• ivanafterall ☑️@lemmy.worldEnglish
    6·
    16 hours ago

    I’m disappointed there’s nobody here so far proudly standing and saying, “ASS, YOU FOOLS!” So I’m stepping forward. Boobs are wonderful, but dat aaassss doe.

  • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
    8·
    1 day ago

    BTW the character under the comment is Joshua Graham aka the Burned Man, if you can’t guess based off the name the character is Mormon or Mormon derived at least. But if my understanding of Mormon theology is correct he would be of the opinion that Jesus fucks.

    • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
      206·
      2 days ago

      boobs…or ass…

      just because you hate to eat pumpkin pie doesn’t mean you don’t understand what your preference is between with and without whipped cream.

        • Wolf@lemmy.today
          3·
          23 hours ago

          I have no clue how to even compare whipped cream vs no whipped cream.

          Do you like whipped cream?

          • lemsip@sh.itjust.works
            2·
            16 hours ago

            Sure, but I wouldn’t put it on my vegetables.
            Can’t say if I’d like it on pumpkin pie without trying pumpkin pie.

            (I do actually want to try pumpkin pie, but I’ve never seen one before)

            • Wolf@lemmy.today
              1·
              15 hours ago

              Where are you from if you don’t mind me asking?

              Pumpkin Pie is one of those things that you just have to experience to know if you like it. If you do try it I highly recommend it with Whipped Cream. Chances are if you like whipped cream than you will like the combo.

          • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]@reddthat.com
            2·
            16 hours ago

            I don’t think so? But I assume the same for the pie itself. And who knows how it would be together (most people, but not me) - some things are bad by themselves but good with certain things. And if the option is for a smaller piece with whipped cream, that might be less bad than a full sized piece without cream.

            • Wolf@lemmy.today
              1·
              14 hours ago

              I don’t think so?

              You’ve never tried it or you just aren’t sure if you liked it?

              But I assume the same for the pie itself.

              You never know, some things don’t sound like they would be good but then you try them anyway and it turns out to be fantastic. There are very few things I will not at least try once before deciding its not for me. Hell sometimes I’ll try a food I’ve already tried once before and didn’t like it, and occasionally I am pleasantly surprised

              And if the option is for a smaller piece with whipped cream, that might be less bad than a full sized piece without cream.

              I believe that is what GreenKnight23 was getting at. Most people know whether or not they like whipped cream. If you did like it and were ‘forced’ to try a slice of pumpkin pie- well at minimum you will get something you do like along with something you don’t like. If you don’t like whipped cream, then you wouldn’t want it on your pumpkin pie slice because then you could possibly be eating two things you didn’t like.

              • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]@reddthat.com
                2·
                14 hours ago

                You’ve never tried it or you just aren’t sure if you liked it?

                Pretty certain I did as a child, but not if even then I considered it a neutral or a negative? Certainly wasn’t something I had a positive opinion of.

                You never know, some things don’t sound like they would be good but then you try them anyway and it turns out to be fantastic. There are very few things I will not at least try once before deciding its not for me. Hell sometimes I’ll try a food I’ve already tried once before and didn’t like it, and occasionally I am pleasantly surprised

                Yeah. I meant “I assume the same for the pie itself” as a sort of self-criticism because I get its not a reasonable assumption.

                Anyways, my main point was more about the original topic. I’m not even sure how I would possibly rate them? What am I even trying to rate them on? People’s attraction to both left me wondering if people were just lying about it (and perhaps sexual attraction more broadly) because it was beyond me comprehension that would could actually care for either.

                • Wolf@lemmy.today
                  1·
                  11 hours ago

                  Anyways, my main point was more about the original topic.

                  Yeah, kind of got hung up on the food aspect. Sorry about that. (I love food).

                  I’m not even sure how I would possibly rate them? What am I even trying to rate them on? People’s attraction to both left me wondering if people were just lying about it (and perhaps sexual attraction more broadly) because it was beyond me comprehension that would could actually care for either.

                  I think it’s just hard for people like us to imagine what that is like. Much like how the thought crossed your mind that maybe people are lying about sexual attraction- I think the reverse is also true. I think most people when they hear the word ‘asexual’ think the person just means that they have a very low sex drive- not that they are totally and completely unable to feel sexual attraction.

                  I have a hard time wrapping my head around it myself. I knew I was a boobs and ass man long before I ever reached puberty. Sexual desire is such a integral part of my life that it would be no less confusing if you said you never got hungry or never felt pain.

                  I think Jesus was a myth, but if we are running the thought experiment that Jesus was real and he was pious because he was asexual- that seems a bit like cheating to me. The reason that people have such a hard time following all of Christianities silly sexual rules is because most people do have sexual desires. It’s like being impressed that someone who never feels hunger hasn’t eaten in 30 days or someone who never feels pain walking over hot coals. Technically they did the thing- but it’s not the same.

    • zout@fedia.io
      8·
      2 days ago

      Isn’t that because women weren’t allowed in? I mean, I once saw a documentary about that time and place where it was shown women would pretend to be male and wear false beards so they could attend a stoning.

      • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        11·
        2 days ago

        Yes, no, it’s complicated. Early Christianity did push back against some masculine norms of the time. For example, Jesus saying that you should only divorce in cases of cheating was a help for women at the time. Men were divorcing their wives for whatever reason and leaving them destitute. However, now it’s flipped around by fundamentalist churches to say that’s the rule for all time, and that means women can’t leave an abusive husband. So what was intended as help for women is now a harm.

        1 Corinthians 14:34,35 (“women should remain silent in churches”) was probably stuck in there later on. The passage around it reads more naturally without it. From verse 26 on, it has an egalitarian outlook in saying that anyone who feels inspired should be allowed to stand up and speak their mind until someone else has an inspiration. Then it hits verse 34, and suddenly it’s “but not women”.

        And it’s interesting that a fundamentalist church might not approve women to even speak in church, citing this scripture as the reason, but not running their service in any other way that passage says.

          • flambonkscious@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            4·
            2 days ago

            Still interesting though, having grown up in that environment, hearing about how it was shaped over time and questioning some of the batshit crazy bits is very useful.

            I’m not in this comment thread elsewhere, just found the analysis useful