work for you. I'm sure you are re-reading what you
write. It may be more useful if you were to write every post as though the
recipient's feelings were as sensitive as your own and as if the sweetest
little old lady in your church would be reading it, but I don't know for
sure. That may not help at all.
> I know I am shocking to the Eastern Orthodox and that is unfortunate, but
> I also know the clergy who know anything at all know I am post modern and
> a product of my post modern culture and they can deal. Not to many people
> on Usenet that I have met so far are post modern.
I have only a vague grasp on the concept of post modernity myself but from
what I do know of it, I know I am not post modern and I doubt that anyone
who self identifies as a Christian or an Eastern Orthodox could be. One of
the tenets or principles of post modernism is that there is no greater
meaning behind anything. In post modernism a cigar is always a cigar, it
never means or stands for anything else.
To a post modernist, an icon is just a picture painted on a board in a
specific manner. It is no more worthy of being venerated than the side of a
clapboard house (also consisting of boards with paint on them).
> Interesting. Well as I said to me, being sadomasochistic is a "secret"that
> I don't feel like explaining to the guys, or girls, for that matter that I
> hang out with. Most don't accept it. But if I totally keep it a secret and
> don't discuss it all, I am going to be very unhappy.
A wise Foole (as in Philip the) has a Kung Foole saying to the effect that
if you make a practice out of being as honest as possible with the people
around you, pretty soon you don't have to hide yourself any more.
If someone's opinion of you would be changed if they found out that you had
submissive fantasies, perhaps that is a person who isn't really a friend.
> Now this is not the appropriate group to discuss it in, but the
> sadomasochism group doesn't want to talk about religion.
As part of that sadomasochism group for over ten years, I can say with
assurance that SSBB is willing to talk about religion, so long as it is done
in a non-accusatory, nonjudgmental way and so long as it isn't dragged into
every single thread. There are posters there who talk quite openly about
their religious experiences who are respected and welcomed contributors.
> That's not really keeping secrets, that's not spreading the gossip. I
> think a large part of keeping secrets is letting gossip stop with me,
> keeping it inside of me, not letting it go any farther.
Bingo! I think you are right.
> Well I don't mean professionally. I don't exactly know what I mean. I
> guess secrets in regards to clergy misconduct? But then we aren't supposed
> to implicate others.
I think the rule of thumb about the difference between tattling and
reporting I was taught as a child applies to clerical misconduct: if the
misconduct only affects the person doing it, talking about it is tattling.
If the misconduct affects other people, then the right thing to do is speak
up to prevent the harm to others.
> I think secret is the wrong word, discretion is the right word. It is
> interesting that I have been recommended to be an intelligence analyst or
> an attorney in my past. I know I have a secretive nature, but trauma
> damaged it. I also know we are called to be open and transparent to God,
> to be honest. I am not sure how intelligence analysis and law fits in with
> that. I think there is a certain amount of dishonesty inherent in
> intelligence analysis and the law. I don't think either of those are
> morally good professions. I think they rot the soul.
Surely it depends on the person involved in the profession? The intelligence
analysts who discovered the airline bomb plot last summer surely saved many
innocent lives. Defense attornies keep the power of the state used in an
honest way.
Olympiada wrote:
>>> That's not the point. The point is in the Church if someone had a
>>> clandestine affair and got pregnant it would no longer be a secret. It
>>> would be impossible for the mother to hide the identity of the father.
I wrote:
>> Why not? If she does not want to reveal the name of the father, all she
>> has to do is say nothing. If someone is so impolite as to ask, she can
>> say "that's a rather personal question and one I choose not to answer."
Olympiada wrote:
> Well there you go, but what if the child's features identify the father,
> or what if everybody knows who she is involved with.
It is still no one else's business and my response would be that genetics
works in ways that are far from fully understood. If a given baby appears to
resemble a certain man, it's nothing more than a coincidence so far as I'm
concerned. If the mother is known to be involved with a particular man, then
it is still between the two of them as to how to handle their relationship.
Heck, in this day and age, the mother may have opted for artificial
insemination via donor and she just happened to pick a donor who looks
similar to someone she knows.
Why think the worst of someone? Why not assume the best?
> I don't think its possible to have a totally secret affair, do you? I mean
> what, sneak out and meet in the dead of night? How do public figures have
> secret affairs? Now that would be an interesting subject to research! How
> could a public figure keep an illicit affair a secret.
Easy. If you refrain from making your business publicly known, then in most
cases people don't care enough to try to figure out where you are going on a
Wednesday evening or whatever. People who get caught are the people who make
a big production about having a secret, say things like "I can't tell you
what I've been doing," and suchlike silliness. Make people curious and
people will indeed find out.
> You know much of this clergy misconduct stuff has nothing to do with
> secret affairs, right?
So far as I have read, the clergy misconduct has nothing to do with secret
affairs and everything to do with pedophiles and hebephiles using a position
of increased trust and authority to gain access to victims.
M. Shirley Chong
Olympiada
> I wrote:
>
>>> I think there must be some sort of middle ground for couples who are
>>> courting in order to find out if they are compatible enough for marriage.
>>> And what such a couple might be doing or not doing is really no one
>>> else's business, is it?
>
> Olympiada wrote:
>
>> Courting? I think the man should court the woman.
>
> I think it takes two to court. If only one is courting, that's usually
> called "harassment" or "stalking."
>
the man should take the initiative in the courtship. This subject gives
me the creeps.
>> Its really hard to go out with guys or even talk to guys who I know don't
>> understand me. Its like I have this big secret. I don't even want to pose
>> the question: do you know what sadomasochism is? If I have to ask the
>> question, he doesn't know... It is kind of miserable to be in this boat.
>
> My method has been pretty successful for me. It involves being completely
> unaware that anyone might be interested in me. I get to know everyone as a
> friend. The friends who became partners were the friends who were bright
> enough to figure out that they had to hit me over the head with the clue
> stick until I noticed.
>
> By getting to know everyone as a friend first, without any ulterior agenda,
> I have a pretty good idea of how compatible we're likely to be. And I don't
> have to worry about figuring out the whole flirting/sending signals thing
> because I don't know how. Have never needed to learn. There is so much to
> learn and do in this world, my attention is taken up with other stuff.
>
interested in me, and no one that has asked me out interests me.
>> Often times I don't know the impact of my writing until I publish it. I
>> always look it over, I am constantly revising my writing, but the true
>> "shock value" doesn't become known until I get feedback. Its not
>> deliberate. I am not trying to be deliberately shocking.
>
> I do believe you. That's why the frequent advice to "re-read what you've
> written" doesn't seem to work for you. I'm sure you are re-reading what you
> write. It may be more useful if you were to write every post as though the
> recipient's feelings were as sensitive as your own and as if the sweetest
> little old lady in your church would be reading it, but I don't know for
> sure. That may not help at all.
>
It might help.
>> I know I am shocking to the Eastern Orthodox and that is unfortunate, but
>> I also know the clergy who know anything at all know I am post modern and
>> a product of my post modern culture and they can deal. Not to many people
>> on Usenet that I have met so far are post modern.
>
> I have only a vague grasp on the concept of post modernity myself but from
> what I do know of it, I know I am not post modern and I doubt that anyone
> who self identifies as a Christian or an Eastern Orthodox could be. One of
> the tenets or principles of post modernism is that there is no greater
> meaning behind anything. In post modernism a cigar is always a cigar, it
> never means or stands for anything else.
>
> To a post modernist, an icon is just a picture painted on a board in a
> specific manner. It is no more worthy of being venerated than the side of a
> clapboard house (also consisting of boards with paint on them).
>
Exactly my point. The clergy have identified me as post modern. Hence my
problematic conversion. I have done it, but that's who I am, post modern.
>> Interesting. Well as I said to me, being sadomasochistic is a "secret"that
>> I don't feel like explaining to the guys, or girls, for that matter that I
>> hang out with. Most don't accept it. But if I totally keep it a secret and
>> don't discuss it all, I am going to be very unhappy.
>
> A wise Foole (as in Philip the) has a Kung Foole saying to the effect that
> if you make a practice out of being as honest as possible with the people
> around you, pretty soon you don't have to hide yourself any more.
>
> If someone's opinion of you would be changed if they found out that you had
> submissive fantasies, perhaps that is a person who isn't really a friend.
>
I am beginning to loathe the word submissive. I don't even know how to
broach the topic. It sure makes spending time with other guys a waste.
They don't get it, they don't know about it, and I don't want to tell
them. Forget it.
>> Well I don't mean professionally. I don't exactly know what I mean. I
>> guess secrets in regards to clergy misconduct? But then we aren't supposed
>> to implicate others.
>
> I think the rule of thumb about the difference between tattling and
> reporting I was taught as a child applies to clerical misconduct: if the
> misconduct only affects the person doing it, talking about it is tattling.
> If the misconduct affects other people, then the right thing to do is speak
> up to prevent the harm to others.
>
Thank goodness I don't have to make those decisions as to who is harmed
by what. That nice little concept of consent fits right in here.
> Olympiada wrote:
>
>>>> That's not the point. The point is in the Church if someone had a
>>>> clandestine affair and got pregnant it would no longer be a secret. It
>>>> would be impossible for the mother to hide the identity of the father.
>
> I wrote:
>
>>> Why not? If she does not want to reveal the name of the father, all she
>>> has to do is say nothing. If someone is so impolite as to ask, she can
>>> say "that's a rather personal question and one I choose not to answer."
>
> Olympiada wrote:
>
>> Well there you go, but what if the child's features identify the father,
>> or what if everybody knows who she is involved with.
>
> It is still no one else's business and my response would be that genetics
> works in ways that are far from fully understood. If a given baby appears to
> resemble a certain man, it's nothing more than a coincidence so far as I'm
> concerned. If the mother is known to be involved with a particular man, then
> it is still between the two of them as to how to handle their relationship.
>
> Heck, in this day and age, the mother may have opted for artificial
> insemination via donor and she just happened to pick a donor who looks
> similar to someone she knows.
>
> Why think the worst of someone? Why not assume the best?
>
I am just positing situations, that's all.
>> I don't think its possible to have a totally secret affair, do you? I mean
>> what, sneak out and meet in the dead of night? How do public figures have
>> secret affairs? Now that would be an interesting subject to research! How
>> could a public figure keep an illicit affair a secret.
>
> Easy. If you refrain from making your business publicly known, then in most
> cases people don't care enough to try to figure out where you are going on a
> Wednesday evening or whatever. People who get caught are the people who make
> a big production about having a secret, say things like "I can't tell you
> what I've been doing," and suchlike silliness. Make people curious and
> people will indeed find out.
>
Well there you go.
>> You know much of this clergy misconduct stuff has nothing to do with
>> secret affairs, right?
>
> So far as I have read, the clergy misconduct has nothing to do with secret
> affairs and everything to do with pedophiles and hebephiles using a position
> of increased trust and authority to gain access to victims.
>
> M. Shirley Chong
>
>
Exactly.
Olympiada
M. Shirley Chong
>> I think it takes two to court. If only one is courting, that's usually
>> called "harassment" or "stalking."
v
> Really? You are talking about on line behavior then.
Actually not, I was thinking of real life behaviour. Doesn't matter
who initiates things, if the other party isn't showing some interest
or willingness to interact, then it's not courting, it's harassment
or stalking.
> I really do think
> the man should take the initiative in the courtship.
Whoever takes the initiative, the other person must show some
willingness, some degree of consent. Persisting after the first "no"
is boorish; persisting much beyond that is illegal.
> This subject gives
> me the creeps.
It does seem to me that you've painted yourself into a corner. You
seem to be afraid of sex and sexual behaviour but you're also lonely
and have written that you want a partner. But your fear of sex leads
you to reject any man who shows sexual interest in you and round
and round it goes.
This may be something you could work out with a therapist.
> Interesting. If a guy asks me out to dinner, its pretty clear he is
> interested in me, and no one that has asked me out interests me.
<LOL> If being asked out for dinner is evidence of interest, well,
all I can say is that the clue jet took off without me. I've gone
out to dinner with many friends without seeing any sexual interest
in it at all. I wonder if there ever was such interest and I just
missed it? It's very possible--my own husband had to come right out
and say "I hope you realize I am trying to flirt with you" before I
noticed that he might be interested in me. By the time he said that
he was rather fed up. He'd been trying to give me a hint for days
with no evidence that any of the hints had taken effect.
I fear it's part of a lifelong pattern on my part. I once went for a
nice midnight stroll through an old graveyard with my best friend.
He even SAID at one point "you know what most guys want when they
take a woman for a walk in a deserted place, don't you?" I responded
with something silly and completely missed the personal hint. Later
he came right out and propositioned me and it suddenly occurred to
me "oh, THAT'S what you meant in the graveyard that night!"
I wrote:
>> To a post modernist, an icon is just a picture painted on a board in a
>> specific manner. It is no more worthy of being venerated than the side
>> of a clapboard house (also consisting of boards with paint on them).
Olympiada wrote:
> Exactly my point. The clergy have identified me as post modern. Hence my
> problematic conversion. I have done it, but that's who I am, post modern.
So when you write about having pictures of icons and the writings of
various saints, etc, as if they were treasured possessions, what
does that mean?
> Thank goodness I don't have to make those decisions as to who is harmed
> by what. That nice little concept of consent fits right in here.
Of course, one still has to evaluate whether consent was valid or
not. For instance, in 1994 I had a mastoid infection that required
emergency surgery. I signed a consent form but did I really consent?
I was spiking temps over 106 and having fever hallucinations at
the time, so I think that consent form could be considered questionable.
More than that, I consented to surgery by a person I thought was a
qualified surgeon who had no impairments. Was that consent still
valid if the surgery was actually performed by a drug addict who had
literally hundreds of adverse outcomes before he operated on me? I
don't think it was valid under those circumstances.
So consent alone is not enough. There is also the issue of validity.
M. Shirley Chong
Olympiada
> I wrote:
>
>>> I think it takes two to court. If only one is courting, that's
>>> usually called "harassment" or "stalking."
>
> v
>
>> Really? You are talking about on line behavior then.
>
> Actually not, I was thinking of real life behaviour. Doesn't matter who
> initiates things, if the other party isn't showing some interest or
> willingness to interact, then it's not courting, it's harassment or
> stalking.
>
don't think women should take the lead.
>> I really do think the man should take the initiative in the courtship.
>
> Whoever takes the initiative, the other person must show some
> willingness, some degree of consent. Persisting after the first "no" is
> boorish; persisting much beyond that is illegal.
>
>> This subject gives me the creeps.
>
> It does seem to me that you've painted yourself into a corner. You seem
> to be afraid of sex and sexual behaviour but you're also lonely and have
> written that you want a partner. But your fear of sex leads you to
> reject any man who shows sexual interest in you and round and round it
> goes.
>
> This may be something you could work out with a therapist.
>
sexual behavior is not the cure to loneliness, intimacy is, and I have
noted I tend to keep people at a distance. But this is hardly the list
for that discussion. I am wanting for someone to break the ice for me
over on the other list so I can pick up from there. Also, I am sure when
someone comes around that I am interested in, things will change. Hasn't
happened yet.
>> Interesting. If a guy asks me out to dinner, its pretty clear he is
>> interested in me, and no one that has asked me out interests me.
>
> <LOL> If being asked out for dinner is evidence of interest, well, all I
> can say is that the clue jet took off without me. I've gone out to
> dinner with many friends without seeing any sexual interest in it at
> all. I wonder if there ever was such interest and I just missed it? It's
> very possible--my own husband had to come right out and say "I hope you
> realize I am trying to flirt with you" before I noticed that he might be
> interested in me. By the time he said that he was rather fed up. He'd
> been trying to give me a hint for days with no evidence that any of the
> hints had taken effect.
>
> I fear it's part of a lifelong pattern on my part. I once went for a
> nice midnight stroll through an old graveyard with my best friend. He
> even SAID at one point "you know what most guys want when they take a
> woman for a walk in a deserted place, don't you?" I responded with
> something silly and completely missed the personal hint. Later he came
> right out and propositioned me and it suddenly occurred to me "oh,
> THAT'S what you meant in the graveyard that night!"
>
not appropriate. Perhaps we could discuss being asked out to dinner
and/or actually accepting an invitation on the gothic list.
> I wrote:
>
>>> To a post modernist, an icon is just a picture painted on a board in
>>> a specific manner. It is no more worthy of being venerated than the
>>> side of a clapboard house (also consisting of boards with paint on
>>> them).
>
> Olympiada wrote:
>
>> Exactly my point. The clergy have identified me as post modern. Hence
>> my problematic conversion. I have done it, but that's who I am, post
>> modern.
>
> So when you write about having pictures of icons and the writings of
> various saints, etc, as if they were treasured possessions, what does
> that mean?
>
tonight. For example, I have some writings of Metropolitan Anthony Bloom
sitting next to The Memoirs of a Geisha. And I have even tried my own
hand at drawing icons, or religious pictures. I have realized my
apartment is a treasure trove of religious material, much of it given to
me, much of it unconsumed. I may be an aesthete. I have certainly been
told I am sensitive to beauty.
>> Thank goodness I don't have to make those decisions as to who is
>> harmed by what. That nice little concept of consent fits right in here.
>
> Of course, one still has to evaluate whether consent was valid or not.
> For instance, in 1994 I had a mastoid infection that required emergency
> surgery. I signed a consent form but did I really consent? I was
> spiking temps over 106 and having fever hallucinations at the time, so I
> think that consent form could be considered questionable.
>
> More than that, I consented to surgery by a person I thought was a
> qualified surgeon who had no impairments. Was that consent still valid
> if the surgery was actually performed by a drug addict who had literally
> hundreds of adverse outcomes before he operated on me? I don't think it
> was valid under those circumstances.
>
> So consent alone is not enough. There is also the issue of validity.
>
> M. Shirley Chong
Yes, but as you said, this priest did not get suspended over an affair
but over pedophilia. Frankly I find this whole subject nauseating. I
would have never known about pedophilia if it hadn't been for news items
such as this.
I wonder if geishas ever entertained priests? There are Orthodox
churches in Japan you know.
In fact I took a photograph of our icon of Saint Nicholas of Japan and
printed it out and put it up in my daughter's room. I think he was
instrumental in my conversion, in fact, I am quite sure of it.
Olympiada