This man is gonna get divorced because of VIne.
This man is gonna get divorced because of VIne.
NASA, breaking my heart one tweet at a time.
What should break your heart is this:
It is NASA’s 55th birthday today.
In celebration, 97% of its employees were told they’re nonessential and sent home.
(The 3% are security, etc, whose job it is to keep everything secure until NASA is allowed to return to work)
Happy Birthday to you, NASA.
How you can get involved!
Trichotillomania Official Ribbon:
(Please let me know if you have any other good sites for Dermotillomania!)
just some solid resources for your trich/dermatillomania awareness wednesday.
a ton of my facebook friends have been sharing the article that inspired my earlier post. i couldn’t hold it in anymore and commented on someone’s facebook post about it. here’s my comment:
I read this article this morning and had some serious thoughts about it… I appreciate the overall message and motivation behind it— purity is definitely something valuable for individuals to strive for and for parents to help foster in their children— but my concern was “at what cost?”. I think the practice of plowing through sons’ friends’ facebooks for inappropriate pictures is in bad taste and here’s why: it could EASILY cultivate an attitude of condemnation and judgment toward the girls whose posts were blocked, and an attitude self-righteousness in the whole family. I think it could be an awkward and embarrassing time for the children in that family as they and their parents discuss what was wrong and inappropriate in the decisions of their schoolmates and friends. While the hearts of the parents are pure, it’s all too easy for these discussions to reinforce the ideas that women’s bodies and sexuality as a whole are dirty and shameful… and that women’s bodies are objects to be treasured, but completely concealed in order to maintain value. I can’t necessarily support those ideas. I also found it interesting/problematic that the writer chose to include photos of her sons shirtless at the beach, given the nature of the article (or at all, given her point of view on modesty). I *suppose* the argument could be made that girls aren’t as visually stimulated as boys so it doesn’t matter if they’re shirtless in photos, but that’s a weak argument since I know PLENTY of children, pre-teens, teens, young adults, and adults who drool over Abercrombie posters, “hot” guys they see pictures of on the internet, that shirtless celebrity boy in that one movie, or their classmates playing basketball in the park. Modesty and purity are POSITIVE, GOOD things, but there’s room for so much emotional damage in men and women when there are unfair double standards and negative views held toward those who don’t live up to our ideas of modesty and purity.
so those are some of my feelings DIRECTLY related to the article.
a bunch of the guys in my grade got together and bought their own url so they could have a website
but literally the only purpose of the website is to see pictures of dads in hats
i wasn’t kidding this is the website
If we Christians can’t show more love and willingness to listen, it won’t change one person from gay to straight, but it will turn a lot of people against Christianity.
There are some really interesting thoughts in here. Many of them, I affirm— his 3rd point about treating gay people as representations of a cultural issue rather than human beings is something I’ve thought of VERY often. There are just a few statements in here that I have some dissenting thoughts about, but only one I’d like to address:
Because if two straight people have sex before marriage, Christians might call that sinful, but no one would refer to that as their “premarital sex lifestyle.” We view it as one particular act, not a definition of the entirety of their lives.
Unfortunately I see this very differently in Christian culture. I wish it could be like the writer states. I wish it could be only viewed as sinful and nothing more. In light of the recent conversation on “purity culture” I must disagree with the overall truth of this statement.
Those engaging in heterosexual premarital sex are perceived differently within the church. There are degrees, even. There are those who have had sex and stopped. ("They walked in sin, but repented, thank God. Now their later married sex life will be redeemed! Honey, if they break up, don’t date that girl/boy.") There are those who have sex. ("They have strayed away from what God wants from them. What a shame. Their marriage bed will suffer. Honey, if they break up, don’t date that boy/girl.") Too often within the church, worth and value are linked to sexuality. This applies to heterosexuals, homosexuals, ALL the sexuals.
The writer would largely be correct in stating that gay people face harsher judgment and more critical perception within the church than do those who have premarital heterosexual sex (as the writer correctly pointed out, this judgment comes with OR without the act of sex itself). The majority of churchgoers have faced the temptation to have sex outside of marriage. The majority of churchgoers have not faced attraction to a member of their same sex. Can you see how one is easier to understand and forgive than the other? But alas, neither is wiped clean once it’s revealed. In both cases, purity is lost. Innocence is gone. Something perfect has been corrupted and those who tarnished God’s perfect plan will be perceived as less-than.
Tragically, we are defined by our sexuality. Our worth is tied into it, and it absolutely shouldn’t be. Too many Christians walk around daily feeling ashamed, feeling like “damaged goods.” We are inherently valuable and unconditionally loved, regardless of our choices, our “lifestyles,” our histories, or our circumstances. It’s high time the Church stops simply preaching that and starts demonstrating it.
i’m starting to feel real feisty when i get on facebook. i’m tired of my feed being clogged with hate. and i know that sometimes i lean a little bit “bleeding heart” and soft despite my (majority) conservative political views… yes, folks, not ALL conservatives are hard, redneck, God, guns, and country types. but honestly, HONESTLY, i’m fine if you have your views and if you state them— and if you state them often! free speech, y’all! but they way that it’s done in my feed IS hateful. it IS damaging. if it makes me uncomfortable, a caucasian straight Christian, how could it POSSIBLY be received well by the people these statements are further marginalizing?! Are you nuts?
Let’s take a peek at some examples. I’m sure you’ve seen them, but i’ll wrap em up all nice in one post:
An excerpt from an article that was full of good insights! I added the bold emphasis on the sections that convinced me to post here. (Spoiler alert, this is the end of the piece. Read the full article here.)
new picture, new blog title, new email. holy smokes, what is even going on with me today?! ready for the new to arrive, i suppose.
eagle sold separately
*Some restrictions apply.
batteries not included
some assembly required
eagle cage sold separately
patent pending, must be 18 or obama to order.