But Seriously: The 5ive Things Women Most Want

1. Someone they can respect - this comes first only because a man worthy of respect will show the same. Every woman craves a worthy man though power, physical aggression & wealth are often mistaken for the primary qualifiers of integrity, confidence, and diligence. A woman wants a man who can 'handle' her (even testing their partner by crossing the line - sometimes too far - life has enough real tests ladies). But a partner who wins their respect fulfils another valuable female need...

2. Security - women often seek out powerful, rich or physically aggressive men because such things, on their face, should provide a safe environment. One can't run a secure home without a sense of physical, financial and emotional security after all. But the shortfall occurs when actual security is sacrificed for its authentic looking evil brothers. True safety is found in fidelity, honesty & industry.

3. Love & Affection - this could be a lot of things: romance, thoughtfulness, gentleness even predicting/anticipating her needs & fancies. This doesn't mean round the clock concierge service but some demonstration of endearment, physical attraction (not just sexual desire) and understanding of her moods & what influences them. That her partner knows her range of preferences from choice of movie to a dry toilet seat. A dry toilet seat in the down position can be a real turn on. Weird but true. The evil siblings of love & affection are sweet nothings (or lyrics in Jamaica), sex, material gifts (not inherently evil but without sincerity often lead to disappointment at the hands of a Playa) & domination/control of her partner.

4. Laughter - who doesn't want and need to laugh? A man who can help her see the lighter side of situations, challenges & herself is prime real estate and easily beats a hard body or pretty face. A sense of humour is the difference between a conversation & an argument - a problem & an adventure. Laughter's doppleganger is excitement and here sensual stimulation through overindulgence in alcohol/drugs, over-the-top partying & even danger, replace a genuine love for life. Laughter is often a measure of friendship too, and that is the last point.

5.  Friendship - this is where the whole listening phenom comes into play. Friends can be goofy together, mess up and even be at their worst without fear of rejection. Pretty self explanatory. The distortion of friendship is co-dependency: the unrealistic expectation that the partner is her source of happiness and thus responsible for her well-being and vice-versa. It is this relationship that a woman can receive the sense that her opinion & feelings are highly valued.

The points are nothing new and really won't change with time as they are our most basic relational needs. The thing to consider is where we go wrong in our search to fulfil these natural requirements. All dissatisfaction and enmity, suggests CS Lewis,  is firmly founded in the distortion, misinterpretation and dysfunction of not just the needs in question, but our overall human condition.

What the Hell?! Loving God VS Fiery Furnace

The Burning Question

No one wants to end up on God's BBQ pit - if it exists. Indeed the spectre of hell has turned many off of the idea of the 'Bible God' or the idea of any god at all.  But what exactly is hell? It defintely isn't Dante's Inferno or the many visions throughout religious art history of demons torturing condemned souls. According to Revelation, hell's purpose is to imprison satan and his demons (along with those not in the Book of Life) - not to provide employment for them (although God knows in this economy...).

What happens after death has always been a moot point for philosophers, religious adherents, sceptics and atheists alike. Even the Pharisees and Saducees didn't see eye to eye on the issue, the former not believing in life after death. We know that intra-faith disagreements exist on this issue and are as controversial as inter-faith disputes. The beliefs vary from those who think that the soul is destroyed in hell rather than tortured, then there is the idea that punishment is only for a limited time commensurate with one's sins, then hell is eternal and most attractive of all: there is no such thing as hell only 'the grave' or 'Sheol' and hell is really just representive of death - Hades - the 'place of the dead'.

We all hate punishment when we are the recipients. Some enjoy meting it out - others attest that 'this is gonna hurt me more than...', you know the refrain. But hell, as frightening as it is, has many lessons for us and may be far more real before death only coming to frution after the 'silver cord' is cut. So, assuming there is life after death - and that a super-heated retirement home for satan is a part of it - let us proceed.

What Goes Up...

We can safely conclude that hell is about punishment - whatever we believe about the experience or length of the punishment - that is the purpose. Punishment is nothing new to life before death. It is built into our judicial systems, moral systems, constitutions, cultures and even our instincts. Because we say things like 'that's not fair', as CS Lewis pointed out in Mere Christianity, it seems we have a sense of justice floating around in our heads. When we are 'unfaired' we expect that justice should be done. However, if we are the 'unfairer' we tend to think mercy, leniency and our turbulent past filial relationships ought to be seriously considered.

In reality justice is often not carried out. Despots die peacefully in their sleep full of years, or rapists commit their atrocities undiscovered -  that is unfair. Unjust. Perhaps the notion of hell arose because of such great impunity? The idea that no one can escape justice by death, even if eluded in life,  is very appealing to the oppressed - not so much to the oppressor. But it has a modicum of fairness, doesn't it?

Some think that God, if he loved us and gave us free choice/will, shouldn't then turn around and punish us for exercising that gift. Here is the view of one blogger:

Free will must be unconstrained by external circumstances. God tells us that we have free will to accept or deny him. But then threatens that we will be punished in life and burn in hell upon death if we deny him. Free will no longer exists when one choice comes with the threat of violent consequences. [emphasis added]

This writer seems to think that free will means the absence of consequence. The implication of the last sentence is that we should be free to assault someone, but it would be unfair if they retaliated because they would be disrespecting our free will to administer a kick-butting curb stomp on them. Everything has a consequence - good, bad or benign. That is a physical law: 'what goes up must come down' (at least on Earth) and 'for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction'.

...Must Come Down

I don't think God is saying that 'if you disobey me I will send you to hell', so much as 'if you don't listen to me the very things I warned you about will turn around and bite you in the rear'. We teach our children this stuff - 'if you scoop hot coals into your lap, you wil be burned' say the Proverbs (6:27 & 28). We teach kids about consequences so they can see the sense in rules - the principles - the character. However, rules cannot convey character or experience - they can only pass on a hollow edict. But it is this experience that seprates children and adults. We know kids shouldn't touch the stove, but because they haven't had the scalding of their life yet - curiosity can win out over obedience...and common sense.

Punishment teaches consequence and consequence helps us realize that we are not islands, that what we do and who we are affects our immediate environment. We see this played out in broken homes, destroyed marriages, estranged children, psychological disorders etc. The whole adultery commandment wasn't to spoil our fun - it was so we wouldn't ruin our families. The converse is true - a whole family, as far as is possible, is likely to be better off than a divided one, and it is no coincidence that much of the 10 Commandments revolve around the  mircocosm of family and neighbours.

Hebrews (12:10) points out that we discipline (or punish) our children as far as we see fit - as best we can to help them be good citizens. Indeed we attempt to do this as a state and have real trouble determining the crime/punishment balance. God, Hebrews says, punishes us so we can become better people (12:10-13). Not just so someone can say 'Ha! Vindication!' but so even the perpetrator can benefit from punishment (note that Hebrews says 'endure hardship as discipline' v7). Punishment is part of love. Parents who love their kids punish them. Indulgent, coddling parents will pay for their lack of discipline with spoilt brats.

One can discipline without love - but one cannot love without discipline.

Being Human or Doing Human

God is often villified by some for not carrying out fairness in ways some think he should - say famines, victimized children and other like tragedies. This indignation says something about or sense of justice - it says that we have one. But we must be willing to apply our sense of justice to ourselves as much as we apply it others - as much as we apply it to God.

Which is worse; to have a crime committed against you, or to be the criminal? What about committing a crime or getting caught - which is worse? In truth whether one is caught or not - consequence occurs. Getting caught is the final and least important part of a crime or sin. The most devastating part of a crime/sin is arriving at the place that allows one to commit it in the first instance. The tragedy in the idea of hell is not going there - it's qualifying. Even if there is no external consequence for certain actions, there is always an internal consequence: a deadening of the conscience, a disregard for the violated principle, a degradation of character, and so on.

Some might argue that not believing in God is no sin. But if God is/represents love, mercy, patience, peace and all other higher virtues of character (and I believe him to be these things) then would it not be a sin to reject such things? No one would consider these virtues to be undesireable. A world without them - now that is hell.

CS Lewis gives the most realisic depiction of hell I think there is. No flames, pitchforks or forked tails - just people and their attitudes. The same attitudes they held in life only without the sugar (in the case of hell) and without the sour (in the case of heaven). Lewis, even implies (some might be happy to know) that one can opt out of hell - but persons in either place are there because that is where they really wish to be. 'But who would choose to be in torment?' you ask. People make that choice every day in life when they choose wealth over family, an affair over their spouse, abuse over patience, greed over honesty, a grudge over forgiveness, isolation over community, fear over peace etc. Lewis' hell depicts persons who simply refused to let go of a pattern of destructive thought - a pattern that becomes their eternal reality.

Keller (The Reason for God, 2008) points out in Jesus' story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31),

that though their statuses have now been reversed, the rich man seems blind to what has happened...He does not ask to get out of hell...there is increasing isolation, denial, delusion and self-absorption. When you lose all humility you are out of touch with reality. No one ever asks to leave hell. The very idea of heaven is a sham to them.

Keller cites Lewis' Great Divorce as well,

Hell begins with a grumbling mood, always complaining, always blaming others...You may even criticize it in yourself and wish you could stop it. But there may come a day when you can no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the mood or even to enjoy it, but just the grumble itself, going on forever like a machine...In each of us there is something growing, which will be hell unless it is nipped in the bud.

Good For Nothing?

Undoubtedly, running from punishment or consequence is no motivation to be 'good' - not for long anyway. Ideally the inherent value, common sense and benefits (personal and communal) of 'goodness' should be motivation enough to pursue higher principles and virtues. In my opinion, it is the abdication of this understanding for 'do it or else' or 'because I said so' morality (which is no morality at all) that causes us to be obsessed with guilt and punishment . I don't think God wants us to obey him 'because he said so', rather I believe he wishes us to share his understanding and righteous character and be guided thereof. 'Do it or else' morality, which is often a technique of parents, requires no thought for the adherent or explanation from the authority. No one benefits in this scenario.

To be sure, love and freedom do not equal impunity or permissiveness. Strong moral character is not achieved by accident - nothing worth pursuing ever is, and as no one is perfect, perhaps what is a major consideration is the overall tenor of our character and outcome of our lives. Of course, objectors to these ideas may not be concerned only with the consequence, but the system of redemption. That is another discussion.

Homophobia Jamaican Style

Fear VS Fair

Jamaica's hostility toward homosexuality is world renown. It was in 1992 on a British programme called The Word, that the Island hit the homophobe map with a resounding Shabba Ranks sounding thud that can still be heard today. Shabba famously called for homosexuals to be 'crucified', and well the rest is history - and so is his career. Buju Banton also featured on the programme with his anti-gay song Boom Bye-Bye, and has also been paying for this statement to this day, effectively banned from performing in certain countries and venues, along with other Jamaican DJ's.

One of the latest moves against Jamaican homophobia is an initiative called Boycott Jamaica where people are encouraged to boycott all things Jamaican including Jamaican-made products and even visiting the Island. The two-fold goal of the site is to force the Government to 'Publicly commit to end gay bashing on the island and improve the human rights situation' and get 'A statement from the Prime Minister clearly and unequivocally condemning violence against GLBT people and expressing regret for past violence'.

The goals are fair enough, but the method may not be the best. Indeed, this method may very well work against the initiative, after all the economy isn't the cause of homophobia and shouldn't be the target. Why should businesses with no relationship to Jamaica's homophobia be targeted? In fact Red Stripe Beer which features on Boycott Jamaica's site is no longer a Jamaican product, but a part of British multi-national Diageo's portfolio. Poverty begets violence, and effectively creating more poverty is not likely to generate sympathy for the gay rights cause. Indeed, the potential backlash against this strategy of economic embargo might exacerbate anti-gay sentiment. In short, a cultural problem can't be solved with a purely economic or legislative effort.

Culture War

This is not to say that legislation has no place, but that the Jamaican problem goes beyond homophobia and into a dysfunctional attitude toward sexuality in general - something legislation can't solve. Jamaican society is uncomfortable not just with male sexuality but human sexuality. There is an immaturity in the approach to male sexuality that was almost humorously illustrated by the public reaction to a work of art erected in a park in Kingston's commercial district. The sculpture, pictured below, drew hostile cristicism due to the depiction of the male phallus. The well-endowed female figure seemed to sit well with the public, but apparently the size and overt display of the male organ was too much to bear.

The offending member - Emancipation Park, New Kingston, Jamaica

There is nothing homo-erotic about the statue given its subjects, but nothing overtly sexual either, save for the nudity which doesn't necessarily have erotic overtones. Indeed, the reaction toward the statue says something about the society. At least some Jamaicans see nakedness in a purely sexual way - the artistry is lost on them.

The depiction of sexuality through some aspects of Jamaican culture can be extreme, bawdy and caricatured. A popular a song called Rampin' Shop set the Island's Broadcasting Commission into action getting banned from airplay and bringing more stringent regulation of Jamaican airwaves. The song was also tied to the dance phenomenon called 'Daggering', a violent choreographic simulation of sex that even featured in two recent Newsweek articles. Now bawdy depictions of sex are not unique to Jamaica, the peculiarities lie in the attitude to male sexuality and the general insecurity surrounding the male sexual role even in heterosexual relationships. Daggering is unquestionably an exaggeration of virility, unrealistic and apparently dangerous (the Newsweek article reported an increase in 'broken penises' in Jamaica, apparently related to the Daggering craze). Extreme representations of sex in any culture tend to betray an insecurity that stifles a mature and healthy approach to sex and the related issue of the human body. But this fear of male sexuality is taken to the extreme when some Jamaican men, choosing to avoid saying the word 'man' altogether wherever it appears in the English language, take words like 'manifesto' and 'Manchester' and 'feminize' or 'de-homosexualize' them to 'wo-manifesto' and 'wo-Manchester'. Decidedly juvenile.

Get it straight

Jamaica needs to be acquainted with healthy, normal sexuality, before it can learn to embrace or at least tolerate homosexuality. Indeed the homophobia may be a result of the deeper heterosexual male insecurity. Some aspects of Jamaican culture suggest men are to be hard, emotionally detached and agreessive and hence angry and isolated, as well as exceptionally virile and able to satisfy multiple partners. A sensitive approach to sex isn't compatible with this destructive macho ideal.

Despite the fact that Shabba's tirade and Buju's Boom By Bye are almost 20 years old, they still feature in contemporary gay advocacy material. British physical theatre group DV8 featured Boom Bye-Bye and Jamaica's homophobia in a recent production, To Be Straight With You. Based on transcribed interviews the production illustrated, with stunning effect, the plight of homosexuals in Jamaica, Pakistan and African nations. With no overt references to sexuality itself, it was ideal for a society that is still undecided about same-sex relationships. It might be wise to fight culture with culture, and this may have already started.

Jamaica's energetic theatre scene featured at least one very popular character that oozed homo-eroticism (a male actor played a homosexual cross-dresser) and celebrated a very well known choreographer (now deceased) who was allegedly on open homosexual or even bi-sexual. This suggests a disparity between public assertions and private opinions and experience. Indeed, some believe much of the most visible anti-gay sentiment arises from closet gays (a vicious circle?). At any rate, attacking a nation, an economy and a culture that is already suspicious of Western intent (given the colonial and slave history) may not be the best method of seeking equality - and certainly not the only method available.

(Since this article another a gay rights group out of Spain is lobbying for the EU to boycott Jamaica)

Iran Election VS American Selection: an outsider's perspective

The Iranian people are stuck between a jerk and a hard place. That is what it seems like anyway.

The problem they face is getting the rest of the world to believe that their protests against the election outcome, accusations of election fraud and demand for change are truly the voice of the majority, and not the result of US backed reformers and a highly biased Western media.

The world is still smarting from the sting of the Iraq War. As far as we can tell, flaccid media inquiry, incompetent intelligence (or downright lies?) arrogant executive power and an unstoppable American agenda made Iraq and its people far worse off than they ever had been under Sadaam. They are now free to choose between poverty and death by suicide bomber. Have the thousands of deaths, dislocation, social instability and unemployment really been worth the 'fight for democracy?'  Some would argue that the greatest beneficiary of the Iraq conflict has been Halliburton, not Iraq.

So who should the outsider believe? The Bush Administration attempted to make a case against Iran that was eerily similar to that of Iraq and even seemed to toy with the idea of an invasion. First there were the allegations of arms smuggling into Iraq then the accusations that Iran wanted (wants?) to manufacture nuclear weapons. Truth or just a pretext to gain control of more Middle East oil? Indeed, the ambiguity of the election results can be seen merely  as ammunition for a US led invasion. Despite Obama's apparent equanimity, corporate interests might have more sway in decisions about war than the President. Hardly anyone really believes that Bush was 'The Decider' - it's more likely he was the decoy for a fait accomplis.

Still, word from within Iran (I am fortunate to know at least one person with intimate knowledge from individuals therein) is that election irregularities began to take place early on in the ballot counting and even before,

This is really doesn't look like an American interferance, there was dodgy goings on as the results came out, and even before they were announced, even before the Western media began reporting on the situation. People all over Iran are pouring into the streets risking their lives to protest against the result. And yes, that's ALL OVER Iran, not just the rich neighbourhoods of Tehran...

...all the communcations in Iraq, mobiles, texting, facebook, news sites, reformist sites, were shut down as the election results started to be announced. Why would these things happen if it was a fair vote? - SJ

These comments may very well represent the voice of the Iranian people, but when filtered through the Westerm media we are left with suspicion and cynicism.

While Iranians battle for democracy, the rest of the world wonders if said Iranians are destined to suffer the same fate as their neighbours. Would they opt for that fate? It is unlikely,  after all the ideal would be progress to democracy on the terms of the Iranian people themselves not Western powers. Indeed the term 'Westernization' is often used interchangably with 'progress', but American culture isn't better, just different - and capitalism isn't democracy. These distinctions are of utmost importance in a post 9/11 world where the US claims the noblest of causes and purest of motives as rationales for violating the most basic human rights.

I might be jumping the gun, but while the people of Iran deserve better than what they presently endure, they also deserve better than Western occupation. And knowing the US propaganda machine it will soon find a way to formulate an artificial choice between invasion or the 'wickedness' of spectator politics. Shortly thereafter America will have to invade for  the sake of 'freedom'. Outsiders fear that it's just a matter of time before the self-righteous rhetoric starts and Uncle Sam shines up his curb stompers to go force democracy up another nations rear end.

The best source for information may be direct from the people of Iran themselves or independent jouranalists, and as my source queried, 'It's as if people outside of Iran can't believe the Iranians want change? Is it so hard to believe?' No. But Iran is caught between a jerk and a hardplace. Now we just have to determine who's who.

CAY

Peace. Freedom. Dignity.

But Seriously: Men & Women...roles, rumours, relationships

The conversation about men & women is often fun, sometimes strident and certainly perpetual.  Time for a few thoughts on the raging battle. Read this excerpt from Ephesians 5: 22-33:

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

The reactions to this passage usually range from revulsion and incredulity, to disgust and fear, and if you're a man, happiness - with convenient misinterpretation. But like many scriptures it is widely misunderstood. I'm not an expert on the Bible, but my intuition tells me that the Bible is not just a book of rules or commands, but an insightful text that points out facts about human and Divine nature and how both those things 'work'.

In my opinion, this passage is telling us about the most basic but profound needs of men and women in the love relationship. The person with the most power (and responsibility) over you on earth is the one whom with you are in love. They have the potential to hurt and/or inspire you more deeply than any other person.

Now each Biblical role is seriously challenging, submission for women and total self-sacrifice for men. But something tells me that a woman would have little trouble entrusting herself (and that is what I believe submission to be) to a man she felt completely loved by and who would die for her. Likewise, I can't imagine any reasonable man would hesitate to lay down his life for a woman he felt genuinely respected him and demonstrated loyalty and devotion.

It is my belief that the last sentence of the excerpt is the core statement: men above all else desire respect, and women above all else desire love and affection. Both are expressions of love, but each incarnation is an articulation in accordance with the way the respective genders consume love.

Women look for a man they can respect, who knows how and when to 'put his foot down' with anyone - including her, but is also considerate and gentle though firm and strong in character. A man loves a strong and outspoken woman who wants to uplift rather than compete against him - who will 'be on his side' and truly believe in him.

We are in the realm of the ideal right now - so clearly this passage is proposing the goal and aspiration. Men may balk at the idea that such a woman exists and women laugh at the possibility of such a prince. But as much as we sometimes fall - sometimes we are this ideal. The idea would be to become this ideal more of the time than not - and that will take not just time but intent, effort, practice and yes - Divine intervention. The built in failsafe is that each role is meant to compensate for the reality of human frailty.

If you give thought to some of the central conflicts of the man/woman relationship they revolve around issues of love and respect - usually surfacing through communication. It would take a profound sense of security and self-confidence to fulfil either of these roles. A sense of security and strength that would not find its genesis in the relationship itself but, I believe, from the Divine and from within the individual. A relationship that demonstrates fluency in the stated direction is one where each individual is bringing that peace, security, confidence, strength and Divine connection to the table. And one can only get what one pursues.

Issues of authority and leadership also arise and make this passage ever more controversial. But ask yourself if fighting for 'control' ever made you happy. Then ask yourself is having complete control ever made your partner happy. For both men and women the issue is not control - it's surrender.

The roles outlined by the scripture, in my opinion, relate to the natural needs of the parties rather than enforcing some unnatural order. One can assume the roles imply silence and non-participation for the woman and complete control and lordship for the man - but that would be a mistake. However, if that's what one wants it may be what one gets. Either way, for any relationship to work there must be an agreed order of some kind with which both parties are happy. No order, no plan, no agreement will lead to more conflict - disorder always does. Leadership doesn't imply superiority but responsibility and servanthood and any sensible leader will recognize the strengths (and weaknesses) of those in his care. Indeed the kind of leadership that scripture advocates subordinates the needs of the leader for the needs of those in his care.

The problem is the 'you first' mindset. If no one wants to fulfil their role until they are sure the other does so first - then there will be an impasse; constant conflict. So, if one person fails the other withdraws their offer of respect or love, as the case may be. Or one partner spends more time pointing out the other’s responsibility rather fulfilling his or her own. If one does not consider their partner worthy of self-sacrifice or respect then one should consider the future, value or at least purpose of the relationship (perhaps it is purely for entertainment or self-satisfaction).

Now, when we bring weighty issues like abuse, infidelity/adultery, apathy and such into the discussion, things get more complicated. Not every relationship works out and it can't be fun to be in a one-sided affair. But if our actions and attitudes are completely dependent on another, then who is really in control? Perhaps if we pursued the kind of very profound Divine confidence that no mortal can give us our relationships would benefit profoundly.

It is my belief that virtues like respect and love are not things you do - but things you are. And wherever you go and whomever you go with, there you are.

C. Arthur Young