This photos source: Extra Medium

So it's really hard for me to know if this burgeoning crush I've got on my friend Ryan is genuine or just my embittered libido screaming out "do me, already."

I've known Ryan for a few years now, actually, but we've never been close. We're still not but we've been a little friendlier lately. I appreciate his sardonic sense of humor and I sort of get this shockingly warm vibe from him (I say "shocking" because I suspect a lot of people find him abrasive). He's overcome some personal obstacles in the last two years and I admire his dedication and tenacity -- I think this is what initially caught my attention.

Anyway- so there's my first admittance of an itsy-bitsy crush on Ryan. Were my self-esteem in tact, I might be inclined to do something about it but, you know, it makes much more sense to deny my feelings, fret over what to wear and how to act in his presence, and act childlishly flirtatious.

Yes, yes, I hear the wedding bells chiming in the distance.

But seriously, folks, in the meantime? I'm researching male escorts...

in the darkness,
in the silence,
smell of jasmine scented air
through open window,
tropical breeze tickling skin.

Sudden light of moon,
beams piercing shadows,
a sudden crashing
of waves upon distant shore.

Did you ever tell me your name?
I cannot remember.
It does not matter,
I speak only to selfish desires.

Your eyes mirror mine,
a wish in longing,
a hope in yearning,
yet we know we will not find it.

My anxious hands reach for you,
third button down,
I begin to undo your shirt.
Your head bows slightly forward,
lips kissing me on forehead,
while my fingers deftly move.

A tug,
a pull,
a yank of the shirt,
it is now untucked,

a parting of white cotton twill,
pushing back across broad chest,
down across muscular forearms.

Your hands reach for my shoulders,
fingertips dancing across bare skin,
thin straps being guided across,
downward,
while my lips hungrily welcome your tongue.

Silk dress shimmering tautly
across full breasts,
catching upon hardened nipples,

then releasing,
finally,
seductively falling to the floor,
a halo of mango colored fabric
surrounding sunset-red painted toenails.

Did you ever tell me where you’re from?
I cannot remember.
It does not matter,
I answer only to selfish desires.

Your lips quickly become more impatient,
pressing harder,
tongue probing deeper,
arms demanding embrace.

My fingers angrily tease your skin,
encircled between waist and denim,
movements becoming more desperate,

to unbutton and unzip,
to disrobe you from blue,
from silver,
metal button,
and zipper.

Your throbbing manhood now freed,
head back, lips parted,
a soft moan splits the silence,
your grasp becomes more desperate,
pulling me closer.

Delicate lace panties
is all that is left,
a barrier between you
and the feverish moistness that awaits,
your erect hardness
pressing forcefully against.

One last decisive move,
a swift pull downward,
a releasing of lace,
and suddenly our naked bodies
are now completely entangled,

tongues tasting
electric skin,
fingertips probing
the depth of wetness,

hardened nipples
pressed urgently
against bare chest,

surrounded by tropical heat.

Did you ever tell me what it is you do?
I cannot remember,
It does not matter,

I speak only to selfish desires …..

Just recently I've been thinking a lot about sexuality, purity and wholeness. In recent dialouges with with fellow students, professors friends and colleagues it has come to my attention that while I have a basic idea of what I believe about sexuality and the body, I've not spent much time developing or writing on it much, and this was surprising to me considering how sacred my theology of the body has become. So today i wanted to spend some time in thought about my person, your person and why sexuality matters.

So, first of all, what is the body? Here i'm gonna lay out an assertion of the human person according to what I believe the scriptures are telling us and several interrelated theories on being. From there we'll talk about being and practical theology and finally conclude with the importance of sexuality to human identity, and ultimately why sexuality matters.

For a long time I've been disturbed by the question of what happens at marriage that inherently changes something, how is it that before a ring almost everything is off limits and then by a simple token everything is ok? What difference can a ritual make in ontologically shifting something from one place to another? Is marriage really that important in uniting two persons into one flesh, or is it a formality with pretty metaphors?

So, to answer my own question about marriage and the ontology of such a union, it is my belief that what has happened is in our conception of being when we lost the idea of being in communion we took a shift from the idea of communion as a necessary element of being. To be a person is to be a being-in-relationship, and therefore to necessitate a constant dialogue between an internal and external self-hood.

Sartre shows us in his Being and Nothingness that in reality man is never being in itself as for example a rock is. A rock simply is, but we as people lack being-in-itself because being-in-itself lacks consciousness. We are being for itself and thus lack definite being and are forced to create our being out of nothingness. And as foray into dimension theory and the propositions of time purported by H.G. Wells, if anything lacks duration it cannot be said to exist. Humans therefore are not and cannot be static being or inherently and diametrically dualistic beings, for change affects people in time and therefore their being is dynamic in that when viewed in 4 dimensions height, length, depth, and duration being is never in itself, but in relation to time, space, objects and other objects of being to discern and develop our own being.

This dynamic selfhood is the consciousness that we have of ourselves being aware of things outside ourselves and our idea of the perceptions with which we interact with the world. This, not even this is static since our perceptions change, ideas develop, and over time this self matures, corrupts, decays, grows, evolves, becomes more self aware, less self aware, directed, misdirected and always interactive. The self as relates to other objects in both time and space, in memory, and perception outside the internal perception of what we believe to be ourselves. Sartre helps us do away away with Kant's dualism of noumena and phenomena, showing us that there is no ungraspable appearance behind things but rather only things in themselves as they appear.

The external self constitutes the internal self because that self is projected onto the external world and receives its selfhood back from the dialogue between the projection and reception of meaning. The internal self is not an objective reality but exists as interpreted through our perception of self that emerges through interaction with those things that we have relationality with in the world outside our physical bodies. In Sartre's idea the for-itself of being makes of the world a blank canvas onto which it projects its being, and in marriage, to get back to the topic at hand, there is a mutual imprint of being which allows both giving and reception of being through mutual imprintedness.

Hopefully I have done some justice to what I believe Sartre is saying.

Marriage is the mystery by which human being becomes truly alive, it is sacramental, holy, and relational. The thing that changes is not the world, but our perception of self, from the myself which we are so involved in in our day to the ourself which is become myself. Therefore as we search for being in the world, the world reaches us through the eyes of another such that as we explore out for ourselves, the meaning of ourselves is presented to us in another. The other becomes the I and vice versa such that the other person is a mirror of ourselves as we explore identity through the perceptions and reflections brought out in the living interlocution of being. So that when we are called to love one another, as we do in marriage, we find our self consciousness should be caught up in neighbor consciousness. The I and Thou becomes the We that is You and the You that is the mirror of myself. 

So how does all this preliminary dialogue take us back to the matter of sexuality?

Let's begin with an assertion by the brilliant and moving theology of the body by Pope John Paul II:

 

It seems that the second narrative of creation has assigned to man "from the beginning" the function of the one who, above all, receives the gift (cf. especially Gn 2:23). "From the beginning" the woman is entrusted to his eyes, to his consciousness, to his sensitivity, to his heart. On the other hand, he must, in a way, ensure the same process of the exchange of the gift, the mutual interpenetration of giving and receiving as a gift. Precisely through its reciprocity, it creates a real communion of persons.

Giving and receiving is perichoretic, it is interpenetrational and dynamic between the two persons of the union making it sacred. The being of two persons becomes completely mysterious in that they become not absorbed in one another, nor annihilated in the other, but having substance in the other each person is a mirror to which the other looks for that penetrating substantiality. The giving is within both parties and the reception is within both parties. The man in the garden received the woman and looked upon her, being given over to him not in the sense of her reduction to object but in the sense of his embrace of her, his reception of her is in itself a giving. In her being received she is also receiving.

The man is enriched not only through her, who gives him her own person and femininity, but also through the gift of himself. The man's giving of himself, in response to that of the woman, enriches himself. It manifests the specific essence of his masculinity which, through the reality of the body and of sex, reaches the deep recesses of the "possession of self."...At the same time he is received as a gift by the woman, in the revelation of the interior spiritual essence of his masculinity, together with the whole truth of his body and sex. Accepted in this way, he is enriched through this acceptance and welcoming of the gift of his own masculinity. Subsequently, this acceptance, in which the man finds himself again through the sincere gift of himself, becomes in him the source of a new and deeper enrichment of the woman. The exchange is mutual. In it the reciprocal effects of the sincere gift and of the finding oneself again are revealed and grow.

It is in giving oneself to the other that the other becomes the mirror through which the self truly develops. The union of marriage sanctifies ontologically what already occurs naturally, and in their giving to each other, they are enriched. Marriage is an invitation to love one's neighbor, to care for one another and to stand for one another.

So, in short what's all this talk mean to me? I'll tell you.

This body is sacred, it is baptized into the already resurrected body of Christ, my person is intimately connected with Christ, through the eucharist, and through the Spirit of life which animated Christ back to life and raised him from the dead. This body has been marked and sealed as a sacrament of the eschaton. Therefore when considering the integrity of the body, it is necessary that I should consider my person an extension of the literal body of Christ which is sacred.

Therefore as a sacramental entity this body and the bodies of my fellow humans are sacred, bearing in them the image of God, the image of Christ. Unity before marriage is not about merely disregarding a tradition, it is a violation of the spirit which animates us all, who is within us and gives us life. It is a violation of being reflecting onto another and being reflected on in such a way that the mirror formed in mutual union is never expunged and the connection is formed, because it has to do not strictly with an unimportant ritual but with the notion and condition of being itself is adultery an inadequate resolution.

To quote liberally someone, I believe it was C.S. Lewis, who said that the person who lusts does not love too much it is that the person loves too little to truly love at all.

In short, those are my thoughts for today. I hope that someone wanted to hear that. I know I'm not done with this topic, but thanks for tuning in.

Also, I realize i didn't follow my basic outline at the start, sorry for those of you who expected better. whatever.

eli

I am starting to see my defenses soften, and my zeal diminish.  I am starting to feel detached from the standards and unresponsive to my current strategy.  This of course is no time to quite the battle, this is the time to change my outlook and implement new tactics.  Over the next couple of days I will be focusing on the process of identifying weak areas and ways in which I can increase my enthusiasm for purity.  I will be looking for new ways in which to flame the passion for God and keep Him a centerpiece in my daily routine.  This blog will remain a focal point of that.

After the movie, we were doing our regular debriefing of action scenes and comparisons of this movie to others in the genre when my son brought up the bus scene.

“You know, they don’t have to dress women like that.”

“Yeah, I know. Seemed so unnecessary, didn’t it?”

“Yes, and they don’t have to show so much. It’s hard for a kid who’s going through puberty.”

“Did it make you uncomfortable?”

“Yes, I had to have a fight with mind and say to myself, ‘I don’t want to look at that…Yes, I want to look….No, I don’t….’”

“I know, Son. That’s a battle you’re going to have to fight for the rest of your life, I’m afraid.”

“And they really didn’t have to do it in slow motion.”

Can I get an "Amen?"

Rage!!!

Today was a struggling day.

I struggle to stay awake in 2 of my classes.

I struggled with lust

and i struggled to focus on my homework

As a result of not focusing on hw i struggle with lust

If i got my thoughts on my hw then that will keep me off the highlights of my past life.

I also saw brittany today

not only did i see her i talked to her

It was nice. She seemed really eager to talk to me.

Haha i tried to play it all cool or whatever.

But i was quite happy that she was talking to me and didn't actually care about too much more else.

We'll see where that goes. As for now its gotta be about god.

I need to stop thinking self-righteous thoughts though.

I really feel that i am coming off that way.

I kept thinking how much better i am, or how cool i am, or how smart i am.

A) its all god given. i could do better too so im not that smart

B) there are an insane amount of people who are smarter than i am.

C) whatever "wisdom" i have is revealed by god anyways.

gotta give all the glory to him.

truly, truly.

I'm telling you though the bible is weird.

Love,

me.

ps i love the "itsneverwhatever.wordpress.com" looks amazing.

pss i totally enjoyed youth group tonight because i let myself. not because it was fun but because i had fun. life really is what you make it.

I have long understood the verse to mean what Rick concluded:

"What this means on a practical level is that Jesus never said “looking at a woman with lust” was sinful, but rather “looking at a woman TO lust” or “looking at a woman FOR THE PURPOSE of lust” is equivalent to adultery in the heart. That is, the actual sin is found in looking at a woman with express purpose to lust after her or even possess her as Guelich points out. Jimmy Carter, myself, and perhaps even you have stressed over the passing thoughts, the temptations, thinking we had sinned when this was not the case. Certainly entertaining those thoughts, that second and perhaps third glance invited sin, but not the initial look and thought that goes through our minds. We always have the option of quickly looking away...."

Rick's post brought two questions to mind:

1. Why is the misunderstanding so common, since surely famous bible commentators have been able to come up with the same interpretation as Rick over the centuries (sorry , Rick :-) )? In short, how old was such an interpretation?  

2. Just where does the line between intention and act, temptation and sin, lie?

The matter of the age of the "looks to lust" interpretation was simple enough. I clicked on e-Sword, pulled up Matthew 5:28 and glanced over at the Catena Aurea module from mijac's Catholic Apologetics esnips page. There I discovered much the same interpretation as Rick mentions from two famous Church Fathers:

Jerome(347-420): "Between and that is between actual passion and the first spontaneous movement of the mind, there is this difference: passion is at once a sin; the spontaneous movement of the mind, though it partakes of the evil of sin, is yet not held for an offence committed. When then one looks upon a woman, and his mind is therewith smitten, there is propassion; if he yields to this he passes from propassion to passion, and then it is no longer the will but the opportunity to sin that is wanting. "Whosoever," then, "looketh on a woman to lust after her," that is, so looks on her as to lust, and cast about to obtain, he is rightly said to commit adultery with her in his heart."

Augustine (354-430), Serm. in Mont., i, 12: "For there are three things which make up a sin; suggestion either through the memory, or the present sense; if the thought of the pleasure of indulgence follows, that is an unlawful thought, and to be restrained; if you consent then, the sin is complete. For prior to the first consent, the pleasure is either none or very slight, the consenting to which makes the sin. But if consent proceeds on into overt act, then desire seems to be satiated and quenched. And when suggestion is again repeated, the contemplated pleasure is greater, which previous to habit formed was but small, but now more difficult to overcome."

 As for question 2, there is first the old canard about the evils of temptation. Christians have beat themselves up for being tempted to sin, yet temptation is plainly part of the human condition, and not a sin in itself. This is proved simply by the New Testament witness about Jesus:

1. He was not only tempted to sin, but explicitly shown tempted as a part of his mission: Matthew Chapter 4, Mark Chapter 1, and Luke Chapter 4 ;

2. Yet Jesus is explicitly said to be sinless: Hebrews 7:26, 1 John 3:5, 2 Corinthians 5:21;

Therefore temptation cannot logically be a sin in itself.

The second part of question two is more simply stated as "Can a thought be considered a sin?" The An early Christian answer was part of the Augustine and Jerome quotes above. Laying out the Jewish opinion on the subject requires both nuance and a lot of words, at least in John Gill's hands:

"Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman,.... Many and severe are the prohibitions of the Jews, concerning looking upon a woman, which they aggravate as a very great sin: they say (k), it is not lawful to look upon a beautiful woman, though unmarried; nor upon another man's wife, though deformed; nor upon a woman's coloured garments: they forbid (l) looking on a woman's little finger, and say (m), that he that tells money to a woman, out of his hand into her's, that he may look upon her, though he is possessed of the law and good works, even as Moses, he shall not escape the damnation of hell: they affirm (n), that he that looks upon a woman's heel, his children shall not be virtuous; and that a man may not go after a woman in the way, no, not after his wife: should he meet her on a bridge, he must take her to the side of him; and whoever goes through a river after a woman, shall have no part in the world to (o) come: nay, they forbid (p) a man looking on the beauty of his own wife. Now these things were said by them, chiefly to cover themselves, and because they would be thought to be very chaste; when they were, as Christ calls them, an "adulterous generation" in a literal sense: they usually did what our Lord observes, "strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel". We read in the Talmud (q), of חסיד שוטה, a "foolish saint" and it is asked, who is he? and it is answered, one that sees a woman drowning in a river, and says it is not lawful for me לאיסתכולי בה, "to look" upon her, and deliver her. It was not any looking upon a woman, that is forbid by Christ as criminal; but so to look, as "to lust after her"; for such an one

hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. But these men, who forbad external looking upon a woman, generally speaking, had no notion of heart sins; and which was the prevailing opinion of the Pharisees, in Christ's time.

"A good thought, they (r) allow, is reckoned as if done; as it is said, Mal_3:16. Upon which it is asked, what is the meaning of that, and "that thought" upon "his name?" Says R. Ase, if a man thinks to do a good work, and is hindered, and does it not, the Scripture reckons it to him, as if he did it; but an evil thought, the holy blessed God does not account of it as if done, as is said, Psa_66:18.''

Upon which words, a noted commentator (s) of their's has this remark:

"Though I regard iniquity in my heart to do it, even in thought, yea, against God himself, as if I had expressed it with my lips, he does not hear it; that is, לא חשב לי עון, "he does not reckon it to me for sin"; because the holy blessed God does not account an evil thought for an action, to them that are in the faith of God, or of the true religion.''

For it seems, this is only true of the Israelites; it is just the reverse with the Gentiles, in whom God does not reckon of a good thought, as if it was done, but does of an evil one, as if it was in act (t). It must be owned, that this is not the sense of them all; for some of them have gone so far as to say (u), that

"the thoughts of sin are greater, or harder, than sin itself:''

by which they mean, that it is more difficult to subdue sinful lusts, than to refrain from the act of sin itself; and particularly, some of them say things which agree with, and come very near to what our Lord here says; as when they affirm (w), that

"everyone that looks upon a woman בכוונה, with intention, it is all one as if he lay with her.''

And that נואף בעיניו נקרא נואף, "he that committeth adultery with his eyes, is called an adulterer" (x). Yea, they also observe (y), that a woman may commit adultery in her heart, as well as a man; but the Pharisees of Christ's time were of another mind.

(k) T. Bab. Avoda Zara, fol. 1, 2. (l) T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 24. 1. Sabbat. fol. 64. 2. (m) T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 61. 1. Eruvin, fol. 18. 2. (n) T. Bab. Nedarim, fol. 20. 1. T. Hieros. Challa, fol. 58. 3. Derech Eretz. c. 1. fol. 17. 3. (o) T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 61. 1. Eruvin, fol. 18. 2. (p) Zohar in Lev. fol. 34. 4. (q) T. Bab Sota, fol. 21. 2. (r) T. Bab. Kiddushin, fol. 40. 1. (s) R. David Kimchi, in Psal. lxvi. 18. (t) T. Hieros. Peah, fol. 16. 2. (u) T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 29. 1. (w) T. Hieros. Challa, fol. 58. 3. Massechet Calah, fol. 16. 4. Vid. Maimon. Issure Bia, c. 21. sect. 2. & Moses Kotsensis Mitzvot Tora precept. neg. 126. (x) Vajikra Rabba, sect. 23. fol. 265. 1. (y) Bemidbar Rabba, sect. 9. fol. 196. 1."

Adam Clarke puts it more briefly and to the point:

"Hath committed adultery with her already in his heart - It is the earnest wish or desire of the soul, which, in a variety of cases, constitutes the good or evil of an act. If a man earnestly wish to commit an evil, but cannot, because God puts time, place, and opportunity out of his power, he is fully chargeable with the iniquity of the act, by that God who searches and judges the heart. So, if a man earnestly wish to do some kindness, which it is out of his power to perform, the act is considered as his; because God, in this case, as in that above, takes the will for the deed. If voluntary and deliberate looks and desires make adulterers and adulteresses, how many persons are there whose whole life is one continued crime! whose eyes being full of adultery, they cannot cease from sin, 2Pe_2:14. Many would abhor to commit one external act before the eyes of men, in a temple of stone; and yet they are not afraid to commit a multitude of such acts in the temple of their hearts, and in the sight of God!"

Perhaps the best word about temptation and sin is also the earliest:

Gen 4:7 NET. "...Is it not true that if you do what is right, you will be fine? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at the door. It desires to dominate you, but you must subdue it."

Es kann einem als Dichter oder Sänger, wie jedem anderen Menschen auch passieren, daß man das Ziel aus den Augen verliert. Wenn man zum Beispiel einen Auftritt vor zwei zahlenden Gästen (und dem Veranstalter) absolviert, oder wenn Zuschauer mit einem bierschwangeren Atem die letzten Sauerstoffmoleküle in Bühnennähe vernichten und besoffen nachfragen, ob man auch "Sweet home...etc.." spielen kann. Oder wenn man am frühen Morgen dochmal wieder in Versuchung gerät, das Sat 1Frühstücksfernsehen einzuschalten, um erneut die Bestätigung zu bekommen, daß die Menschheit gerade an ihrer Banalität und Schwachsinnigkeit zu Grunde geht...

Man verzweifelt in vielen Situationen an der Welt, singt alleine vor sich hin....

Gibt es in diesen Situationen des Zweifels ein Ziel an, das man aich als Sänger erinnern kann? ...um den Sinn nicht ganz aus den Augen zu verlieren?

Antwort: Ja.

Egal, wie stumpf einem die Welt erscheinen mag, oder wie groß die Wut geworden ist...es gibt ein Ziel der Lieder.

Wenn sich die rohe Menge treibt

Im wilden Weltwirrwesen,

Begreift man nicht warum man schreibt

Wenn die das sind die lesen.

Möchte Ihnen man ins Angesicht

Mit Fäusten lieber schlagen,

Weil das nur hilft und andres nicht,

Daß sie nach einem fragen.

Doch wenn im stillen Kämmerlein

Der Geist sich ausruht wieder,

Stellt doch die alte Lust sich ein

Und fordert neue Lieder.

Die Lieder suchen sehnsuchtsvoll

Ihr Ziel in weiter Ferne.

Und wenns kein andres geben soll,

So geben eins die Sterne.

Wohl hab ich hoch im Sternenfeld

Ein Ziel der Lieder wohnen;

Doch weiß ich auch auf Gottes Welt

Dort fern ein andres thronen.

Nach diesem laß ich meinen Sang

Aus voller Seele wandern;

Wenn sie sich freut an seinem Klang

Was frag ich nach euch andern!

Friedrich Rückert

]]> http://jesusblogger.wordpress.com/?p=236 Wed, 03 Sep 2008 20:39:11 +0000 jesusblogger http://jesusblogger.wordpress.com/?p=236  

Being married is probably the biggest life change I have ever experienced.  It changes everything. People don't treat you the same, young singles cut you out of their circle and older saints start to treat you with a bit more respect.  

Another thing that changed when I got married was that I suddenly lost interest in books on the path towards marriage.  Seeing as I've read lots on the subject during my single years I thought it'd be worth listing some of the best books I ever read on relationships (in reverse order of course!).   You'll notice a bias to the writing of Joshua Harris, but that's because his books on relationships are brilliant! 

Top 5 Books for Singles (who want to be married).

5. Not Even A Hint (Joshua Harris) - How to guard your heart against lust.  An honest book. 

4. I Kissed Dating Goodbye (Joshua Harris) - A young man explains why we don't do dating in Church. 

3. Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus (John Gray) - A revelation into male / female behaviour.

2. Boy Meets Girl (Joshua Harris) - An excellent guide from 'how do you do?' to 'I do'. 

1. The Bible (Ecclesiaties, Song of Songs, 1 Cor. 7) - I had to end on the Bible.  It has such great advice for single people who want to be married one day, or are in a relationship.   

Top 5 Books for the Married

Watch this space!

God and a few people know I've made more than my fair share of foolish choices. I've been led away by a diversity of lusts on more than one occasion. 

There has been my lust for a husband, which led me right into a relationship with a man who'd later punch my head into a cinderblock wall. I tried to kill him, but failed because I couldn't keep an eye on him and search for a butcher knife. Promised myself that if it ever happened again I'd focus on the knife and not on the man. 

(It hasn't happened again because I've focused more on me.)

My lust for money led me right in the direction of a client who not only lied about a relationship he was suppose to have had with my cousin, but also stole a business contact that he justified as being owed to him. Realized that in giving him a pass on lying about my cousin, a pass she gave him as well, I wouldn't have been in that situation. It's the old "you knew I was a snake before I bit you" thing. I knew, she knows but I'm the one who paid.  (Sweetie, I wish you'd get the memo on that one before he bites you again.)

A lust for acceptance led me into a relationship with someone who was really good at charming and disarming me with his words of "acceptance," and listening ear. He would later use all of that listening to replay those words against me in a heated argument over his inability to be faithful and honest.

We won't even discuss my lust for sex...

As you can see, there is a diversity of lusts and I've only touched on the few that have affected my choices and life. 

Yet, I don't think it's the lusts that made me silly. It wasn't the choices either. No, it was denying that I knew what was best in the first place and my refusal to follow those instincts to chase after something I wanted more badly than my dignity and peace. 

Bless the day I started chasing peace at all costs, because I truly lust after it and lusting after peace comes with fewer consequences. 

I guess folks are going to have to find something else to laugh at about me, because I'm taking great effort at avoiding being an old silly woman. 

Best, Robin

fiftydaystofifty@gmail.com