Transience

the land of blah

I have been numb, with little worth saying. Yesterday I rode my new bike for the first time. After a shaky start, where I thought I was going to wipe out before getting out of the alley, I managed to whiz around the lake. Once I started feeling comfortable, I was able to enjoy the breeze and almost-sunset beauty.

Today we lost our internet connection at lunchtime & it never came back up. Unable to work on any of my projects, I spent the entire afternoon playing spider solitare & freecell. My eyes are tired. I am tired. On Sunday afternoon I took a nap. I woke up about 5 and felt groggy & sick, unable to deal with driving across town for church. I am still run down and will probably go to bed in a few minutes.

I've been fighting my way through Sexuality and Holy Longing the past week or so. My gut reaction is "I don't trust her." I don't believe the author when, discussing menstruation, she says, "When there is pain, it prepares and reminds me that I can endure the pain I will experience as a member of a broken and suffering world." Bullshit. Nobody really thinks like that. Good Little Evangelicals (GLEs) may try to make you think they do, but they're lying.

Two pages later, she quotes a student whose roommates comforted her when her cramps were terrible. "When I was finally able to move again a few hours later, we all laughed together and shared the 'worst time ever' stories. It was a very bonding time, and we connected in a way that is so special, a way to connect with women through the one thing that makes us uniquely women...." Passages like this give the impression that if you are a Good Christian Woman In Touch With Your Body, you too will enjoy bonding with your spiritual sisters over bloody tampons. Yeah, right.

Her chapter on singleness is what really gets the Crap-o-Meter^TM going, though: One the one hand, God's love as depicted in marriage shows an exclusive love of a husband and wife-the beauty of difference and similarity coming together in "one flesh." Faithfulness, permanence, and the welcoming and nurturing of children born of their parents' sexual union teach us about God as lover and life-give. On the other hand, singles reflect the inclusive love of God-a love for everyone. Married people cannot reflect God's inclusive and open love as fully.... In the freedom singles have to love others freely and openly, they reflect this expansive, universal love of God. They reflect a God who is unencumbered and free in expressions of love that can be given to all without a sense of betrayal or infidelity. (p. 69)

So married people are free from the obligation to love anyone but their spouses (and possibly children)? And we singles have no faithful relationships, no permanence, no children to nurture? Of course not - because we are obligated to love everyone in a way that married people are not. I'm not being too clear here, because I'm tired. Perhaps I will be able to reformulate my thoughts tomorrow. I'm just insulted that my relationships are deemed sub-standard.

On a side note, but related to sexuality: I noticed on Saturday that I am much more self-conscious about showing my arms than I am wearing a low-cut top that shows quite a bit of cleavage. I wonder what that says about me?

Posted by rachel at June 14, 2004 08:21 PM