Generosity

¡Hola! Everybody...
We live in a time where good is bad and bad is good. Toxic waste is good for you and corporations that bilk the taxpayers for billions of dollars continue living off the public teat while organizations that fight for a living wage and to register poor people to vote are marginalized.

Interesting times we live in...

* * *

-=[ Religion and Altruism ]=-

Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

-- Luke 6:38 (New International Version)

The following will not win me many friends... LOL!

In a society that can only think of morality in religious terms, it would be easy to assume that there’s a strong connection between religion and good. For example, many Christians, often with tears in their eyes, demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. Of course that’s Moses, not Jesus. For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes. I haven’t heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere.

“Blessed are the merciful” in a courtroom?

“Blessed are the peacemakers” in the Pentagon?

The sacred texts of Judaism and Christianity, like most spiritual disciplines, contain potent reminders to be compassionate and charitable.

These admonitions, however, have not been sufficient to prevent a wide range of horrors under the justification of one religion or another. From the Hebrews, whose jealous God compelled them to destroy innocent men, women and children, to the barbaric Christian crusaders, to contemporary fanatics killing in Allah’s or Jesus’ name. Less known, but just as disturbing are the plethora of studies demonstrating that churchgoers are more intolerant of ethnic minorities than non-churchgoers.

When we turn to the topic of altruism, we discover that there is almost no connection between religious affiliation and caring or helping behavior. This conclusion has emerged with remarkable consistency from many types of research spanning many years. One study of about 2,000 Episcopalians in the 1950s showed no discernible relationship between church involvement and charitable acts. In another questionnaire-based study of altruism involving several hundred male college students in 1960, there was only a slight correlation between altruism and a belief in God, and none at all between altruism and of religious participation. In a random study of adults in 1965, the non-religious were as frequently rated as being a good Samaritan, possessing love and compassion for their fellow human being, as well as being humble, as the most devout and religious of the group that was studied.

Two experiments with undergraduates during the 1970s found essentially the same findings: In one, students who believed in the Bible’s accuracy were no more likely than others to come to the aid of someone in the next room who seemed to have fallen off a ladder. In the other study, students were assessed as being “Jesus People” (born again Christians), conventionally religious, nonreligious, or atheist. There was no statistical difference among these groups in their willingness to volunteer time with developmentally delayed children or to resist the temptation to cheat on a test (the only group in which the majority did not cheat: the atheists).

In 1984, a researcher who surveyed more than 700 people from different neighborhoods in a medium-sized city expected to find that religious people were especially sociable, helpful to their neighbors, and likely to participate in neighborhood organizations. Instead, she reported, religious involvement was unrelated to these activities. Finally, a study of people who risked their lives to rescue Jews from the Nazis found that “rescuers did not differ significantly from bystanders or all non-rescuers with respect to their religious identification, religious education, and their own religiosity or that of their parents.”

It seems, then, that religious affiliation by itself has nothing to do with an evolved level of moral reasoning or altruism.

Love,

Eddie

The TGIF Sex Blog [Sex Therapy]

¡Hola! Everybody...
[Note: I am on a blog hiatus until next week. The following is a repost. Starting Monday, I will lobbing major bombs, so make sure you come back]

* * *

-=[ Free Sex Therapy ]=-

A woman’s behind: an altar to be worshiped on ones knees...

-- Eddie

Well, it’s Friday and you know what that means. Yeppers, it’s time for the [un]Common Sense Sex Blog!

As most of you who read me regularly know, I don’t tire of reminding all and anybody that I at one time seriously considered a career as a sex therapist. While I didn’t follow through on this career path, along the way I learned much regarding sex from the POV of many different cultures and time periods. I offered to answer any sex questions and, as usual, my intrepid friends/ readers have responded.

[The following are real answers to real letters. I promised to respect anonymity]

Dear Mr. Eddie,

I would really like to know why men are so fascinated with their penises. It seems to me that this is really weird and I am at a loss at why men are constantly touching it, referring to it, etc. Isn’t this behavior based on some fear/ insecurity/ unhealthy obsession? Could you help me understand this?

-- Clueless in FLA.

Well, clueless,

It seems to me this is an easy one, but it will take some willingness to indulge me for e a sec: imagine your g-spot hanging, swingin’ large away from your body. Still with me? Now, imagine even further that women think it’s funny to kick you around that area where your precious g-spot swings perilously. Considering all this, wouldn’t you also develop an inordinate fascination with your penis?

::blank stare::

* * *

Fornicator! Sodomizer!

You will burn in hell for being a Sodomite. The Good Book explicitly states that anal sex is a sin. May God have mercy on your black soul!

In Love with Jaysus in Armpit, USA

Hmmmm…

OK! I’ll answer this one. First, I am of Puerto Rican descent and raised rubbing elbows with African Americans; my first kiss was stolen from a light-skinned lovely called Gail in the second grade. If I have any form of identification, it is with the “Black Urban Experience.” I’m like a house that’s painted white on the outside, but is black on the inside, so you’re correct in picking out my “Black” side. Secondly, while I don’t identify as a Christian (which will probably serve to further estrange me from your God), I was raised as a Catholic which means, like most Christians, I probably didn’t read the Bible. However, I have since then opened the Good Book and here is what I have found:

Anal sex is confusing to many Christians because of the attention paid to the Bible’s (supposed) condemnation of homosexual acts. However, nowhere does the Bible forbid anal sex between a male and female. (On a tangential note, Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality.)

In fact, many Biblical passages allude to the act of anal sex between men and women. Lamentations 2:10 describes how “The virgins of Jerusalem have bowed their heads to the ground,” indicating how virginal maidens should position themselves to receive anal sex. The music group, The Dookers, put it more succinctly when they sang, “Face down/ ass up/ that’s the way we like to fuck!” Another suggestive scripture tells of a woman’s pride in her “valley” (a reference to her buttocks and the cleft between them) and entices her lover to ejaculate against her backside: “How boastful you are about the valleys! O backsliding daughter who trusts in her treasures, [saying,] ‘Who will come against me?’ (Jeremiah 49:4) And in the Song of Songs, the lover urges his mate to allow him to enter her from behind: “Draw me after you, let us make haste.” (Song of Solomon, 1:4)

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, muthafucka!

***

Dearest Eddie,

If there were more men like you around in this world, women wouldn't need pussies -- they'd probably atrophy from non-use and become a vestige organ like a freakin' appendix. LOL! Quit hating the pussy, Eddie! She's a sweet, purring, loving part of us women.

Whoa!

Who said I hate the pussy?!? Anyone who knows me even a little knows that my favorite scent is the smell of a freshly washed pussy: that intoxicating mixture of soap and musk never fails to awaken my erectile attention and I have been known to graze on the furze of many a pussy. I do, however, enjoy an anal fetish and adore women’s buttocks: that most unorthodox of altars to be worshiped on ones knees. I think there is no sexier pose than that of a naked woman, her back turned to me while looking back at me, a lovely smile on her face. It is then that that I often weigh the infinite possibilities between her ass and her smile.

But if you’re not into anal sex, please know I will try to burn your pussy away with my cock, no question.

* * *

Dearest Eddie,

I often read your blog, though I think you’re just a nassy perve. Lately, I have become intrigued with the notion of anal sex, but every time I have tried it with my husband, it has been too painful and have had to stop. Is there anything wrong with me, or should we be doing something different? I would like to pleasure my man in this way, but won’t it always be painful and a one-way thing because the anus is not an erogenous zone

-- Willing in Wisconsin

Dearest Willing,

First, allow me to commend you on your willingness to go the extra mile for your husband. You obviously are a considerate and generous lover. Let me start by pointing out that the anus is an erogenous zone and if approached knowledgeably, gently and with forethought, anal sex can become a staple of monogamous sex, setting the tone for further exploration and moving away from sex as a dry set of rituals.

The first thing to consider is communication: your anus is like a delicate flower (rosebud?) and should be treated as such. Before anal sex, there should be a discussion and a development of trust and agreed upon boundaries. Being with a trusting lover goes a long in helping you relax and making the experience the enjoyable experience it should be.

I would suggest beginning by using fingers or a small butt plug, as a way of familiarizing yourself to the feeling of being penetrated from behind. The anus has a bundle of nerve endings and if stimulated correctly, can induce pleasure. I have known more than a few women who have told me they have orgasmed through anal sex. After initial exploration with smaller objects, a gradual introduction of the penis should begin. The man should be careful to be loving and gentle, kissing you while initially resting his cock head at the entrance of your anus. Most women find the “spoon” position best for accommodating a penis during anal sex.

The best way, or rather, how I would do it, would be to position my cock at the entrance of your ass and allow you to be in control of the penetration process. Sufficient lubrication should be applied beforehand, of course. Once the cock is at the entrance, let him nudge the head a little while you push back. If you’re uncomfortable, or feel too much discomfort, let him know and just stay at a level that’s comfortable for you. You may not achieve full anal penetration the first few times, but eventually you will become more comfortable with the act. I have yet to meet a woman who wasn’t able to take the full length of my cock in her ass. My penis is not huge, it’s probably about seven inches, but with practice, learning to relax your anal sphincter, you should be able to accommodate your husband in this way.

Here are some fast rules:

Communicate with your partner, guys, no “surprising” them (“Oooops!” is unethical! LOL).

Lubricate well with a water-based lubricant and use a condom (especially in non-monogamous relationships).

For the woman, relaxing and pushing out with the muscles of the anus helps; some women finding lying on their side as the most comfortable position for entry.

Objects should not be poked into the partner, but rather held in place as the woman slowly pushes back onto them.

Finally, use sexual exploration as a form of intimate communion with your partner. What matters most is that you both commit to conscious loving in an adventurous spirit that leads to an intimacy that is more genuine.

If, after all this, he still doesn’t get it, call me, I’ll show you how to do it the right way! lol

“Face down/ Ass up!/ That’s the way/ We like to fuck!”

This is your [un]Common Sense Sex Therapist signing off until next week. Remember, if you have any questions, please feel free to email them to me and I’ll try my best to answer them.

Love,

Dr. Eddie

PS: Remember: Practiced in a conscious manner, sex is good for you.

Jesus was a Radical (Progressive)!

¡Hola! Everybody...
A little sumptin’ for the Holy Rollers amongst us...

* * *

-=[ Jesus’ Radically Progressive message ]=-

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Gospel of St. Matthew 5:3-10

[Warning: this posting is violent and has simulated sound effects]

DANG! I have to make several meetings today, so I won’t be able to give this post my usual care...

So, let me start out by getting to the significant part: I have huge issues with the neoconservative characterization of Jesus’ ministry. I will say upfront (and I do not say this with rancor): anything less than equal rights for gays is at best hypocritical -- especially when mouthed by people of color. If you want to see the consequences of creating a separate set of rules for a class of people just look at the photograph above (t/h to Rippa). That’s what separate means. Separate is never equal. People against gay marriage are espousing a view that would create one set of laws for “straight” people vs. a set of (unequal) laws for “the gays.” In other words, such a view is bigoted.

Now, back to good ole Jay-sus(!)

I get a little confused because conservative Republican policies favor the wealthy and ignore the needs of the poor. Their policies are often grounded on greed, with no concern for the environmental or societal consequences for their actions. These values go counter to the teachings of Jesus. The Jesus I know taught that the love of money is the root of all evil. If one were to believe the neocons, Jesus would fit right in with the Likes of Lush Rimbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Ann Coulter. LOL!

Yeah! Jesus was a social conservative! He was born in a red state, hunted, drove gas-guzzlers, hated people of color, kicked the poor while they were down, and probably sent down the AIDS plague to punish the queers!

SMH...

Consider the following:

I can make a strong case that Jesus was a radical progressive (with socialist/ anarchist leanings)! I kid you not. Allow me to get all New Testament on yo asses!

According to my own “research,” Jesus came with a new progressive vision, saying repeatedly, “You have heard that it was said to those ancient times... but I say unto you... ” (see, for example, Matthew 5:21-22, 5:33-34)

BAM! (<-- sound effect)

Instead of an eye for an eye, he asked us to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:38-39)

PANGANA! (<-- Spanish for “BAM!”)

Instead of loving just our neighbors, he called upon us to love our enemies too. (Matthew 5:42; Luke 6:27, 35)

KA-POW!

He spoke of a new testament, distinct from the old testament that came before (Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20 -- King James version)

::BODY BLOW::

When the apostle Paul described Jesus’ New Testament, he explained that it was “not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.” (2Corinthians 3:6)

::SUPLEX::

Jesus was not a fundamentalist in the sense of being a biblical literalist. He would break one of the Ten Commandments when he thought is was a humane thing to do, as when he worked, healing people, on the Sabbath. The Jesus I know would never say, “Sorry about that lame leg, hooker, but can’t you see it’s the Sabbath?!! Don't bother me and get back to me some other time.” He did what he had to do as motivated by love, not scripture.

BOING!

As he CLEARLY said, “The Sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:27)

KNOCKOUT!

Which brings to the issue of relevance: What would Jesus do? Better yet, what should we do? Should we blindly follow Old Testament laws that encourage a belief in a jealous and vengeful God or follow the words and deeds of that old radical Rabbi, Jesus? Old Testament or New? Which depiction of Jesus do you think is more correct? Are the actual words from the New Testament still relevant?

So what was it: was Jesus some tame bible literalist as he is depicted by the neocons of today, or was he a radical progressive who tended to the most despised, the unforgivable, and the dispossessed? Was he the biblical conservative they make him out to be? One who would deny gays their rights, or was he a radical teacher, espousing a new way of seeing the world so radical and deemed so dangerous, the biblical literalists and pagans of his day had him crucified?

:;blank stare::

In the4 coming days, I am going to make a case for a radically progressive Christianity, a Christianity based on the core teachings of a man who was motivated through love, not hate, nor bigotry.

Love,

Eddie