Warning: very little coherency ahead. But is this thing ever coherent?
There's a little debate going on this week in the viewpoint of the Observer. Someone wrote a letter on Monday about how the contraceptive mentality of our country is harmful to the country, or people, or something like that. Obviously, I pretty much agreed with that letter. But figured it'd get rebuttals. (You can't do something like bash contraception in a newspaper and expect no one to write in disagreeing with you.) So today there's two. One of them is arguing that it's not condoms or contraception that harms society, it's us allowing the harm. Or something along those lines. I don't really get it. The person who wrote that letter is saying things like how condoms don't cause higher divorce rates, or more AIDS cases, or more promiscuity. In and of condoms themselves, this might be true. But that's not the point, is it? Well, it kind of is, but yeah. The real point is the mentality that condoms cause. Or allow. Or promote. Yeah, maybe the fact that condoms exist doesn't cause more people to have sex. But the fact that they exist to eliminate as much of the perceived negatives of sex
does cause people to be more promiscuous. Which in turns leads to things like more AIDS cases, and more abortions, and even more divorces. And then there's the part where she claims that the Church's stance on sex, while trying to uphold the sanctity of it, somehow demeans and objectifies it. I suppose this is tied into the fact that people think the Church thinks sex is only good insofar as it can produce offspring. Which, while important, isn't exactly the whole position. If people read things like Theology of the Body and such, they'd understand that the Church very much gets the goodness of sex. People just see the "no contraception" and immediately think "the Church doesn't want me to enjoy anything." Or something like that.
The other letter in there today basically attacks the idea that using condoms causes more AIDS cases and more abortions, by saying that condoms actually cause fewer unwanted pregnancies, and prevent more people from getting AIDS. Oh and then of course there's the comparison of condoms to seatbelts. Which is just...whatever. But the fact that the second letter basically says that condoms are the savior of the world with regard to stopping the transmission of AIDS is so misguided. I may not have any stats offhand, but I know I've read articles and heard things about how promoting chastity, instead of "safe sex" with condoms, in one African country (Uganda? Rwanda? I really don't know), has led to a decrease in AIDS. Despite the yells of outrage many in the world cry when they hear people say that we should teach abstinence instead of just giving people condoms. And really, it makes sense. A condom is not an end-all be-all protector of everything. Hate to break it to some people, but you can still get AIDS or STDs or even get pregnant
despite using a condom. Now, if you don't have sex at all, the chances that you'll get any of these things is pretty much zero. Then people love to bring up the rape scenario and whatnot, but I'm pretty sure if a girl is getting raped, she's not going to stop and ask the guy if he put on a condom anyway, so I don't think I really get that part of the argument. (Then there's the husband-wife scenario, where the husband is unfaithful and gets himself STDed-up and such, but...I don't know. No one's going to listen to any arguments at this point in a discussion anyway.) It's kinda frustrating, the arguments people come up with just to try and make condoms and contraception an OK thing. Theology of the Body should be required reading for all Catholics. Ok, considering I've never read the whole of it, perhaps I should say something along the lines of just a course in it or something. I really wish I'd been able to take a course in it. I've had to figure it all out along the way, thanks to the Internet in large part, because I wanted to learn it. But some people don't want to work that hard for themselves. So others should do it for them. I guess there's stuff about that in the classes you have to take to get married in the Church, but that seems a little late in the game sometimes.
So I kinda got off track there. I suppose I'm a tad passionate about that particular subject (did you know?). I'm almost tempted to write in. But we all know I won't.
Wanna hear something funny? We got our little two question things we had to write last week for Trads back today. I didn't really know what I was doing, and wrote them in about twenty minutes at around midnight last Thursday night. I got a + and a "splendid" which was underlined. That kinda made me happy. Most of the very few papers I saw when looking for mine had like a check mark on them or whatever. So I guess I did ok.
I got my jeans today. They both seem to fit pretty well. One of the pairs is Lee's or something, a brand I don't normally get, and their longs are like 35" which is longer than St Johns Bay longs. The other pair is STB, I think, and as I've realized that their longs are slightly shortish looking on me, I went for some Ultra longs. Oh, I guess they're Ultra Talls and Talls. Not long. Whatever though. So yeah, they both fit well. The Ultra Talls are a little bit longer at the top (between the crotch and the waist) than I might like, but they're not terribly long there, so it's ok.
I came across
this today on another blog (forget which one), and one of the highlighted paragraphs in the blog I read was something like this one (but I did like the whole article, particularly the whole answer of the last question):
Many films today offer some small goods of insight to the audience. But, the insights are cloaked in so much depraved barbarity that the teeny good of the content is not worth the sliming journey of its method. I am someone who actually believes that there is a place for decorum and graciousness in human society. Many of the movies out there today are just way to full of things that fall into the realm of what St. Paul meant when he said, “There are some things that should never be mentioned among you.” In my mind, there are some shameful things which should be the fodder for prayer and sacrifice, but should never be served up with popcorn as entertainment. Beyond just perversions like bestiality, which is getting a few screenings at Sundance this year, this means things that are just crass and purely voyeuristic and degrading. Movies like this are “Little Children” and “Little Miss Sunshine.” They have something good to say, but they violate your innocence and defile you so much on the way that it just isn’t worth it. It is like if you told me you have a headache, and I said, “Oh, well I know where there is an aspirin for you! You just have to walk through a putrid sewer for a few miles to get it.” So, on the way to curing your headache, you pick up diptheria and typhoid. Peachy. Thanks for that.See, that is exactly why I don't want to watch movies that "have a good message" but don't exactly get to that message in a desirable way. I don't know how many people told me, when "40 Year Old Virgin" came out, that he ends up waiting until he gets married to have sex (and because of that, I should give up my being against it and go see it, because it's "so hilarious!" and, you know, has that positive message at the end) as justification for the rest of the crap that the movie is filled with along the way. The things that are the reason I don't want to see it in the first place. And Little Miss Sunshine is mentioned here too. It's a movie I haven't seen, but countless people have told me it's hilarious, such a good movie, etc. So much so that I was beginning to think I must be wrong about some review I read. I must have read it wrong or something. I went back and read the review last night, for kicks, and definitely didn't think it'd be worth it for me to see it. And this kind of solidifies that. I just don't need to fill my head with lots of uses of the F word, or lots of gratuitous sex scenes, or lots of references and such to porn. I don't need that stuff. If I want a movie that has a good message of family, I'll watch something like the Sound of Music. Or if I want a movie that promotes chastity I'll watch, oh I don't know, something old where people just didn't do the sorts of things they do nowadays. One of my all time favorites, Anne of Green Gables, has a scene where Rachel Lind (the town gossip) gets all huffy because she saw Anne being helped out of a carriage by Gilbert. I love that. I mean, obviously that's kind of ridiculous to get huffy about, but seriously, people don't bat an eye anymore when girls go around wearing next to nothing, making out with guys all over the place. How lovely to see a movie where it's not completely crazy to think it inappropriate for two people not in a relationship to hold hands, or whatever. Ok, I may be stretching a bit with this Anne of Green Gables reference, but you get the idea. The point is, I don't need to see all the stuff that most movies nowadays offer, just for a laugh and an ultimately good message at the end. I can get my laughs watching Singin in the Rain. Or, to use a much more modern example, the old guys in Return to Me. They're hilarious, and that movie has like no inappropriate content. It's lovely. Lovely. I like watching movies that I can describe as lovely. Not ones that make me feel dirty remembering scenes or dialogue or what have you.
And I would like to point out that I read this today, after reading, in two separate places, about two not so lovely-sounding movies at like the Sundance film festival or something. First, a movie starring my favorite (or not so much), Dakota Fanning, which depicts apparently somewhat graphically the rape of the 12 year old girl she is playing. Among other things that she does as that character that 12 year old girls shouldn't be doing. For any reason. And there's discussion about how appropriate it is, first, to show the rape of a 12 year old girl (instead of merely implying it or whatever), and secondly, to make a young actress that age act like she's being put through something I'm sure no one ever wants even to pretend to go through. Just for some stupid movie, for our viewing pleasure. Ugh. And the second film is some documentary exploring bestiality. It's got a new name now. Zoophilia, or something like that. Why someone would want to explore such a disgusting completely unnatural thing, and make a whole movie about it, is beyond me. Where's the line? I don't think we have lines anymore. They're too confining, and intolerant. Because we must be tolerant of other people's choices above all, right?
I went to the dining hall today for dinner without my bag (as I had left it in Caitlin and Bethany's room), and for a second at one point I thought I had forgotten it somewhere. It's basically become attached to my shoulder, for which my back is mad at me. I know it's bad, but I've been destined to have back problems later in life for years now. I'll deal with it later. Not like I haven't had shoulder problems since 7th grade for no reason anyway.
My fifth class of my five class days is decidedly the most difficult in which to stay awake and alert. Not that it's the least interesting (actually, so far, none of my classes are mind-numbing, which is good. I sometimes have trouble following my prof in my feasts and seasons class, as his method of lecture is a tad disorganized to me anyway, but I manage all right), but I think the fact that it's the fifth class of the day makes it tough. I haven't had trouble yet staying awake in my 8:30, or 9:35, and not really in my 10:40 (except for the first day), and not in my 11:45. But then I have lunch, during which I try to have some caffeine, but it doesn't help and those 50 mintes from 1:55-2:45 are tough to stay awake during. I do like his method of lecturing though. He's very engaging, so it's frustrating to feel like my eyelids weigh 80 pounds each.
I'm avoiding talking about that thing I don't want to think, much less talk, about. I've avoided thinking about it most of the day, for the most part, but almost broke down in the middle of church which I definitely didn't want to do. So I stopped thinking about it, as I had let my mind wander in that direction. I just...don't want to do it. And it's easy to ignore when I'm not around it. Avoidance is my medicine of choice.
All I want to do right now is lay in bed, read Harry Potter until I fall asleep, and eventually wake up. Actually tomorrow shouldn't be too bad. I have Latin at 11, which means I can sleep until 10 or so, and then I have to work at 2. I seem to remember something else going on, but perhaps I'm just thinking of the homework I have to do for Friday. Just finishing up some reading (of which I haven't left all to tomorrow!). Can't wait for Friday. After classes, of course. Friday night we're going to see the Prestige, which is the SUB movie this weekend, and I'm so excited for that movie because, as we all know, I happen to think it's an excellent, awesome, great movie. (And I suppose I should point out, it is slightly more...gory, perhaps, than I might like. But for whatever reason, call me a hypocrite if you want, I can handle gore slightly better than I can handle sex scenes or inappropriate language. And the Prestige has neither. As far as I remember. ...) Plus it'll be Friday night, and weekends are always good.
I want to get more reading done tonight though, and go to bed fairly soon, and I have some Latin sentences to translate for tomorrow still. So, bye.
