#very funny to be like 'he's right our society is unjust' when you send people to the gulag for scalping your favorite merch

[biomic]

rita's like "moffun had an episode about this."

[revolutionary-demosthenes]

4th of July: John Laurens and Slavery, and why we shouldn’t idolize him

I’ve written several drafts of posts trying to explain John Laurens’s complicated relationship with slavery and, in a broader sense, how the hypocrisy of freedom for our country--while denying the freedom of enslaved people--has led directly to the situation we find ourselves in now, in terms of race in America.

I’ve struggled with even going there, because I’m trying to focus on the present now, not the past. But I firmly believe that America can only fix its present once we’ve faced our past. And I want this information on my blog. John Laurens was not a perfect man, not even close. He was an abolitionist, yes. But how he came to these views is complicated and his personal conduct towards African-Americans is often troubling. Too often, in fact, the racist ideas of his era are visible in his writings.

There’s lots out there about not glorifying or idolizing historical figures, such as Thomas Jefferson, Washington, and other slave-owners.

This is becoming particularly clear today, with the truth of violent systemic racism in America finally becoming more fully recognized. When people watch videos of a black man begging for his life under the knee of a policeman, that brutality becomes undeniable.

But John Laurens is often exempt from this “historical disclaimer” of sorts. In the world of the Hamilton fandom and even more broadly in history, he becomes The Abolitionist, a White Savior figure who abhorred slavery and fought for racial justice, no exceptions, no fine print.

But there is a fine print for John Laurens. And it is a vital one to examine, because it shows us the importance of carrying our beliefs into our personal lives, not just our political ones.

First, let’s acknowledge the circumstances John was born into.

South Carolina, where he was born in 1754, was a southern colony, and as such relied mainly on agriculture in its economy. The rich plantation owners were the pinnacle of society. Washington’s family is an example of one such rich and powerful plantation owning family. The wealth and standing in society of these men led to positions in the government. And a man who illustrates this perfectly is none other than Henry Laurens.

Henry Laurens, John Laurens’s father, was, despite his pleading to the contrary, a significant slave owner and slave trader. Though in his private life he claimed to dislike slavery, he co-owned the largest slave-trading house in North America, Austin & Laurens. It doesn’t matter what he thought, or claimed to think. What matters is what he did.

Henry Laurens owned between close to three hundred slaves. His attitude toward the treatment of his own slaves was dehumanizing, self-righteous, and willfully ignorant. He chose to look upon himself as a “good” slave owner, rather than actually face the horrors he was perpetrating. He wrote in a letter that he’d rather treat his slaves “with Humanity” and make “less Rice” than “submit to the Charge of one who should make twice as much rice & exercise any degree of Cruelty towards those poor Creatures who look up to their Master as their Father, their Guardian, & Protector.” What Henry is trying to say here (to my reading) is that he’d rather his plantation produce less of a crop and not work his slaves too hard than treat his slaves cruelly to produce more profit.

Henry Laurens, in an attitude that is all too familiar today,  consistently chose to think of himself as an exception to the problem rather than as part of the problem. He was quick to talk up abolition and condemn cruel treatment of enslaved people. But when it came to his own slaves, he insisted that “my Servants are as happy as Slavery will admit of, none run away, the greatest punishment to a defaulter is to sell him.”

I don’t know how John’s mother, Eleanor Ball Laurens, viewed slavery, but she also came from a large slave-owning family. Even if she personally didn’t approve of the practice wholeheartedly, she benefitted directly from slavery and married someone in the slave trade.

So this is the life John Laurens was born into. A life of incredible privilege, sourced directly from the the slave trade and the labor of kidnapped and enslaved Africans. This is the first thing that needs acknowledging in terms of John’s relationship with slavery. He was able to accomplish much of what he did because of his social standing and wealth as the son of a very powerful South Carolinian, powerful mostly because of his standing in Southern society.

John was able to get his education in Europe because of slavery. He was able to use his father’s influence to become an aide-de-camp to George Washington. His social standing and quality of life all stood upon the backs of slaves.

Because of this background, John was exposed to the brutal truths of slavery since he could understand the world around him. Is this how he came into his abolitionist views? It absolutely could be. But it is more likely that John first became serious about abolition when he was taken to Europe for his education. He attended a school in Geneva, a cosmopolitan place that was very open to new ideas. Being an abolitionist was not considered as radical there as it was in the Southern Colonies, and there was more writing on the subject of abolition, including a poem by Thomas Day, an abolitionist patriot, whom John was friends with.

So John’s serious thoughts on abolition may have partly been a product of being away from a place where slavery seen as a part of life and being in a place which was more open to abolition. John may have thought slavery wrong for a long time, but lacked adequate support to be vocal about it.

Significantly though, John did not abandon his beliefs when he returned to America. He continued to be a vocal abolitionist, and unlike his father Henry, confronted actual slave owners and tried to convince them to free their slaves… including his boss, General George Washington.

He also converted Lafayette into an ardent abolitionist, and Lafayette, even after Laurens’s death, stuck to these beliefs. He later in life even bought a plantation and ran it with the labor of paid black people, to prove it could be done.

But once we get to the war, we must also talk about Shrewsberry.

John didn’t own slaves, technically. But his father dispatched two of his slaves to serve as John’s valets during the war, one of whom was named Shrewsberry. (Something to note: I am not sure if these slaves were paid or not. I would assume not, and I have yet to find a record of payment, if it did exist. But if anyone knows more about this, I would love to know the answer, as it’s an important question to think about.)

This alone would mar John’s “perfect abolitionist” image, but it gets more disturbing when you consider how John viewed and treated his valets. I should mention we don’t have a ton of evidence of their living conditions, but what we do have is distressing.

On to the primary evidence: if you read the correspondence between John and his father, a funny/not funny pattern is that John is always requesting clothes, fabric, hair powder, etc., from his father. He usually thanked his father for these items. But here is a quote from a letter John wrote to his father on December 15th, 1777: “Berry received a hunting shirt and a check shirt. If there be any difficulty in getting him winter clothes I believe he can do without.” So while John advocated for black Americans in his public life, his private conduct tells differently.

And this is further evidenced when, after Laurens’ death in 1782, Thadeus Kosciuszco wrote to Nathaniel Greene that John’s slaves (his father's technically, as explained above) were “nacked” and that they were in need of “shirts jackets Breeches.” (“nacked” meaning “naked.”)

While John Laurens was certainly more enlightened than the average man of his time on the subject of slavery, he still had trouble connecting his broader ideas of freedom and emancipation to his personal life. He also wrongly blamed Shrewsberry for the loss of a hat, writing to his father, “Shrewsberry says his hat was violently taken from him by some soldiers as he was carrying his horses to water. If James will be so good as to send him his old laced hat by the bearer I hope he will take better care of it.” The blame for this incident obviously lies upon the soldiers who stole Shrewsberry’s hat, but John acts like Shrewsberry was in the wrong, or somehow that having the hat “violently taken” indicated that Shrewsberry was not taking care of the hat. The automatic and unjust condemnation of Shrewsberry again speaks to how John did have the prejudices of his time period in his head, even as he fought against them in a broader sense.

Later in the war, John left Washington in favor of his home state, South Carolina. He wanted to raise a regiment of slaves to fight for the patriot cause, who would then be emancipated for their service. John had written his father about the idea earlier, saying,

“I would bring about a twofold good, first I would advance those who are unjustly deprived of the Rights of Mankind to a State which would be a proper Gradation between abject Slavery and perfect Liberty—and besides I would reinforce the Defenders of Liberty with a number of gallant Soldiers—Men who have the habit of Subordination almost indelibly impress’d on them, would have one very essential qualification of Soldiers—I am persuaded that if I could obtain authority for the purpose I would have a Corps of such men trained, uniformly clad, equip’d and ready in every respect to act at the opening of the next Campaign…”

Reading through this carefully, we can see some ideas expressed here that are important to note. Firstly, “proper Gradation between abject Slavery and perfect Liberty.” This means that though John did want to free the slaves, he did not think that black people should have the “perfect Liberty” that whites enjoyed. Additionally, when John writes, “Men who have the habit of Subordination indelibly impress’d on them” he is suggesting (to my reading) that because slaves were constantly treated as inferior, they would be good soldiers (I assume because soldiers have to obey their commanding officers.) Honestly, this reads to me like John wanting to take advantage of the cruelty slaves endured because “They’re used to it.”

Henry wrote back that what John was offering was hardly better than slavery, again assuming his attittude of “my slaves are happy.”

John wrote a long letter in return, explaining his reasoning and also basically being like, “dad please support me, dad, please.” But there are also some phrases here, in his letter defending his abolitionist views, that are revealing about the prejudices John harbored. 

He writes, “I confess, indeed, that the minds of this unhappy species must be debased by a servitude, from which they can hope for no relief but death, and that every motive to action but fear, must be nearly extinguished in them.”

Note John’s reference to slaves as a “species” rather than a race. (And, by the way, race is a social construct, not an actual biological thing.) The belief that blacks and whites were separate species was common at the time, and often used by slave traders to justify their actions. And this bit of writing shows that even if John didn’t really believe this wholeheartedly, he at least had the idea in his head. However, later in the letter John does use “race” so it’s a little unclear what he actually believed.

And we can see the belief that black people were not as intellectually capable as white people, owing to their enslavement.

Gregory Massey puts it this way: “Young Laurens reasoned that blacks were not innately inferior to whites; rather, their apparent mental deficiencies resulted from generations of enslavement.”

John goes on, “I have had the pleasure of conversing with you, sometimes, upon the means of restoring [the slaves] to their rights. When can it be better done, than when their enfranchisement may be made conducive to the public good, and be modified, as not to overpower their weak minds?”

What sticks out here is, of course, the assertion that the slaves had “weak minds.”

Essentially, John thought that once black people were allowed to live free, “rescued from a state of perpetual humiliation” as he put it in the same letter, their nature would change to more like whites. Black Patriots and Loyalists: Fighting for Emancipation in the War for Independence by Alan Gilbert states, 

“Nonetheless, John Laurens retained a slave-owner’s perspective about the psychology of blacks at the time. In a 1776 letter to his father, he ignored manifold black acts of resistance and their hunger to be free: ‘There may be some inconvenience and even Danger in advancing Men suddenly from a State of Slavery while possessed of the manners and Principals incident to such a State... too suddenly to the Rights of freedman. [T]he example of Rome suffering from Swarms of bad citizens who were freedmen is a warning to us to proceed with caution.’ [...] The son insisted, however, on the principal that slavery is simply wrong, the immoral shackling of another: ‘The necessity for it is an Argument of the complete Mischief occasioned by our continued Usurpation.’”

But the same book also says, “John Laurens was a practical abolitionist. Favored by nature and fortune, he chose no easy path. He could, for instance, have worked for Washington, recruited a company of white soldiers as his father urged, and still have advocated for the “public good.” Instead, he committed himself to the nobler course of fighting determinedly for abolition.”

However, “18th century abolitionist” usually did not mean someone who believed black and white people were equal and should have the same rights. It meant that you wanted to end slavery. The difference between these views often gets blurred for John Laurens. Saying that John Laurens was an abolitionist is accurate, but he probably did not believe that black and white people should have the exact same rights, at least not at first. That needs to be acknowledged. John was an abolitionist, but it is unclear how much equality he really wanted. 

Only paying attention to his anti-slavery professional life also leads to the idea that it is safe to idolize Laurens, rather than critically examine his complex views on race. The idea forms that he is the one white man from the 18th century we can be fully proud of. The one we can say is our beautiful cinnamon roll without having to confront his relationship with slavery. The fact that John Laurens wanted to help enslaved people gain their freedom doesn’t change the ways in which he benefited from white supremacy, nor how he treated his personal servants, nor the racist ideas he expressed in some of his writings.

This does not mean Laurens was evil, or that you can’t like and admire parts of him. By the standards of other revolutionary figures, like the aforementioned Jefferson and Washington (and Madison and Hamilton to an extent*) Laurens was remarkably enlightened. But also, that in itself is terrible. Like, the idea of a “good guy” from the 18th century is still one that believed that black people had “weak minds” owing to their enslavement. 

If we truly want to reckon with the racial sins of America, and how they originated, we need to see figures like Laurens for all they were. Not just the noble abolitionist, but also the inherently privileged white man whose righteous public crusade was enabled by the very system it sought to end, slavery. We also need to see him as the extremely wealthy young man who regarded the command of his servants as part of the natural order of his life.

I didn’t write this solely for history. John’s story is a reminder to all allies that actions based on our beliefs are important to make in our private lives, as well as public. Yes, it’s important to advocate for racial justice in our public and professional lives. But it’s also important to examine and be honest about our own forms of privilege and the ways in which we have internalized the racism of the world around us. All white people in America benefit from slavery and the systems it was built upon, even those whose forebears came to America long after slavery was abolished. I firmly believe that a step forward for racial justice in the US is simply to acknowledge privilege, because we cannot fix a broken system until we realize all the ways in which it is broken. 

[firstumcschenectady]

“A kindom parable?” based on Romans 15:1-12 and Matthew 18:21-35

There are some simple takes on today's parable.  If you read it the way Matthew wrote it, is an allegory about the importance of forgiveness. As a reminder, the STORY itself says,

“A king called one of his servants to settle accounts, the servant owed an extraordinary amount of money.  When the servant couldn't immediately produce the money, the king ordered that the servant, his family, and all their possessions be sold to cover the debt (worth noting, it wouldn't have covered the debt.)  The servant grovels, the king not only relents, but FORGIVES the whole debt.

However, upon leaving, the servant encounters someone who owes him money, requests that it be repaid, and when that is impossible, the servant threw the man into prison.

This got reported to the king, who then had the servant tortured until he could pay back the debt.”

(It is worth noting that the amounts of money in this parable are OBSCENE.  I've seen scholars guess that the first figure is as low as $10 million or as high as $6 billion.  The second figure is lower, but not trivial.  It is still more money than most peasants would ever see, perhaps in the $10,000 range.  The Jesus seminar actually thinks this parable goes back to Jesus, in part, because the numbers are so huge and they believe Jesus's parables tended to exaggerate. Other scholars point out that the first figure essentially equated to “the largest figure one could ever name.”  Our version of a gazillion dollars, so,  A LOT of money.)

So, when the parable is taken as allegory, it is simple:  God is like the King, God forgives us our debts, we are then supposed to forgive others their far smaller debts, if we don't, we will go to hell.  

HOWEVER, despite what I learned in Sunday School as a child, parables aren't fables.  They don't tend to be easy to understand.  Instead, they tend to be things that make us think.

So, when we come to a parable that seems easy to understand, it usually indicates it has been cleaned up a little bit from what Jesus said into what the Gospel writer thought it should mean.

If we take the story just as Matthew wrote it, then God is vindictive and while we're instructed to forgive 70*7 times, God forgives once and then gets unforgiving immediately.  That should also give us pause, since it simply doesn't fit how we understand the Divine.

Now, if we take out Matthew's final scolding at the end, we un-fable the story and get back to a parable.  To take the parable as a parable first requires that we do NOT assume that the earthly king is a stand in for God?  

If we read it as parable, the whole thing gets uncomfortable.  How could anyone ever owe a king that much money?  How does even the king have enough money that he can forgive a figure like that on a whim?  Where does the money come from (hint: the laborers who are dying young of starvation so the money can flow to the top)? Why doesn't the servant respond with generosity?  Why did the other servants tell the king? Why did the king respond with such venom?  Who or what is good in this story?  What are we supposed to do?  Does the second man get released from prison when the first one gets sent to be tortured? Does anyone win?

That's a solid parable.  

However, if we take out the BEGINNING line about this story being about the kin(g)dom of God, things get even more interesting.  

William Herzog II in “Parables as Subversive Speech” suggests that we first look at the story on its own merits – in the context of the day.  What follows is my adaptations of Herzog's work.  The king in this story is most likely a client king of the Roman Empire.  Someone placed by Rome, and replaceable by Rome.  He is in charge of extracting wealth from the area he is king of, keeping some, and sending the rest on.  The system by which he does this is pretty complicated, including many levels of bureaucracy that does his dirty work for him – and is paid well enough to be grateful not to be the peasants.  The bureaucracy is kept on its toes with fear, and as such the “work environment” is deeply suspicious, prone to untruths, and manipulative.  Everyone is “playing politics” with everyone else because that's how you survive.

When leaders exist to extract wealth, they have to use their power to terrify, and when power is inherently violent, the systems that support it won't be healthy.  One could simply say that bad leaders create bad systems, and that's true, but under it all is a question of what is the POINT of leadership.  

The Hebrew Bible suggests that the point of a leader is to care for the people and pay attention to the needs of the whole, by creating a system of justice that is fair, a society that enables even impoverished people to survive, and an economic system that distributes livable wages and sustainability as broadly as possible (and prevents both generational wealth and its counter generational poverty).  Because the Jewish people knew this, the way the Roman Empire worked was seen as inherently immoral.  The Roman Empire, like any empire understood the king to “own” the whole land and the people, and to be responsible for using them to  to extract wealth from  and to send to the top, and to do so by creating an unjust system and threatening everyone with death and destruction.  You can see their point on this being a bad system.

OK, so we have a Roman client king, and the first Jewish hearers would have STARTED with distrust of this guy.  Helpful to know, right?

And, while the king was inherently immoral, SO WAS HIS COURT, as they were the ones doing his dirty work.   In fact, that first servant, was a top level bureaucrat, and that large “loan” he was supposed to replay was actually the “taxes and tributes” he and his department were responsible for extracting from the people and the land.  Calling in the “loan” was demanding his money, perhaps as a test of the servant, in order to threaten violence and keep the fear up in the system.  Being arbitrary and making unreasonable demands helps create a culture of fear.  The man doesn't have the full amount yet, possibly because it wasn't “due” yet.  

Now, the first hearers likely would not have had a lot of identification with this servant, because he was … basically a cabinet level official whose own actions had done incredible damage to their country and their lives.  The king's anger and threats are par for the course, but, in fact, so is his forgiveness.  Because the king has now RE-ESTABLISHED his dominance, which was always the point. I suspect the “Forgiveness” of the loan in this case is inherently untrue, this was just a show of power, forcing the otherwise powerful servant to be submissive and reminded of what can happen to him.

This servant goes out after the “forgiveness” and then demands a smaller BUT STILL LARGE sum be paid back to him.  Again, it is worth noting that the people Jesus spoke to would not have identified with the man owing the smaller sum because it was still more money than they ever had.  And in this case the top level bureaucrat does not forgive the debt, probably because most of the time debts are not simply forgiven.  Then other people in the court, who gained power and prestige by lowering someone else's, used this to take down the top level official.  And the king's whims take him down this time.

That is, perhaps this is not parable of “what the kindom of God is like” and more a description of “what the kingdom of Rome is like.” By making plain how the systems of power work in the world, Jesus was able to invite people to consider how they are complicit in the system as well as if they want to continue to be.

Because I, for one, don't want to be part of systems like that.

Recently, I've seen how beautifully another option can work.  The practice that I went to for care during my pregnancy and birth is one that prides itself on putting patients first.  And they did!  My medical care was profoundly humane, I was taken seriously all along, and my caregivers took the time to talk with me – and not just about medical issues! This seemed to penetrate the whole system.  From the person who greeted us at the desk, to the one weighing me, to the ones scheduling next appointments, there was grace abundance, as well as patience and kindness.  

I also noticed that the practice was humane to its workers.  People at various “levels” in the practice could be seen talking and laughing with each other.  It felt much more like people were doing various tasks that all mattered than like there was a hierarchy in the office.  I also heard, at the hospital (as we were there for a while) how incredibly well respected the group is!

Truthfully, I found it mesmerizing.  I wanted to know all their secrets.  I asked a bit, and what I heard was that the whole group was deeply committed to putting patients first and people came to work there to do that.   The nature of the organization was created by its primary value being lived out.

On a smaller scale, I love the story of a very VERY mild mannered man becoming the roads supervisor in a small town.  As you'd expect, people tended to call that office in a fury when something was wrong with their roads, and lots can go wrong with roads.  Those that loved the man worried about him being eaten alive by other people's fury, but instead, his mild manners, calm assurances, tendency to listen and commitment to doing his job well transformed those who called. Even one person can make a huge difference.

Many of Jesus's stories teach us how to subvert broken systems.  I think this story teaches us how those systems work so we can make decisions about engage with them.  Funny enough, the reading from Romans goes through this as well.  Either we can take people down for making different choices than we do, or we can participate with God in building the kindom.  Judgement, like manipulation, fear, and suspicion keep us participating in systems of oppression. Compassion, equity, listening build the kindom of God.  In every word that we say, and every action we take, we get to choose where we put our lives.  We can choose fear and violence or we can choose to build the kindom of God for all people.  May God help us choose well.  Amen

Rev. Sara E. Baron First United Methodist Church of Schenectady 603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305 Pronouns: she/her/hers http://fumcschenectady.org/

https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

September 13, 2020

[poweredbypeaches-blog]

Intro & Autobiography

Aloha 🌺 Welcome,

The Powergirl Chronicles is a community where men and women can gather to share their very own unique story. Since this is a safe space I want every single one of you to be vulnerable, compassionate, graceful, and most importantly transparent when submitting your stories. You may send it as a video or letter. Please just be sure to write a detailed Bio for your caption section. I will also need everyone who is sending their stories to send it with a note attached that I have permission to post your content.

Remember This: Your story is POWERFUL!  No matter who you are in this world you have a PURPOSE! Stand tall and be PROUD of the person you are and for the person you are becoming.

Who am I & Why? For starters, I would like to introduce you to my very own unique story. I was Born & raised on the island of Oahu on the countryside of Kahalu’u. If you ever get the opportunity to visit any part of Hawaii, I strongly recommend you do! It is a place you will never forget.

Growing up I was the “invisible girl”, no literally I would walk the halls of high school with my hair covering my face… I’d avoid certain classrooms, hallways or bathrooms just so I wouldn’t have to make eye contact with anyone. I was shy, insecure, quiet and very angry. I’m not sure if my peers noticed at all, not even the teachers, or my parents even. I guess that’s why I felt so invisible, because I was hurting so much and no one even cared to notice. Not like it was their place to notice. I mean they had problems of their very own and my parents were in the midst of getting clean and sober while reevaluating their own lives. Who could I run to? I had no one… even the people that said they would be there for me, couldn’t be because they were busy living their own lives. It was then that I figured out that this is a cold place we live in. We all have problems, but people isolate themselves and refuse to help others because well, it’s not their problem. I get it! I’ve been there… “Like, I can’t I already have too much on my plate.” Until I realized that this “me first” mentality that society has normalized isn’t the way I wanted to live.

First 💔 Love Well, before I realized these things I met a boy. As the naive little girl I was, I completely put his needs before my own. As my DECA teacher had told me, “Chera you are so good at helping your peers, but why can’t you help yourself?” As she pulled me aside for a one on one as I was failing her class. I believe because I felt no one truly cared or helped me, that maybe I would find comfort in helping those who were also invisible. It made me feel good to see others flourishing even if I couldn’t do it for myself at the time. The point is me in a relationship is anyone’s ultimate win right!? I do what you want to do, when you want to do it, and how you want to do it because I want to love you in the ways no one has ever loved me. Long story short, five years into the relationship and it didn’t work out. The feeling wasn’t mutual, but I had some growing to do on my end. I had to put myself first for once and I finally did, so I thought…

Single & Free... A year later, and I’m still struggling… I know my worth now, but I’m still entertaining the things that are toxic to me. I tell you the whole nine yards! I put myself through the ringer. I thought better opportunities were vast among us and let me tell you they ain’t! From married men, men with girlfriends or fiancés I mean every single one of them were taken, but they would not dare tell you. It really opened my eyes to the human mind; It opened my eyes to how insecure everyone is, how temporary everyone lives - I mean with the new motto “YOLO” no one thinks of the consequences of their actions and how it impacts our world, the universe. With the amount of food wasted and those who go hungry… we have no excuse… I have no excuse I told myself, it is up to me to do better it’s the only thing I can control.

My Confidant I believe y’all will think this is funny, but try to take a wild guess on where I met my husband… it pains me to say it, but I found love in da club. 🤷🏽‍♀️ Gordon has impacted my life so much since the day I’ve met him. We make a good team. Our most important traits are that we can be all the things I stated in the definition of the powergirl chronicles. We are both vulnerable, compassionate, graceful and transparent in who we are as individuals. We both don’t like to fight or hold grudges; therefore, a normal couples fight between us is more like a discussion of give and take or how do you say compromise. I’ve learned that every relationship will come with disagreement or hardship, it’s just the circle of life, but it is how we react and handle these hardships that make all the difference. As a child I spent most of my life fighting, calling names, holding grudges and going weeks or months with the silent treatment. I, on the other hand refuse to live that way any longer and my husband agrees. That is why he is my confidant! We are each other’s mentors. We teach one another that life is too valuable  for it to be wasted away on the things that do not help us prosper. We choose to live in the light in the power of the now.

My Son My son is my savior. If not for him I can guarantee you all my life here on earth would have ran many years too short. I don’t say that out of pity. I say it because it is my truth. I wanted out! No one really supported me then in the ways I desperately needed. The loved ones that I did tell of my sexual abuse just told me that it happens to everyone, so toughen up. Oh boy, I tell you that was a hard pill to swallow. I was appalled by everyone's reaction… and then I realized, this is going to continue happening to others if someone doesn’t stand up, speak up and start changing the damn narrative. Now I may not be able to go into each and every home physically and save people from these unjust occurrences or trauma, but what I did realize is I can share my story praying that it helps another soul find their way out of the fog. Just because you’re surrounded by the fog doesn't mean you have to become it. My son is a huge reason why I want to change the narrative because as a little girl I felt invisible, unworthy and unloved and those are the last three things my son or anyone else in this world for that matter should ever have to feel.

Remember this: You are the architect & builder of your life. Shape it with intention. Do not let your past pain define who you are or determine where you are going. The power is in the now!

[blessedarethebinarybreakers]

I don't know if you guys consider heterosexual aromantics to be LGBT, but I am one. Lust is something that I struggle with tremendously and I've been told by every Christian that I need to save myself for my husband or someone very important to me. However, I'm really put off by the idea of any romantic relationship. I don't know if I'll ever want one. I feel as if I'll forever be trapped with my sexual frustration because of this, and that if I hold it in, it will manifest in unhealthy ways.

CW: discussion about sex, mention of masturbation and brief mentions of purity culture and cheating

Hey there. I’m sorry you’re dealing with this frustration and confusion, friend. I do not have definitive answers for you, I’m afraid – only speculation and various ways you might go with this. In the end, it will be up to you to decide how you do (or don’t) express your sexuality. I pray that God’s Spirit of Wisdom and Right Judgment will be with you as you explore this matter. And know, of course, that you can come to one decision for a while and later decide it isn’t working for your faith life, and try a different path – there’s plenty of time to explore this and discover what is good for you.

Okay, so. I’ll start by throwing some old posts at you that might help. Beginning with masturbation – we’ve had posts in the past that speculate in favor of masturbation, if that’s something you also want to look into for a way of dealing with sexual frustration. See our masturbation tag. 

We’ve also talked about sexual relationships outside of marriage, though as far as I remember we’ve always discussed them in the context of a romantic relationship being in place rather than in terms of hooking up. Thus those posts aren’t quite what you are looking for but still might have some information you find useful. And our sex tag in general has even more stuff.****The part of your ask that these posts probably answer is people’s insistence that you need to “save yourself” for your husband – that’s a notion of purity culture, which is extremely toxic and sexist. We on this blog are strongly opposed to purity culture – if you choose not to have sex before marriage, it is between you and God; you won’t “dirty” yourself or be “damaged goods” for having sex. You’re a person, not an object!! And sex isn’t some dirtying force. So don’t listen to those people! Their notions are gross. 

Okay, so if you look through some of those linked tags you might notice one author I mention a lot, Catholic theologian Margaret Farley. I’ve made posts that describe her seven “norms” for just, or ethical, sex. A lot of them can clearly exist in a relationship that is sexual but not romantic / formed in a strong bond: do no unjust harm; free consent of partners; mutuality; and equality. But what about fruitfulness and social justice? And most obviously, what about commitment? 

First off, it’s not necessary to accept Farley’s seven norms; she is not necessarily “correct,” but I personally do think they’re pretty good standards for sex. In a “hook-up” sexual situation, her social justice norm might be achieved simply by ensuring that your sexual encounter does not harm the wider community – for instance, ensuring that your partner(s) are not in monogamous relationships so that someone is being cheated on. The fruitfulness aspect might be achieved if you consider the release of sexual tension fruitful. (I’m not convinced Farley would agree that that counts as fruitful but hey, she’s a Catholic nun, you can go a little farther than she does!). You seem self-aware in a really healthy way, recognizing that your sexual frustration might manifest itself in unhealthy ways – so I think it’s reasonable to consider a healthy release of some of that tension fruitful for you.

And finally, that commitment norm – I know Farley mentions commitment between two people “hooking up” somewhere in her book but I just can’t find it. If I remember correctly, her suggestion is a little flimsy – that you commit to one another in that you are both (or all, if multiple partners) clear on where your relationship starts and where it ends; no one is misled about the nature of the relationship. So in your case, it would probably be a matter of everyone involved understanding it was a purely sexual encounter without romantic strings attached – no leading someone on with hopes of dating in the future.

Time to switch gears and go in a different direction to offer a different view, just to give you all the information I can think of so you can ponder it all on your own.

1 Corinthians 7 is a portion of Paul’s writings that I like to use to argue the guy was asexual and/or aromantic. I by no means personally think this passage should be used to mandate all Christians’ sex lives, but you might still like to see what Paul thought about sex. 

Because Paul thought the second coming was imminent, he saw sex and marriage as a waste of time and to be avoided. However, he recognized that many people were not like him and were too “aflame with passion” to go without sex. For them he prescribed marriage as a solution. You might interpret this as either “for” or “against” your hopes – he’s not advocating non-romantic sexual relationships by any means, but he is showing that being “aflame with passion” is a genuine concern that needs to be addressed. Your worry about sexual frustration is a genuine one legitimized by scripture; but if you balk at a romantic relationship then marriage is not your vocation. So for you, non-romantic sex may be the solution. 

We’re almost wrapped up; I’ve just got one last thing to emphasize.

If you do decide to try some casual sex, or masturbation, please go into it slowly and ready to analyze how it affects your faith life. Afterwards, consider: are you too ridden with guilt to have enjoyed the sex? do you feel farther from God? or do you think you might learn to use sex/masturbation to feel closer to God by appreciating the gifts of physicality and pleasure God has given you? In our society that’s pretty awkward about sex, it might feel weird to invite God into your sex life – but do your best to converse with God about it! God gave you your sexuality and can help you figure it out. 

And finally, if you decide to try some sex – be safe!! Use protection both to avoid pregnancy if that’s a concern for you and to keep safe from STIs. Do your research, and make sure your partner is respectful of you and your concerns. If they act annoyed when you ask if they have a history of STIs, or when you want to use a condom, find someone else. (Remember there are other ways to have sex too – you don’t have to jump right into the penetrative stuff; going slow might be smart.)

If anyone has more thoughts, please share! I always sort of laugh when y’all send asks about sex because I am ace and I feel like me delving into this matter is as funny as Margaret Farley as a nun writing a whole book on sex. But I do my best and I hope it’s somewhat helpful!