GRUDGE MAAAAAATCH!!!

I think with this post I may be officially a Bad Christian, but somehow this news story just brings out the snark in me.

What, I asked myself, is missing from this picture:


Then I realised:

It looks like those stage-managed pre-fight smack talk showdowns from boxing (or other combat sports). In fact, the whole story reads like that really!

So, I fixed the picture:

(Yes, I really did make the pun "Jesus is (Don) King of Kings". I told you this made me a bad Christian!)

Although what name would he give this grudge match?

"Spatican in the Vatican"?

"Trial in the Aisle"?

"Rave in the Nave"?

Then, of course, there's matchday itself:

In the blue corner, fighting in all white, it's God's Rottweiler, the Iron Cardinal, Poooope Bennnedict XVI!!!


And in the red corner, fighting in burgundy, it's the fighter in the mitre, the wranglin' Anglican, Archbishop Rowwwwan Willllllliammmmmssssss!!!


Now we'll hand it over to the match referee...



"Alright, your Holiness, your Eminence, I expect a good, clean fight; when I say 'break', do it in remembrance of Me; and no conversions below the belt. To your corners, please."

*dingding*

"Round one!"

...

Suffice to say, I find this whole Catholic/Anglican scrabble over worshippers to be very very amusing.

BBC website advice on porn

On the BBC's website there is a section called "the Surgery" which appears to be health and life advice for teens. I stumbled upon it today while I was browsing the BBC's various links on psychology surveys and experiments at Lab UK (rather too much of the analysis on those experiments seems to focus on Ev-Psych assumptions, especially when gender is involved, but I had some fun filling them in anyway - favourite result: I'm very neurotic, which makes me one of the most laid-back neurotics I know!)

Naturally, given my particular areas of interest in social science and development, I turned to the pages on sexuality. Most of it seems to be fairly good advice (although I still think Scarleteen is better).

A lot of the health (including sexuality) part of the Surgery site is written by Dr Melissa Sayer, who is described on the BBC Surgery website as "a GP in East London". I googled her name and (apart from a "healthy eating" book and a guide to activism for young people) the only other definite reference I could find was on a story from 2006 in the Guardian newspaper (lots of other sites quoted from that story, but apparently the Guardian was the original source) titled Get up close and personal to stay healthy, about an NHS website that was promoting sex as a good way to exercise and burn calories. Dr Sayer is quoted as "an expert in sexual health" (she warned that not all the claims made by the NHS site were backed by scientific research). I suppose it isn't really fair of me to be suspicious about her credentials, but given that Farley, Dines etc are listed as "experts" on prostitution when it comes to certain topics I tend to get sceptical, or at least I want a lot more background information!

And that's the case with Melissa Sayer because I have a number of issues with her advice for teens concerning pornography. The advice was apparently last updated in June 2007. I'm hoping that some of my regulars or regulars at some of the places I visit frequently, will be able to pick up on these better than I can, but here goes with the text quoted from the BBC site interspersed with my comments:

What is it?

Porn is any material (words, sounds, pictures) designed to be sexually arousing. Anatomy pictures may be sexually explicit, but not intended to be arousing. That's the difference.

So far, it's a fair definition in technical terms. Somehow, though, it feels lacking considering the apparent purpose of the site - talking about examples might be useful (like, magazines, videos, erotic novels etc).

How big is the porn industry?

Almost all adults have seen some type of pornographic material. By choice or accident. Since the arrival of the internet, pornography is far more readily available and less regulated.

• 4 in 10 internet users stumble across explicit material
• Hard core pornography is now accessed by 1 in 3 of all internet users
• There are 4.2 million pornographic websites (12% of all sites)

I don't know how these statistics were compiled (especially the one about 1/3 of all internet users accessing hardcore porn - and given that "hardcore" isn't defined on the site, we don't know what it means). Still, I don't mind accepting them. The emphasis on "stumble across" and "accident" is the first signs of my concerns, especially when juxtaposed with the mention of "less regulated".

---

I believe in freedom of speech and expression. And sex is natural. Where's the harm?

Sex is natural. Banning porn could make talking about sex even more taboo. And more shameful. But pornography is very powerful.

• Studies have shown that it changes how we feel about ourselves and about sex. It's easy to feel inadequate: normal bodies are hairy and wobbly. Not super tanned, perfectly toned and always up for it.
• It also influences how we behave: Many porn images show girls in submissive, or victimised roles. For example, they may show women appearing to be enjoying rape by a stranger. In reality no woman wants this to happen. But porn gives the impression that they do. Not all porn users hurt others. But many rapists state the porn was a trigger for their actions.
• Sex has consequences. STIs. Broken hearts. Love. To name but 3. Porn takes sex out of context. It's just a physical act. Condoms are irrelevant. And everyone smiles.
• Porn can be upsetting: What turns one person on can frighten the hell out of others.

This can all be harmful, both to girls and boys. 'Specially when we're young. And still figuring out how we feel about sex, for ourselves. Once we've seen something - it's always with us. We can't choose to erase it.

And here we have the crux of my major problem with Dr Sayer's advice.

Shorter Dr. Sayer: "Oh, I don't think we should ban it, but it's BAD, B. A. D. , got that?"

In order of Dr. Sayer's points:

You're more likely to see "hairy, wobbly" bodies in porn than, say, a girlie magazine or a fashion magazine or in the movies or, well, anywhere in mainstream media these days. "Amateur" porn is quite a large chunk of those 4.2 million websites, after all. True, porn is more likely to have artificially-enhanced cleavage and there is a natural selection towards certain standards of beauty, but honestly, if you're worrying about porn affecting people's body image then you're trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon.

"It influences how we behave". Odd, there are no conclusive studies to show anything of the kind. Those that do have results have suffered from weak methodology (and one of the most fabled proponents of the view that porn affects behaviour, Malamuth, when he studied longer term effects by the same methods found no effect!).

"Many porn images show girls in submissive, or victimised roles." Straight out of the radfem anti-porn playbook! What proportion of the whole counts as "many", I wonder? What is Dr Sayer's standard of "submissive" or "victimised"? Also - if you have a problem with one subset of porn, limit your comments to that one subset!

"For example, they may show women appearing to be enjoying rape by a stranger. In reality no woman wants this to happen. But porn gives the impression that they do." As mentioned in passing at the bottom of Sayer's article, porn is fantasy and not meant to portray reality. Porn no more gives the impression that women want 'x' than James Bond movies give the impression that the world is full of supervillains living in extinct volcanoes and that it's possible for one man to bring down their nefarious schemes with the help of gadgetry that just miraculously happens to have been provided for the mission before they knew what the plot was going to be!

Studies consistently show that a sizeable minority of women (in the region of 25% if I recall correctly) report having masturbation fantasies of being raped. And yet, of course, as Dr Sayer states here, none of those women actually want to be raped for real.

So far Dr Sayer really is just saying "porn is bad, you mustn't do it because it's, you know, icky!"

The women in porn choose to do it. Where's the harm?

I've met adult industry actors who are treated very badly by their bosses. Who are coerced, threatened and even beaten into performing acts they'd rather not. Nearly all porn actors get Sexually Transmitted Infections. As long as there is a demand for porn, this will continue to happen.

Now, I am willing to accept that there are some porn performers who are "treated very badly by their bosses" (although who qualifies as a "boss" in this context is unclear - my understanding was that porn performers generally didn't have bosses but performed for whichever director/producer was willing to pay for their services with a mutually agreed contract). However, from reading the testimony of people involved in the porn industry, I understand that "bosses" who mistreat their workers soon find themselves with no performers.

It makes far more sense to argue against buying trainers or chocolate on these grounds than to argue against buying porn.

If this is a concern (and I am willing to accept that in some cases it may very well be) then a wiser response is to say rather than "As long as there is a demand for porn, this will continue to happen," instead say, "here are some names of some ethical porn producers who have a good reputation within the industry", and just as ethical consumerism hopes to change business practices for the better in things like environmentalism and fair trade, apply the same methods to the adult entertainment industry! Also, bring adult entertainment into mainstream industry and apply the same workers' rights to porn as to any other business. It is the legal limbo in which porn finds itself that makes abuses like those described by Dr Sayer possible.

As far as STIs are concerned, all I know is that porn performers have greater incentive than anyone (except prostitutes) to make sure they are clean and infection-free. As I understand it, the legal porn community in San Fernando Valley (where the majority of the world's porn is made!) has a very effective self-policing policy in place to prevent the spread of STIs.

What does the law say?

Porn is illegal if it is "judged to have a tendency to deprave and corrupt the intended audience”.

Possession or downloading of child pornography is a serious criminal offence.

Most newsagents will not sell top shelf magazines to the under 18s. Videos should be restricted to the age guidance certificate.

Encouraging someone under 16 to look at pornography is sexual abuse.

Well, since this site was last updated in 2007, it doesn't reflect the Dangerous Pictures Act of 2008, but even so, it's just plain wrong. Dr Sayer has misquoted the Obscene Publications Act - it isn't the "intended audience" but "those likely to see it". Furthermore, the material itself is not illegal, but only distribution.

Skipping past the next two points (with which I have no major issues) we get to a point that on a site for teens needs a huge amount of clarification. I don't know if the legal status of young teens "sexting" each other nude pictures has yet been tested in the UK, but I can imagine if it has the precedent may very well be similar to that in the USA where those sending and receiving such images (if they are under 18) can be found guilty of child porn offences; by the standard above, presumably the sender would also be perceived as guilty of sexual abuse! But no mention of that on the BBC site.

Is all porn bad, then?

Ask yourself: Does it do any good? Do we need it? Why?

Yes, it does good. It treats sexual behaviour between adults as normal. It provides ways of exploring our sexual fantasies in ways that are safe. It provides a means of achieving arousal for masturbation purposes or in shared experiences with a partner. It provides ways of communicating with our partners about sexual fantasy. It helps take away the shame or stigma that surrounds certain types of sexual fantasies so that we can be better able to articulate them when we have a willing partner. And that's just what springs to mind straight away. If I put more thought into it I am sure I could double this list of positives. All of these are positives that I myself took from porn, and God knows they are things I could have used when I was a teenager and struggling to come to terms with my deviant sexuality. Which comment answers the other two questions: yes, we do need it, and I just explained why.

But I can't help but feel that Dr Sayer meant these as rhetorical devices to create a sense of shame around porn, as so many of the other points seem intended to do. As my list of points should reveal, this is counterproductive.

It is up to everyone to decide for themselves. You don't have to look at porn. You should certainly never be tricked or coerced into looking at it.

Can't argue with the sentiment, but it's framed in such a passive way, almost like blaming the victim here. Instead I would have preferred to see advice on how to deal with it if someone tries to do these things.

If you do decide to use porn, remember:

Porn is fantasy. Imagine you had a dream about a girl you know being fingered. You'd never assume she wanted this in real life. Or that all girls enjoy being fingered. Separate out truth (real people) from fantasy (actors).

Now, why not start with this advice (which is, of course, spot on as I pointed out above). And not trying to shame people out of their decision? In fact, if you did then (as I pointed out above) many of the points used to shame people out of using porn would disappear!

If the advice about porn started here, talked in more detail about the unrealistic elements of porn and what is actually required to make porn-sex happen the way it looks on screen, talked about the differences between porn and sex ed, and the various ways porn can have a positive effect (see my list above for starters) and then start talking about the issues concerning porn performers' rights and how to find ethical porn if that's what we want to do. That's how I would build my approach to porn in sex education.

And, since I recommended Scarleteen at the top of this article, here's their advice on porn. It's pretty good, and a lot better than Dr Sayers'.

If it makes you feel weird inside: unhappy, confused or upset - then don't. If it's starting to influence how you feel about sex, or how you behave in any way - then stop.

I have to admit - I can't work out why porn would make people feel unhappy, confused or upset unless it had something to do with wider issues concerning sexuality in general (in which case, discussing it with a sympathetic counsellor is a definite step to take). But I'll take it as read that for some people it can do that without indicating any other problems. So I'll agree with the first point here on the general principle that if something has those effects it's probably a good idea to avoid it (as long as it's not symptomatic of some other issue that may have other harmful effects).

But, as my list of positive effects might suggest, I think that some changes in the ways people feel about sex can be very positive: feeling less shame about our sexual fantasies, and better able to talk to partners about what works for us, strike me as things we want to happen!

One point: is it just me, or is not masturbation one of the purposes of porn; doesn't that in itself represent a way in which it "influences ... how you behave"?

But a less facetious point on that comment by Dr Sayer: again, the positive effects really depend on the influence porn can have. If a behavioural effect is communicating with one's partner more effectively about what works sexually for you, then that is not a reason to stop watching or reading porn! If it provides ways to deal with confusing fantasies without potentially forcing them on an unsuspecting partner then that, too, is a good thing.

Dr. Sayer assumes that the only effects that porn can have are negative: making us feel bad about our bodies (Hellooo! We talk about Hollywood beauty standards! Not San Fernando beauty standards!) or making us treat partners disrespectfully because "many porn images show girls in submissive, or victimised roles"

But porn can be a very healthy influence when combined with proper effective sex education. When young people are left to process porn by their own devices (pun intended) then maybe porn can be harmful, but surely it should be the purpose of a site like the BBC's to provide healthy (and not shaming) advice about interacting with porn? By starting with the assumption that it's harmful, Dr Sayer develops a self-fulfilling prophecy instead of dealing with the positives.

Most importantly, respect other people's right to choose. Keep porn private. And safe. Younger siblings do know where our hiding places are.

This, at least, is good advice, and couched in positive terms. Hiding porn stashes is just good manners because not everyone will share our views. It shouldn't be out of shame but out of respect for others' values. As kinky folks who are parents know, a good lock is invaluable!

My summary of this piece is really captured by my comments about effective sex education regarding porn. Instead of trying to cast the advice in terms of what looks a lot like "all porn is bad, but if you MUST do it, consider this..." the BBC site should take a non-judgemental approach from the start, open with describing what porn is in terms of what it says about sex (and what it isn't saying - i.e. it isn't saying "this is how to do it in real-life"!) and talk about reasons why people use porn, then talk about other issues (like legal issues).

Transgender Day of Remembrance moment of silence

Today is the 11th Transgender Day of Remembrance, a day to remember all those who have suffered and died (i.e. been murdered) because they were unable to conform to the arbitrarily-assigned-at-birth* gender role that society demanded of them.

I don't have any fancy words, or clever thoughts, to add on this occasion. This post exists because in my heart, my emotions on the subject are simple and strong: it is wrong and evil that being different makes someone a target of hatred and fear and that being true to one's inner self should lead to violent death at the hands of another when that inner self does no harm to anyone.

I don't have better words than that, or clearer sentiment. It would waste effort to try to say more. So I will simply quote the "about" page from the link above:

We live in times more sensitive than ever to hatred based violence, especially since the events of September 11th. Yet even now, the deaths of those based on anti-transgender hatred or prejudice are largely ignored. Over the last decade, more than one person per month has died due to transgender-based hate or prejudice, regardless of any other factors in their lives. This trend shows no sign of abating.

The Transgender Day of Remembrance serves several purposes. It raises public awareness of hate crimes against transgender people, an action that current media doesn’t perform. Day of Remembrance publicly mourns and honors the lives of our brothers and sisters who might otherwise be forgotten. Through the vigil, we express love and respect for our people in the face of national indifference and hatred. Day of Remembrance reminds non-transgender people that we are their sons, daughters, parents, friends and lovers. Day of Remembrance gives our allies a chance to step forward with us and stand in vigil, memorializing those of us who’ve died by anti-transgender violence.

FICTION: Cyborg Sleeps part 14

In which Director Gattell is an arsehole and Asira is angry with him for it. As soon as I'd written the scene where Asira was attacked, I knew that her retort to Gattell would have to appear somewhere in the aftermath. I think there's an angle developing here of the conflict between race and gender as axes of oppression, which I hadn't intended when I started writing this story. I'll do my best with it though now that my characters have led me here!

There's a couple more bits of the background tech stuff included in this chapter, and Asira's final gesture sets up a bit for the opening of part 15 whenever I get to posting that.

Part 14

By the time General Townsend had finished lying to the press, Asira had been through a lot more.

Around an hour after the call from the safe house to Director Gattell, an apparently ordinary ambulance had pulled up quietly outside the house and she had been loaded on board to be returned to the facility. After her arrival, her condition was assessed and several decisions made while she was unconscious.

The first thing they did was wake Bena Wainwright and have her perform the memory extraction. The synthetic mission-memories are always an extra burden to the mind and body, but equally it is costly to withdraw them. The judgement call was always whether an injured cyborg should be treated first and then have the memories removed, or whether more harm would be done leaving them in there until the injuries were treated properly. This time, Doctor McDonald had decided that extraction first was safest. After that, the doctor undid the stitches put in by the safe house agents and with a much more practised and expert hand redid them so that healing would be quicker, cleaner and in the end would not restrict the cyborg agent's movements. The doctor also gave Asira a full blood transfusion, not just the plasma transfusions given at the safe house. Readouts from the various implants were taken and the full truth of how close to death Asira had been was revealed. Nevertheless, Dr McDonald was satisfied that her condition was now stable and would remain so.

***

Director Gattell followed the media reaction to the cover story carefully, to see whether anyone had picked up on the cyborg angle and run with it, or if the assumption made by the man who had phoned in the night had turned out to be plausible enough for the wider world. So far, the angle of "hero brutally assaulted" had given them exactly what they wanted: an easy patriotic story, with a clear villain and a clear champion. Thanks to secrecy laws, and the fact that Townsend had been vague about the details of the casualty (except that it was an arm lost) it would be impossible to track down any of the women who really had lost limbs in the wars, so they were protected from that angle as well. His friendship with Townsend went back a long way, but this was the biggest favour he'd ever asked for; it had also saved his skin. Right now his peers in the intelligence community were buzzing with the story and, as far as Gattell could tell, although he had received some criticism for the risked exposure, most were saying that no harm had been done and therefore there was no need to take action to put the cyborg project in "more capable" (i.e. "white", thought Gattell) hands.

Even so, it was now time to try to cover his behind a little more.

***

Asira lay in her hospital bed and raged inwardly at her weak body. She had allowed her left arm to be detached for repair or replacement, but for now she had only a mechanical stump covered with an anti-dust and anti-static film. Her side still hurt and was patched up with a wound dressing, and the doctor insisted that se move as little as possible for time being to allow the torn skin to knit itself together again with the aid of the stitches. Although plenty of replacement blood had been pumped into her veins she still knew she lacked the strength to stand reliably, however much she wanted to. She was, to all intents and purposes, helpless. She had not been this helpless while conscious since she was undergoing the surgical and magical operations that had turned her into a cyborg in the first place.

The arrival of Samuel Gattell was not welcome, but it was expected.

"Good morning, sir," Asira wheezed from her prone position.

"Good morning, Asira," he replied, "How are you feeling?"

"Like I've been stabbed in the side and nearly bled to death, how about you?"

"Like I've been up half the night worrying about you, this station and whether any of us would survive."

Asira smiled grimly, "I win!"

Gattell's face saddened and sagged a little: "Yes. Yes, you do. I need to debrief you informally at least, so we know where we are. I'll also fill you in on what we've been doing about your message."

Asira used her remaining arm to prop herself up higher on the bed so that she could sit up to talk with Gattell. The Director drew up a chair and sat facing Asira by the side of the bed.

"First of all, the question that people want to know is, did you manage to complete the assignment before you were attacked?"

"Yes. It was 100% successful. The attack was utterly unrelated. I know you already had my briefing removed."

The Director was not completely successful in hiding his sigh of relief – it had been a long night and he was tired. Asira did not comment, but her expression hardened slightly.

"Very well. Please can you describe for me what exactly happened during the attack?"

Asira shifted into a more professional mode and let everything come out as a mission report: ordered, precise, clear and concise. She described the approach, the three men's appearance (in far more detail than a human could have managed from the same lighting) and precisely the events as they had unfolded. Her expression did not change throughout, and her voice stayed at a steady monotone, simply imparting information without revealing her emotions.

Gattell showed her the pictures of the people the police had arrested, and the dead man. "Were these the people who attacked you?"

Asira grimaced at the memories this time. "Yes, they were the ones." Gattell nodded simply, and slipped the pictures away into his folder.

Then he continued.

"Now, I need to be absolutely clear on this. Are you certain you didn't do anything to provoke them?"

Asira's eyes flashed as her anger crossed her face and she retorted in a harsh, bitter voice, "I was born with a cunt and brown skin. Those bastards don't need any more provocation than that! Get the fuck out of here, how dare you ask that question? Go on, go!"

"Now, I just needed to be sure, I know…"

"Fuck off! You fucking should know – you grew up with it too, but you're a man so maybe you didn't notice it? Leave me alone!"

"Agent Asira Y!" Gattell snapped at her, "You will address your superiors in a proper manner! You will also listen to the rest of what I have to say. It may be important to you."

"I'm sorry. Fuck off, SIR!" Asira spat.

Gattell ignored her this time, and simply began explaining what had happened at the police station.

"Agent Asira, thanks to your alert that the existence of cyborgs might be about to become public knowledge, General Xavier Townsend and I were able to provide a cover story. The three men who attacked you are now either dead, or in terrorist interrogation cells awaiting their fate." Asira grinned darkly at this. "The agents whose help you enlisted at the safe house assumed you were a war-cripple and we used this assumption to explain away your fake arm." Asira's scowl returned. "No information about you was released to the police or the media, and so far, the media have not pursued the story beyond the patriotic angle we gave it. Thanks to you, it looks like what could have been a disaster has been averted."

"Save your gratitude, Director," Asira snarled, "You'd blame me for the situation if you could, I heard you loud and clear. Now, like I said, fuck off. Your 'cripple' needs to heal." Her optics darkened and the Director recognised that in a symbolic move she hadn't just turned the colour to black but had deactivated them completely. He wondered if she would have turned off her hearing too, if that had been possible.

He stood.

"Rest well, Agent Asira," he murmured, "And may you be back to yourself soon." He left quietly.

Crazy Question of the Day

It appears as though someone has been playing tricks on someone in Australia (which I only mention because it ties in neatly with my prejudices about Aussies, shame on me). I don't really know how else to interpret the fact that SiteMeter recorded this search term as leading to my blog:

is it true if a guy wanks within 24 hours of donationg blood the penis will swell up?

(I don't know why my blog was a hit for that particular search term!)

Is anyone else thinking that when a male person masturbates, his penis is supposed to swell up? And become hard and erect as well...

In reply to the person asking, I'm pretty sure that it doesn't swell up any more than usual.

Cover of the Spinners classic "Mechanical Blackbird"

This is what I spent most of today doing:



The Spinners were a British folk band in the 1960s and 70s (and have nothing to do with the US soul group also called the Spinners, about whom I only learned when I looked up "Spinners" on Wikipedia), and their music was a favourite of my parents. This meant I grew up listening to them and I grew to love several of their songs. The Wikipedia page explains a bit more about who they were (including the fact that they were ground-breaking for having a line-up of Black and White musicians playing together - I recall hearing Cliff Hall singing West Indian folk songs on their records as well as the British folk music that made most of their repertoire).

As far as I know, The Mechanical Blackbird was an original song that they wrote themselves but I could be wrong and I'd love if someone can provide me with a proper credit for who wrote it.

FICTION: Cyborg Sleeps part 13

For all my terribly liberal views on crime and punishment, I enjoyed letting the racist skinheads get their comeuppance in this episode. Detective Andrews' concerns are how I would feel about it in real life, I guess. I think I would not take his pragmatic approach, though! It's pretty obvious that I have more planned for PC O'Hara now. The rest is mopping up before getting back to the main story and Asira's development.

Part 13

The Superintendent announced that there would be a joint press conference with a general from the Army early that morning. There would be commendations for the arresting officers O'Hara and Andrews, and the true story of what had happened at the corner of George Street and Syborne Way would be revealed there. Detective Andrews was asked to be at the press conference, and was advised to keep his comments short and simple, restricted to the matter of the initial investigation and the arrests of Craig and Grant and not to speculate about any wider matters. He was informed that the two skinheads were being charged with terrorism offences as well as attempted murder. He was angry that the story was not going to be explained to him before the press conference, but that he would have to wait to hear it there. It was, after all, his investigation and his responsibility. No, explained the Superintendent – it was now the army's case and he should satisfy himself with having done well enough to receive their praise.

General Xavier Townsend arrived well in advance, wearing his dress uniform. Andrews, for all his familiarity with authority that his work gave him, was still impressed. When he was introduced to the General, the firm handshake and calm confidence were enough to prove that this man was a real leader.

"So, you're the chap who brought in the bastards who assaulted my Captain?" boomed the General.

"Sorry, Sir, I don't understand. Nobody has told me what this is all about, but I know that the dead man had nothing to do with the army!"

"Ah, sorry. Never mind, all will become clear, son. All will become clear!" The General patted Andrews' shoulder and, while he obviously was old enough to be Andrews' father, the condescension was still not welcome.

Andrews did not have long to wait for the press to gather and the conference to begin.

The General took the dais and addressed the gathered members of the media. There was a full house, since it wasn't often that a General would make a joint announcement with a local police force, so the networks were sure that something special was bound to happen.

"Good morning ladies and gentlemen. I am General Xavier Townsend and I currently have responsibility for coordinating the army's response to terrorist threats at home and abroad, with obvious links to the efforts of our intelligence agencies and police forces. As some of you may already be aware, there was a violent knife fight in the region of Sandworth. The efforts of the local constabulary are to be applauded in investigating this crime.

"I am now able to announce that the fight was a planned attack on a captain under my command, who was assaulted by three men with knives intend on murdering her because of her involvement in anti-terror work. In defending herself, my captain suffered a serious injury and injured two of her attackers, one of them fatally. Their intended victim was picked up shortly afterwards by an army ambulance and is currently being treated for her injuries at an army base some distance away.

"I hope that the press will understand that I am not going to give any identifying information about her, because she wishes to continue in her work to protect the public from people like the ones who set upon her last night. However, I am willing to state clearly that she is a hero who, despite losing an arm in frontline service, has continued to serve with honour and valour. Thanks to modern medical techniques, she has been given a prosthetic arm, which, it might be suggested, actually saved her life last night. One of the murderous blows struck her false arm instead of her body, and so did no harm to her but only damaged an inanimate, dead object attached to her shoulder.

"Thanks to the tireless efforts of the local force, who have been able to apprehend the culprits of this cowardly, despicable attack, we will be able to use this opportunity to unravel the forces opposing freedom and democracy in the Empire. I will now let the police officers speak for themselves about their part in this."

The superintendent made a few remarks about the importance of vigilance and the role of the police in protecting people, and then asked Detective Andrews to explain how he had caught the "terrorists".

Andrews did as he was told, explaining how he and O'Hara had investigated the initial call and found one man dead and another unconscious. He explained how he had recognised their faces and concluded that the third man might have been involved as well due to their known connections, which had led them quickly to be able to bring him in for questioning. When the stories didn't add up, he had placed the two surviving members of the terrorist cell under arrest. Then the army had called and the whereabouts and fate of their victim had been revealed.

***

Detective Andrews knew a cover-up when he saw one, although as he came away from the press conference exactly what was being covered up was not entirely clear to him. He knew better than to go digging where the government didn't want him to. It was all too neat for Andrews to swallow, but whatever the truth it was not for him to meddle in their affairs. He briefly felt sorry for the gang members Grant and Craig, who had somehow got themselves involved in some kind of government operation and now were going to spend the rest of their lives in prison as terrorists. Then he remembered that these were people involved in firebombing and gang violence, and decided they were probably going to end up where they belonged after all. It offended his sense of justice that they were being stitched up, but they had already got off for the things they actually did do, so it was swings and roundabouts. Andrews shrugged and went on to investigate some less weird crimes.

Constable O'Hara was not as wise when it came to self-preservation and keeping her nose out of dangerous business.

"Domestic Violence Register" proposed in UK

This is something that was first brought up earlier in the year by Jacqui Smith when she was Home Secretary, but now the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has apparently discussed and recommended the adoption of a domestic violence register.

The specific proposals appear to be:

1. A register to track an estimated 25,000 men in England and Wales who move from one relationship to another after serially abusing their partners.
• Will enable new partners and others at risk of violence to be told of a man's history.
• Will include information short of convictions, including a pattern of unproven allegations by different women.
• Conviction alone would not automatically lead to inclusion.
• Decisions about disclosure to potential victims would be taken by a multi-agency panel that would assess the risks in each case.
2. Creation of a "course of conduct" offence that would enable prosecutions to be brought against serial offenders even if the evidence is insufficient in each individual case. ("polarised" the steering committee, with some members vehemently opposed.)
3. Domestic violence protection orders, which would ban a suspected violent partner from returning to the family home or having any contact for 14 days.

I feel really uneasy about this, and that makes me feel conflicted because 25k men with multiple victims each is way, way too many and something has to be done to control this and (hopefully) make sure they don't get away with it.

My unease I think starts with "Oh no, New Labour are proposing yet another intrusive database on people's lives". They've only just been told that their national DNA database is illegal under European human rights law (they're still trying to get away with as much intrusion as they possibly can into people's lives with it though), and the amount of things that can get you on the sex offenders register these days is ridiculous (to the point that its efficacy as a crime prevention tool is now arguably compromised). A government that likes spying on its people this much automatically makes me suspicious, to the point that even if it might be a good idea in some cases, I just can't help but doubt their motives.

I'm also dubious about the way in which information would be made available to "at risk" persons. When Jacqui Smith first proposed the idea, it sounded as though the police or other law enforcement agency would monitor people's lives and would potentially contact women who formed relationships with men on the register at their own instigation. The proposals as described in the linked article seem to be more passive, with the register administrators waiting until a woman contacts them about a person before revealing whether or not they hold any information on that person, and apparently even then it would be subject to an assessment by a panel. Now, I actually have the greatest of respect for social workers and the flak they've taken from the tabloid press in recent years over a series of failures to protect at-risk children I think is unwarranted (it's a seriously underfunded and underpaid business, in the name of "efficiency", so what do we expect?) But assessment errors do get made about risk and suppose they say "we are not going to release information on that individual" and the person asking assumes that means the person is not a risk to them? Might that not lead to greater vulnerability? What happens when the first cases of domestic violence (or even murder - consider if the letter or email is found by the suspected partner and he really is a threat!) come back where the panel said "no" to the request for information, and the press get wind of it?

Also, how is a potential victim supposed to know she should check the register for a partner? With 61M people in the UK, roughly half of them male, and take off a few for those not yet old enough for dating, that's still maybe 25M men of whom 25,000 are reckoned to be a threat: that's roughly 1 in 1,000 will be on the register as serial abusers.

Suddenly, this seems to be all about telling women to watch out for warning signs and then check with them, and that sounds to me a lot like putting the onus on women to avoid rape.

The "domestic violence protection orders" my unease is simple: 14 days of safety means nothing if on the 15th day he bursts in wielding a heavy blunt object demanding "what have you been telling people, you stupid cunt?" and batters her to death to punish her for the imposed isolation. Sure, he goes to prison for murder, but that's scant consolation to the dead woman! I honestly don't know how that would be prevented, unless the public are willing to pay high enough taxes to fund the police protection beyond the 14 days.

The "course of conduct" offence seems very dodgy to me: if there's not enough evidence for any individual case, then how could there be enough evidence to prove in a court that there really was a "course of conduct" that warranted a conviction? If they couldn't prove the conduct in one case how are they to prove it was a constant across several?

Two other short points to make: if unproven allegations are to be included in the register, then would there be penalties for making fraudulent allegations against someone? If yes, then once again we're faced with some authority figure saying to a woman 'we don't believe you" about a tale of domestic violence; on the other hand, if no then what safeguards would be in place to ensure that information is accurate?

The proposals as reported are gender-specific. Domestic abuse is not limited to men-on-women incidents; men-on-men, women-on-men and women-on-women are all known to occur and while they are certainly much less common than men-on-women, it seems rational to assume that there are serial abusers of both sexes who choose victims of their own sex, and serial abuser women who target men (though that seems likely to be the smallest population). Are lesbians and gay men not deserving of the same protection? Is it assumed that the number of these abusers are too small to be worth bothering with?

***

As I noted at the start of my comments, 25,000 men getting away with abusing women is too many by far, and finding effective ways of preventing them from doing it, and of ensuring they don't get away with it if they do, is an important project. I don't have answers for how to do it. But my deep concern is that I don't think these proposals are a good way to go either. I don't know whether they will make for a net good or net harm overall, but I am very worried that the people making them don't know either and instead want a) something that looks good in the press and b) (it being ACPO) want more powers for themselves (the police).

If people think my concerns are genuinely unfounded, I would be glad for you to explain in comments why you think so - believe it or not, on this one I would like to be wrong. I would like it if the government was actually going to do something that really would help significantly and not just be a heavy-handed (and dubious on human-rights level) attempt.

Cool video

Via MomTFH, a great ~11-minute presentation on gender dysphoria and trans* issues:



Obviously, 11 minutes isn't enough time for in-depth exploration of any of the issues mentioned, but as a basic 101 it's pretty good.

FICTION: Cyborg Sleeps part 12

Getting back to the story I've been writing and posting. Here, Director Gattell figures out how to save his butt after the loss of secrecy in the last couple of episodes. Also, noting the ableism of the agent's comment about Asira.

Part 12

The telephone by Samuel Gattell's bed started to ring. He started awake, glancing momentarily at the clock – 0342hrs – before scrabbling the handset to his ear.

"Director Gattell here," he said into the mouthpiece – this number was only known to a very few individuals, and the switchboard at the Department of Intelligence Resources. It was intended for emergencies only, so whoever was calling would know Director of what and where.

"Sir, we have received a call from an Agent Bentham, saying one of your agents has turned up severely injured at safe house zero Foxtrot. Before she lost consciousness, he says she told him "tell Director Gattell, secret's out."

There was only one cyborg agent operating near that designation, so Gattell instantly knew who was down and what the message meant.

"Tell Agent Bentham we will have an ambulance collect the injured agent as soon as possible, and thank him for relaying the message."

"Yes, sir. Sir, he also made a personal comment. He said that disabled personnel should not be placed in front-line assignments like this in future, and feels that it was unfair on the agent to expect her to perform as well as an able-bodied agent. He feels this may be why she was hurt."

Gattell worked hard to keep puzzlement out of his voice

"Thank you. I have to work now."

"Good luck, sir." The phone went dead. Gattell dialled a direct number and despatched a crew to collect Asira from the safe house, then stood up quickly and went to his room computer.

Asira had been warning him that her cyborg nature had been revealed somehow and the information was now out there somewhere in the public domain. How she had been injured, he did not know – the assignment had been low risk, so what had gone wrong? And what had this Agent Bentham meant about disabled? He logged on to the Intelligence Network system and conducted a search for all news, police and other reports in the last 6 hours that might relate to the incident. It took him a quarter of an hour to track down what he was looking for.

The police report listed a phone call made by a man claiming to have been attacked by a "robot-woman", one man left dead and another unconscious at the scene of the crime, evidence of a second person (assumed to be the killer) being wounded but not yet located. He recognised the residue on the bloodless knife as possibly having been left by Asira's synthetic flesh, and he concluded that the witness was not as innocent as he claimed. If Asira's arm had been cut, then that might also explain why she was described as "a disabled person" by the agent earlier.

Gattell thought hard for a few moments, then picked up his telephone again and made a call.

"General, I need a big favour. We've got an information leak and we need a cover story, here's what I've got in mind…"

The romance of voracious hunger

Connections between a post I'm planning to write soon (on Englishness and English ethnicity), plus a post by Belledame concerning the manly myth about voracity and the masculine appetite, led me to think of the following passage, here transcribed from the reading by John Arlott on the Yetties' cricket-themes album "Cricket On the Village Green":

From John Nyren's "Cricketers of My Time"

There was high feasting held on Broad Halfpenny during the solemnity of one of our matches.

...

How those fine, brond-faced fellows of farmers would drink to our success.

The ale, too. Not the modern horror under the same name that drives as many men melancholy mad as the hypocrites do; not the beastliness of these days that would make a fellow's insides like a shaking bog and as rotten. But barleycorn, such as would put the souls of three butchers into one weaver! Ale that would flare like turpentine. Genuine boniface! This immortal viand, for it was more than liquor, was vended at tuppence per pint.

Then the quantity the fellows would eat: two or three of them would strike dismay into a round of beef. How strongly are those scenes of fifty years bygone painted in my memory, and the smell of that ale comes upon me as freshly as the new may flowers.

Boniface, we may assume, is a reference to the character in The Beaux' Stratagem, and not to the religious figures of the same name.

Arlott's reading, being heavily tinged as it was with the appropriate regional accent for the cricketers about whom he was reading, and also infused with his characteristic poetic style, is itself immortal and brings life to these words that no amount of effort on my part could partake upon them. But even so, they are in themselves poetic and the idealised romance of masculine eating and boozing is somehow made fabulous in them.

Of course, the history of cricket in Yorkshire sounds quite different, but that's another story altogether, and maybe one day I'll write a post about it.

Stuff and nonsense

I seem to have a list of posts backed up that I want to get written, but other things that seem to want writing first keep coming along. This is trying to combine two of those other things into one.

First up, I nearly ended up burning my flat down this evening. For some things watching on DVD or TV, the right atmosphere requires candlelight instead of overhead electric light. I like candles. So I started lighting candles ready to watch a DVD. Then one of them fell over while I was still holding a match in one hand and a lit candle in the other. It fell into a pile of rubbish.

In the time that it took to blow out the match and put down the candle in my hand on a safe place, the fallen candle had managed to set light to a plastic carrier bag that did not go out quicly but continued to burn. I grabbed it by an unlit part and rushed to the kitchen sink to douse it in water. By the time I got back, however, I found that a corner of a cardboard box had already started to burn and also there were flames flickering along the edge of my banjo case. I dashed back to the kitchen, scooped up some water from the sink into a glass and rushed back to douse the flames. Fortunately, that was as far as they had spread and so the water put out the fire. Danger averted.

Scary, though.

The other thing: I have reawakened my addiction to Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda by buying seasons 2 and 3 on DVD. It is inevitable that I will end up buying seasons 4 and 5 so that I will have seen the whole story (I deliberately have not looked at the information on the linked wikipedia page about those seasons!). I saw the first season when ITV showed it on their free-to-air digital channel ITV3, and I also caught some of the second season as well, but with poor digital reception in this region it became impossible to keep up with it.

I love that the main characters are mostly anti-heroes at best, with only Captain Dylan Hunt really playing the typical "heroic" role. There also seem to be some rather wonderful tongue-in-cheek references to clichés from Roddenberry's earlier starship saga, Star Trek, particularly the captain's tendency to get entangled with the lips of attractive alien females. Although he's written as a trusting, optimistic character, in the stories people often mistake this for naivety or gullibility; and then Hunt goes and proves himself every bit as devious as his adversaries.

I love that the female central characters are all in their own way very strong. Beka Valentine, who was the captain of her own ship and led a gang of rogues (who also joined Hunt's team), is determined, talented and quite capable of taking command when Hunt is off doing something else. (She also seems to have some slightly kinky tastes, but that's something beside the point at the moment, though it is another reason why I like her character!)

"Rommie" and "Andromeda" are essentially the same character although the develop slightly differently: Andromeda is the Starship "Andromeda Ascendant"s artificial intelligence persona; "Rommie" is an android into which Andromeda has been copied to give herself a physical presence as opposed to merely projecting humanoid hologram images of herself. Andromeda/Rommie is the "mind" of a warship, and she has a personality to match that purpose. She likes to fight and blow things up. Although she is entirely obedient to her captain, Dylan Hunt, she is also superhuman thanks to having the entire sensory capabilities of the starship (or the robot body) and once an enemy is identified she has no emotional issues with annihilating it/him. She will also argue back if her computations suggest Hunt's strategy isn't going to work.

Trance Gemini looks weak and feeble most of the time, but she knows stuff nobody else could, and she manages to be strong despite seeming emotionally small and weak. One of my favourite Trance lines is "You're twice my size, and I'm still standing up to you. That means I'm either crazy, or a lot more dangerous than I look. Would you like to guess which?" She is most definitely able to look after herself and rarely needs people to "look after" her, except in the same ways that all the other characters do.

While I couldn't swear that all the episodes pass the Bechdel Test, I think quite a lot do, simply because there's quite a lot of people talking about how to escape weird space-y "natural" perils and sometimes the female characters discuss the problem in one-on-ones. There are other topics as well, not all directly plot-related (hobbies seem to come up a bit, I think).

For all that several of the episodes or situations are pretty cheesy with sci-fi standard elements thrown in, the character development is pretty good and I enjoy seeing how it works. Apparently the deep plots and storylines were unpopular with the TV execs, which is a shame and led to the sacking of the guy who originally developed the series from Roddenberry's ideas.

I also like the male characters. Hunt because he's a hero, obviously. the others because they are NOT heroic. Tyr Anasazi because he's got a calculating edge and a hawt body (yup, I admit it). He's also got a forceful will that can at times match Hunt's own. Seamus Harper may be the archetypal male-underling, obsessed with sex but never likely to get it, and all the rest but he's also the "ordinary" human (despite being a complete wizard with electronics and engineering) - he doesn't have the fantastic backgrounds of the others, but is just someone who managed to run away from a shitty life at home and found a little niche (in his case, being an engineer first for Beka's team then for Dylan Hunt's) to call his own. He reflects that part. And finally, "Rev Bem" - the violent creature turned pacifist religious believer, whose faith enables him to be other than his genetics insist he should.

This bunch of misfits makes for great character drama. Is it any wonder I'm hooked?

Taking the Epistle: 1 & 2 Thessalonians

The letters to the Thessalonians are, according to the introductory notes in my NIV study bible sometimes labelled "the eschatological letters", which implies that there's going to be loads of info about the End of Days and the Apocalypse. While there's certainly more of that than in Paul's other letters so far, there's not really a huge amount to go on. Since they tend to cover a lot of the same ground, I'm going to treat them in parallel, and abbreviate them as 1Thess and 2Thess for convenience so it's clear which letter is which when I reference them.

Paul opens each letter, as seems to be his custom, with comment on the situation of the church to which he's writing. Paul seems to like the Thessalonians and believes that they in fact set a good example for many others in the region, and it seems that news about the church in Thessalonica has spread throughout the area. He makes a specific reference to their converting from Paganism rather than Judaism. In Acts, the church is described as being formed by "Some of the Jews ... as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women." (Acts 17:4) In 1 Thessalonians, Paul mentions that the people of the church there "turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead - Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath." This point also includes the letter's first reference to the theme of the Second Coming and the End of Days.

Paul also seems to have a recurring theme of wanting to go back and visit the churches he writes to. With Thessalonians, it's because (according to Acts, anyway) he had to leave suddenly after a mob was whipped up by those Jews who were opposed to his teaching. He observes that the Thessalonian church has suffered prejudice against them, and he even equates that to the oppression in Judea of the Christian church. In this passage, particularly (2:15), we can see the possibility of how Christian anti-Semitism in the 2nd Millennium CE may have originated from Biblical writings, "[the Jews], who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men" - it's not pretty reading. If it's true what was written in Acts about the way Paul was treated in Thessalonica by some members of the Jewish contingent, maybe he was speaking in anger rather than love at that point, but to me it is completely out of character with his references to Judaism in several of the other letters (Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, etc). Given that in Acts it appears that several of the Christians in Thessalonica had converted from Judaism, it also seems uncharacteristically out of touch with his audience. I am sorely tempted to take this verse as evidence of a later copyist's editorialising, but since I set out on this project to write as if the Letters truly are Paul's work, I should deal with it as it is. It is also tempting to say that Paul is writing only about the Jews who drove him away from Thessalonica, and no any other Jews, but sadly the context implies pretty strongly that he's talking about Jews in general (by the relation of the phrase to his comments about the churches in Judea). This is a very awkward passage for people who would like to claim Christianity is an accepting religion and not anti-Semitic.

Still on the topic of Paul's wish to see the church in Thessalonica again, he says that he was worried that the pressures from the surrounding community and from "the tempter" (i.e. Satan) might have caused the Thessalonian Christians to turn back to their old practices. However, he continues, he has heard that they have remained steadfast in their new faith. 2 Thessalonians echoes this theme in its opening passage (2Thess 1:3-4)

The other element of this introduction in 1Thess (which has taken up all of chapters 1-3!) is that at 2:1-12 he writes of what it is to be a minister of God, and emphasises the selflessness of the preacher. The preacher should remember always his mission is not self aggrandisement but the Word of God; the preacher should be self-supporting as far as possible, and should treat his parishioners as "a father deals with his own children, encouraging, comforting and urging you" (2:11-12). Interestingly, Paul also uses the imagery of himself as a mother to the Thessalonian church as well: "we were gentle among you, like a mother caring for her little children" (2:7). This brings the rather wonderful thought to my mind that perhaps priests in the modern Church could be termed "Mother" instead of "Father", based on Scripture evidence!

In chapter 4, Paul turns to another favourite theme: reminding people how to behave properly. And he starts with a familiar theme within that: sexual (im)morality. For the first time we see a practical test of what sexual immorality might be:

1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honourable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.

On feminist themes, verses 4-5 (control his own body, not give in to "passionate lust") are a clear injunction that it is not the victim who has to be careful, but the rapist who is at fault for not controlling himself. Verse 6 ("no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him") is the true test of an ethical sexuality, in my mind. Don't cheat on a partner, don't "take advantage of" a partner, which carries all sorts of lessons concerning the boundaries of consent (although Paul's meaning seems more to be to do with men's actions towards other men's wives). Still, 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 marks the strongest and clearest definition so far of the importance of free, full, informed consent when it comes to sexual matters. And again, Paul has not defined sexual immorality by sexual acts but by the relations of those engaging in sex.

Paul continues on to state themes also familiar from his other letters: "Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody."

In his closing remarks in both letters he returns to this theme, emphasising respect for hard workers (which seems to refer more specifically to the church elders in Thessalonica), rejecting idleness, helping the weak, and remaining patient with one another, and there are some hints that some of the Thessalonians, believing that the End was already upon them, had given up their jobs. Paul warns them to keep working right up to the final Day of Judgement. 2Thess 3:10 is a verse that deserves some specific attention: "For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." In past times, and sometimes even in modern times, this sentiment has been used as a stick with which to beat the poor and unemployed - people are poor because they are lazy; the unemployed are undeserving of support because they do not work. But the translation says "will not". It is neither "cannot" nor "has no"; it is "will". Are there those whose will is against doing work? Probably. But it is always false to claim in modern society that the only reason people are unemployed is because they are too lazy to work. I, and I believe most others who are unemployed, WANT to be put to work, I want a job. But right now, nobody will pay me to work. Modern society is not like the economy of 2,000 years ago! So, while an unquestioning or unthinking approach might see Paul's comment here as an indictment of the unemployed, in fact it is more likely to be an indictment of modern economics!

And now at last we get to the good bit: the discussion of the End of Days!

This is where most of 2Thess is covered.

1Thess talks first about the dead being resurrected at the Lord's coming; in 2Thess this event is described as Christ coming, but in 2Thess this is accompanied with the punishment of those who "do not know God". 1Thess talks about how believers "will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord for ever." This to me harks back (or forwards, since 1 Thessalonians is probably the earliest of Paul's letters) to the point in Philippians about "transform[ing] our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body".

In 1Thess 5:1-3 Paul warns that "the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night" and without warning. "While people are saying, "Peace and safety", destruction will come on them suddenly, as labour pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape." This echoes the Old Testament prophets who often used labour pains as a symbol to describe the suffering of their people during apocalyptic times.

Paul suggests, however, that Christians, being "sons of the light and sons of the day" should be able to see it coming through being "alert and self-controlled". Faith, love and hope of salvation shall be like armour to protect the believer (a common simile in Paul's letters. Faith, hope and love are commonly linked in this way throughout Paul's letters, most famously in 1 Corinthians ("Faith, hope and love. And the greatest of these is love.")

2Thess is more detailed about the way the Day of Judgement will come. As mentioned, it talks of Jesus coming and punishing those who "do not know God" and "do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus". If I am sceptical about one or two passages in 1Thess, then I am even more sceptical of 2Thess as a whole, because this passage reads to me much more like later theological doctrine than anything I see elsewhere in Paul, and there are one or two other points that make me doubt it. However, again, I am taking an approach to treat all of this as Paul's work and see where it leads. It should be noted, though, that the introductory notes on 2Thess also comment on some academics pointing out a number of inconsistencies between 2Thess and Paul's other writings. There are ways to talk around those difficulties and explain them away, so we shall continue regardless. The footnotes make it clear that the term "know" is used in the sense of "acknowledge" - that is, the passage refers specifically to those who have heard the Word of God but rejected it, rather than to those who have not heard it - this echoes partly the theme about the Law bringing sin to light rather than preventing sin that is covered in Romans 3:20 - "no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law, we become conscious of sin". The point here is that it is not those who are ignorant of God who will be punished, but those who have heard and rejected Him.

In 2Thess Paul talks about "the man of lawlessness", an Antichrist figure of some kind. This "man of lawlessness" will be accompanied by a rebellion as he is revealed, and will "oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshipped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God." He is, apparently, being "held back" by something or someone (a masculine identifier is used in verse 7 for this restraining force or person) and will finally be revealed, only for Christ to destroy him when He returns in glory. This Antichrist figure will not be Satan, but will "be in accordance with the work of Satan". Again echoing Old Testament language, Paul writes:

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

It all seems a little bit redundant, since God presumably knows who will believe and who will be deceived, without going through all this palaver, and it's implicit in that passage that He does (since he specifically sends the delusion to them and not to believers)! But humanity has been given free will. It seems that only in this, if anything, can God have doubt, so perhaps in the end there will be some who are not deceived by the powerful delusions? Christians, though, should be protected from such delusions by their faith and the Holy Spirit (2Thess 2:13).

The final theme in common between the two letters is a warning to be wary of false prophets. In 2Thess this is specifically about warnings of the end of days: "we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come." (2Thess 2:1-2)

In 1Thess it is more general, and it seems that the scepticism I bring to Bible is here endorsed by Paul: "Do not put out the Spirit's fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil." (1Thess 5:19-22) Paul advises people not to take anything purely on trust but to test it against the Spirit and our understanding of good and evil through the Spirit.

Paul finishes 1Thess with a reminder of God's grace and finishes with the injunction, "Greet all the brothers with a holy kiss." (5:26)

2Thess finishes with a reminder that when someone chooses a path away from God's Word, that they should not be treated as an enemy but reminded as a brother or friend of the perils of their choices. The suggested medium is to shun that person ("Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed") but if one is treat as a brother not an enemy, then that cannot be a complete or absolute rejection even so. It seems certain to me that the anger and wrath that some "Christians" display is in direct disobedience of this (and similar) teaching of Paul's.

A final note, several of Paul's letters seem to have been dictated by him, but he writes a few sentences in his own handwriting at the end. In 2Thess, he explains this practice but I can't help but feel like it's either redundant or else it's a forgery: "I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters." If, as is suggested in the introductory notes, this letter is one of the earliest (since it was written not many months after 1Thess, which is thought to be the earliest) then how would this be the mark of "all my letters"? It sounds like something that might have been added by a later theologian rather than something Paul himself might have written. I am a sceptic in general, and to me there are elements that make me very wary of taking 2Thess as being genuine. I discussed it here as if it is, but I want to make my doubts known.

***

Next up, the Pastoral Letters, in which Paul is writing to his fellow preachers of the Word.

This is just totally fun!

No other reason for posting it. I just loved it and wanted to share!

(Check out the fabulous stylophone action (and the t-shirt about haiku))

Book Review: "Anthem" by Ayn Rand (Spoilers)

Ayn Rand wrote "Anthem" in 1937 and in it outlines the basis of her philosophy of individualism. According to the introduction for the "Penguin Modern Classics" release, the working title was "Ego", and it is this that forms the centre of the novel; the title was changed for publication because it was too obvious and thereby disrupted the development of the narrative for the reader if the theme was revealed that easily.

The "Penguin Modern Classics" version is the 1946 re-edit that Rand did when the novel was accepted for US publication (ironically, it was originally rejected in the US because "the author does not understand socialism" - a legitimate criticism, but not one you'd expect in the bastion of Capitalism!) - Rand's "author's foreword" explains that this re-edit was for matters of style, and nothing of the substance was changed; the commentary introduction (written in 1994) reveals that this is because she was still finding her way with the English language when she originally wrote it, but by 1946 was much more confident about hitting the right tone.

Rand's 1946 author's foreword attempts to justify her characterisation in the novel of collectivism and collectivist ideals. To my mid it is rife with "slippery slope" fallacies and "appeal to ridicule" fallacies, and therefore not wasting my effort on (however tempted I might be to deal with it).

After a few pages of the novel I decided that I would take an approach of "the author is dead", and try reading it without preconceived notions about what it is supposed to be saying (i.e. without reference to what I know of Rand's political opinions and her aims in writing it), instead seeing what I could draw from the text myself.

***

My first impressions are that his is a very well-written text. In terms of style (as noted above, this is the 1946 version reworked for style) it is exquisite. It is a very stylised piece of writing, setting up circumstances but not details for the most part; what details there are serve directly to set up circumstances. New details are introduced, it seems, mostly just to set up the next tableau. Indeed, it was partly this style that made it so easy for me to say that "the author is dead" and to read the novel as divorced from any particular point. Because it was so stylised, it did not stand any comparison to any real world phenomena.

This led me to my first major shift of viewpoint about "Anthem". Because it was so stylised, I realised that, while it is written as describing a transgression of being individual, it can easily be mapped against other stories of transgression against society, especially where there are rigid structures and pressure both from peers and from authorities to conform. The stories that instantly sprang to mind as I read were those of gay/lesbian folks, or of trans folks, with a secret inner self that must be hidden from the wider society.

The narrative structure is essentially this:

1. Early awareness of being "not like the others"
2. Punished for early signs of being "not like the others" and a perception of being deprived of opportunities because of this
3. Finding a secret place to be their "true self"
4. Comparing "true self" to accepted norms and concluding "how can what feels so good be so wrong?"
5. Going from this to "how can I help myself, this is who I am - does this mean I am evil?
6. If it does, do I want to be good? Am I capable of being good?
7. Wondering if anyone else is the same, but seeing they are all as afraid to speak about it
8. Finding someone else to share "wrongness" with
9. Discovering something (or an idea) and believing "if I just show them this, they will understand and accept me"
10. Having that thing rejected, and instead being even further cast out
11. Having been cast out, rejection of the rejecting society (and its standards)
12. Joined by the person with whom they shared 'wrongness"; realisation that they are not wrong to be as they are

As I say, I have seen this structure many times in fiction discussing all manner of teen angst, but especially it brings to mind gender-variant teens coming out as trans or gay/lesbian.

In "Anthem" the nature of the difference is simply the fact of being different or of being individual; our protagonist (labelled "Equality 7-2521") is different from an early age by being a little bit brighter than everyone else, and a little bit taller and stronger. He also exhibits traces of individuality by having a fight with another boy. The perception of "deprived opportunity" is being assigned to the role of Street Sweeper, which Equality 7-2521 assumes is a punishment for difference, and for having a preferred occupation in mind.

The secret place is an underground tunnel where relics from the distant past (from before our society collapsed to be replaced by the "collectivist" society of Equality 7-2321's time) inspire our hero to start learning about science. In this place, Equality 7-2521 ponders the issues of points 4, 5 & 6.

The "person to share wrongness with" is the love-interest, at which point the sense of "what we are doing is wrong and perverted" is captured beautifully - again, it called to mind so vividly the stories I have heard both fictional and real-life of people discovering their sexuality.

The idea discovered was electric lighting, in our hero's mind showing this to the Scholars' Council will win him acceptance into their ranks and will serve to benefit everyone, which is in accordance with the philosophy of the time even though he had to sin against that philosophy to discover it. Of course, the sin is what is important to the ruling classes and the discovery is incidental.

Equality 7-2521 flees into the wilds, and is pursued by the love interest - they reject society and say "it is not wrong to be this way".

Through it all, I am reminded over and over again of teenage coming-of-age stories. As mentioned, mostly about teen sexuality but other teen stories as well, anything that involves conflict between what others want and what the teenager wants from their life. This sense of "teenagerhood" proves to be important, because at this point, Rand's political philosophy starts to become significant again in that Equality 7-2521 (now calling himself Prometheus) becomes a mouthpiece for individualism. The introduction commentary describes this passage as the "anthem" to which the title refers.

The passage starts with "Prometheus" revelling in the discovery of the word "I", a word that is forbidden in the society from which he came - so that speaking it is the only sin punishable by death, it is so anathema; most people do not know it exists, so Prometheus' discovery means a huge amount.

But the philosophy that appears verges on pure solipsism at times:

It is my eyes which see, and the sight of my eyes grants beauty to the earth. It is my ears which hear, and the hearing of my ears gives its song to the world. It is my mind which thinks, and the judgment of my mind is the only searchlight that can find the truth.

This dancing with solipsism is replaced by other reasoning, and now we see a version of Kant's Categorical Imperative (the formulation "treat no one as a means to an end, but always as an end in themselves") - but for Rand's Prometheus this is only ever stated for the individual, and not for others:

My happiness is not the means to any end. it is the end. it is its own goal. It is its own purpose.

Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars.

It is worth taking a moment to look at the philosophy that Rand's Prometheus espouses for living life, because it has practical implications later. As with all well-written novels, I often find myself thinking, "Okay, what happens next?"

Well, Rand's Prometheus has plans to spread the creed of "I" and thus overthrow the system in the society that he fled. This has implications for his belief system:

I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask none to live for me, nor do I live for any others.

...

I shall choose my friends among men, but neither slaves nor masters. And I shall choose only such as please me, and them I shall love and respect, but neither command nor obey. And we shall join our hands when we wish, or walk alone when we so desire. For in the temple of his spirit, each man is alone.

Promy's plans to spread his philosophy challenge those ideas:

...I shall steal one day, for the last time, into the cursed City of my birth. I shall call to me my friend who has no name save International 4-8818, and all those like him, Fraternity 2-5503, who cries without reason, and Solidarity 9-6347 who calls for help in the night, and a few others. I shall call to me all the men and the women whose spirit has not been killed within them and who suffer under the yoke of their brothers. They will follow me and I shall lead them to my fortress.

...

Here, on this mountain, I and my sons and my chosen friends shall build our new land and our fort. And it will become as the heart of the earth, lost and hidden at first, but beating, beating louder each day. And word of it will reach every corner of the earth. And the roads of the world will become as veins which will carry the best of the world's blood to my threshold... And the day will come when I shall break all the chains of the earth, and raze the cities of the enslaved, and my home will become the capital of a world where each man will be free to exist for his own sake.

At once, Promy is planning to bend others to his will and not to give them freedom but expecting them to obey his desires. What if there is disagreement over the right course? What if his fellow free men decide that they don't want to evangelise the creed of "I", don't want to recruit any more? What if they don't want to "break all the chains of the earth", but are happy with the fact that their own chains are broken?

At that point, either violence will emerge (since the young Equality 7-2521 resorted to violence and was punished for it, this is a clear possibility) and one person will thus impose his will on the majority, or else a majority will impose its will on the minority (there seems to be in the philosophy Rand espouses here a strong anti-democratic sentiment), and the dreaded "We" must return.

Rand's Prometheus characterises "We" as "the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame." And yet all the same charges can be laid at the feet of "I". Rand has her protagonist proclaim We to be, "the root of all evils on earth, the root of man's torture by men, and of an unspeakable lie." And yet (as outlined above) the same charges can be laid at the feet of "I". She writes, "It is the word by which the depraved steal the virtue of the good, by which the weak steal the might of the strong, by which the fools steal the wisdom of sages." And yet, those are the charges that Marx lays clearly at the feet of Capitalism.

If Rand's characterisation of collectivism in this novel was an absurd extreme, then her individualism in it is much the same. It shows, again, that naive teenager's belief that everyone will see things their way. All the time I was thinking, "okay, fine, but what happens when someone disagrees with you about what to do next?" In terms of the analogy I made earlier to teenage "coming-out" stories, this whole section plays the role of the final "Hah! Everyone is really like me, and if they're not they're repressed, or if they're not then at least my sexuality is truer and better than theirs really, so there!"

***

The other thing to note is that it's really been done better by others. George Orwell in "1984" presents a similar dystopian future world whose essential characteristic is that it exists purely to perpetuate itself and not elevate. Where "Anthem" has just one word erased from the lexicon, however, Orwell discusses the wholesale modification of language to reinforce the dominant collective philosophy. The principle of "Doublethink" also makes explicit something that Rand only mentions openly in her 1946 introduction: that words can be divorced from their proper meaning. Ira Levin's This Perfect Day also seems to be a much more considered version of future collectivism, and it's one where the directing of society is clear (just as in "1984"). Rand's "Anthem" does not address that somewhere in the "City" society she describes there must be people who are different, who direct all the others (it's hinted at with reference to various Councils made of Leaders who are singled out at age 15 to receive special training) and who are aware of "I" and why it is dangerous to their society.

***

I am sufficiently intrigued, having read this novel, to want to read Rand's other writing. however, my inclination at this point is to suggest that building a political philosophy around her writings probably makes as much sense as building a religion around L Ron Hubbard's writings, or a sexual philosophy around those of John Norman. Rand's writing and storytelling are fantastic, it's just the politics that I find full of holes.

Taking the Epistle: Colossians

St Paul's letter to the Colossians is another of his preaching texts aimed at putting right where people aren't "doing Christianity properly". His target here is Gnosticism in particular, although many of his themes are familiar from other epistles, especially those criticising the Judaisers.

One interesting text note is that it appears that the man who converted the Colosse church members was a follower of Paul who had converted not from Judaism but from Greek-based paganism ("Epaphras", explains the NIV Study Bible footnotes, came from "Epaphroditus", a name signifying connection to the Goddess Aphrodite). It may be because Colosse was not converted by Paul himself, or it may be to do with the purpose of his letter in confronting "heresy", that Paul's greeting seems somewhat overdone compared to some of his others (the Philippians stand as an exception to this). Paul positively gushes over the Colossian church's faith and goodness before he gets down to the real business of his letter.

The compilers of the NIV Study Bible comment that 1:15-20 can be read as being an early Christian hymn, and certainly the lyrical quality of the translation seems to support this idea. I find it harder to credit their assertion that Paul's quoting it at this point in the text points to a deprecation of Christ as being part of the Colossian heresy; similar passages seem to me to be found in other letters that are not directly addressing this point. Inasmuch as such things are addressed in Colossians, it seems to me that rather than seeing Christ brought down, we see evidence that other (worldly) things are being elevated to challenge him in the teachings that apparently led the church in Colosse to stray from Paul's version of Christianity.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Interestingly, this seems to contradict the version of the Temptation of Christ given in Luke 4:5-8 -

The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. So if you worship me, it will all be yours."

Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'"

The Gospel of John (in which we also see the sentiment of Christ as "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together") also describes the Devil as "the prince of this world" (e.g. John 12:31). I don't want to address this particular wrinkle of Christian theology right here and now (I do believe there is an answer to clarify what's going on, though) but I think it is an interesting point to note.

Paul's message to the Colossians appears to focus at least in part around affirming that through Christ, God is revealed - the theme appears in the "hymn" of 1:15-20, and recurs soon after. 1:25-28 reads:

I have become its [the Church's] servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fulness - the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. To them, God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ.

The NIV footnotes report that the word translated as "mystery" was being appropriated by Paul from pagan religions that claimed secret knowledge known only to the select few. Paul here is denying that there can be secret knowledge about God held only by a few, but proclaims instead that knowing Christ in one's heart is sufficient ("...which is Christ in you", "...teaching everyone with all wisdom"). Everyone can know Christ (and be considered "perfect in Christ") and no one can teach better than the Spirit. This is the theme to which Paul returns several times, and underpins some of his other statements, for example, 2:4 "I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments"; 2:8 "see to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ". While to modern ears 2:8 might sound like it is dismissing science, "basic principles" probably should not be seen as referring to physical principles, but to "base" as in "low" or "mean", principles of behaviour.

Paul now revisits a theme that should be familiar from Romans and Galatians in particular: namely that in being born again through Christ, we have died to the old Law. It appears that one of the things being taught to the Church at Colosse by the gnostic element there was that observation of strict rules of eating and drinking especially were important to salvation. 2:13-14, 16-18

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

...

Therefore, do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize.

Paul repeats the theme more dramatically for effect: 2:20-23

Since you died with Christ to the basic principles [see note on 2:8] of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

I have to admit, I enjoy this passage for its sheer theatre: this could be delivered by an orator with fabulous effect I am sure. There is such a great sneering tone as Paul ridicules the ideas of those he considers to be wrong!

Having in his own eyes set the believers of Colosse straight about these things, Paul returns to themes familiar from many of his other Letters. Proper behaviour.

3:5-10 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.

All of these things I have discussed in looking at the other Letters, where similar lists of "don't do these" appear.

The list of things that Christians are supposed to do is also familiar from Paul's other Letters:

3:11-17 Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

Between these two passages, is perhaps Paul's clearest denunciation yet of slavery as a practice (though Paul never actually comes out and says it is wrong or should be ceased), and of racism: "Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all." (3:11)

3:18-25 covers ground that I already covered in discussing Ephesians 5 & 6. Wives, obey husbands (husbands, don't be "harsh" with your wives); children, obey parents (parents, don't be nasty to your kids); slaves, do your duty as a service to God (masters, treat your slaves fairly).

After calling for prayers of thankfulness and for God's message to be spread, Paul finishes with his usual personal greetings.

Among these greetings are references to Mark and Luke, presumed to be the Gospel writers (Luke also being the credited author of Acts, which described Paul's journeys); sceptic that I am, I find this slightly too convenient and feel compelled to wonder whether this letter might not be a later addition after all, and not genuinely written by Paul. The NIV compilers seem eager to believe it is, but then, they have seemed so for all the Letters so far. I'm not going to say that it actually isn't written by Paul, but just noting my sceptic's response to these names appearing together.