The Parable of the Talents: Risk and Return in Building the Kingdom of Heaven

A small business owner in an office with a bunch of yarn and sewing machines. Image source.

Continuing our series on the book of Matthew, let's look at Matthew 25:14-30, which is typically referred to as "The Parable of the Talents."

Go over and read it.

So, we have here a parable about the kingdom of heaven, which uses a metaphor related to business/ investment/ being an entrepreneur. These servants who received the "bags of gold" or "talents" were instructed to put that money to work to earn more money. (The footnote says "a talent was worth about 20 years of a day laborer’s wage"- we're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars here.)

The thing that strikes me about this story is that when you make an investment, or use capital to start a business, there is always risk. There is always the risk that you will lose the money you invested. There is always the risk that your business will fail. And inevitably you will make mistakes when you're just starting out- maybe you will realize in hindsight that some of the things you spent money on were actually not worth it. And there's an element of luck involved- maybe people you hire turn out to be better or worse than expected, maybe some celebrity tweets about your product and suddenly you have tons of customers but then they all forget about you a week later, maybe new government regulations suddenly mess up your whole business strategy.

There's always risk. There will definitely be things that go wrong.

So the first servant, with his 5 bags of gold (hundreds of thousands of dollars) earned 5 more. And the second servant, with his 2 bags of gold (hundreds of thousands of dollars) earned 2 more. And both are rewarded by the master. Their businesses are successful. They did what the master wanted them to do. However, this isn't the whole story. You only see the result- 5 talents earned 5 more- but you don't see all the steps, all the little decisions, the mistakes, the things that would have worked better if they had been done differently (though perhaps no one could have known that- hindsight is 20/20).

I feel like, for me, thinking about how to make the world better and build the kingdom of heaven, it's easy to get stuck on those details. What if I donate to a charity, but then they don't use the money well? What if I look up their financial records and the percentage they spend on "administrative costs" seems high- does that mean it's an ineffective charity? What if I help organize some event, but then it has problems? What if I try to help people but it actually makes things worse?

On the one hand, those are valid concerns. We should definitely be honest and realistic about how good intentions aren't enough, and sometimes charity projects do more harm than good. We should learn from their mistakes. We should do our research. We should listen to the people we want to help and find out what they actually need, rather than forcing our own ideas on them.

But we shouldn't become paralyzed by this fear of taking risks. Nothing you do will ever be perfect, but don't let that stop you. You can still make the world better and participate in bringing the kingdom of heaven to earth.

The third servant was too afraid to even try. He hid the money in the ground, and simply gave it back to the master when the master returned. This servant took no risks at all, and the master was angry at him for it- calling him "You wicked, lazy servant!" The master said he should have at least put the money in the bank to earn interest.

My interpretation of this bit is, if you have high enough income that you are able to donate to charity, but you feel like you have to analyze everything and pick the number one magical most effective charity, and you worry about it and never actually end up doing anything... no, don't do that. At least pick a charity and set up automatic monthly donations. It feels inadequate to just do that- I mean, yes, it is inadequate- but at least it's better than nothing.

(I realize I've given several examples about "building the kingdom of heaven" in terms of donating to charity, but there are lots of things you can do to build the kingdom of heaven. Anything that helps people who need help, makes the world better, etc. Supporting your friends, taking care of your family. Actually, the next parable we'll look at is the parable of the sheep and the goats, which does indeed give practical instructions for what we should do.)

So overall, my point is, if you want to make the world better, don't be so worried about taking risks and making mistakes that you just take no action at all. Inevitably you will make mistakes and mess things up and be inefficient sometimes. That's just the way it is. The master in the parable has no problem with that, because the first and second servants were very successful when you look at the big picture.

A few more things I want to mention about this parable:

The third servant tells the master he was afraid because "I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed." (The master seems to agree with this description.) Back when I was evangelical, I always got stuck on this verse- Is it saying the master is cheating and stealing? Isn't the master supposed to be God? What on earth is happening here??? I would get stuck because I viewed bible study as, like, I am going to read this and understand the whole thing and get the message that the author "meant" when they wrote it. So if overall the passage made sense to me, and I had an understanding of "what it meant", but there was one weird verse that didn't seem to fit at all, well that would be a huge problem.

That's not how I view the bible now, as an ex-evangelical Christian feminist. I think people can interpret the bible a lot of different ways. I am not here to tell you what it "actually" means or what the author "really meant" by this passage- I am just telling you my opinion on it from a Christian feminist perspective. I totally recognize that my ideas are not "what the author meant"- really, it's not important to me to discover "what the author meant." (I think I need to make this clear here on my blog.) So I find a part that is meaningful to me, and I blog about that, and if there are some other parts of the passage that I kind of ignore, well, it's okay. I don't fool myself into believing that I really understand the whole thing and know what the author meant by every single part. And therefore, it doesn't bother me if some parts are weird and don't make sense to me.

For what it's worth, though, here's my interpretation of the "you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed": Things that happen in the real world don't really follow a simple cause-and-effect like "good person does good thing for good reasons and the result is good, bad person does bad thing for bad reasons and the result is bad." Sometimes you do something, but someone else gets the credit for it. Sometimes something bad happens, but a few people happen to benefit from it (innocently- I don't mean they purposely caused the bad thing to happen). In the real world, all these good and bad intentions and results are woven together, inseparable. And I don't really think that's a good thing- I think it's an example of how the world is flawed- but it just is what it is. And the kingdom of heaven is also like that, because it's built by us in this flawed reality. 

Take the life of Jesus, for example. The genealogy in Matthew 1 points out a few key women who were in Jesus' family line; one of them was "Uriah's wife" (Bathsheba). Yes, remember that whole thing, where David raped Bathsheba, then had her husband killed, then married her, their baby died... and then later they had a baby named Solomon, who is an ancestor of Jesus?

So if David had never raped Bathsheba and murdered Uriah, Jesus would have turned out different. (In some small way.) It was still a really bad thing that David did. (I don't want to hear any "But it was actually a good thing/ had a silver lining because look at these good things that happened later as an indirect result.") But what is supposed to happen- anyone whose ancestors got together because of rape and/or murder shouldn't do anything good with their life, because then someone can say their success is a "result" of that historical rape/murder? Probably all of us have that in our family tree somewhere. It just is what it is. It's not a good thing, but that's just how the real world works.

And one more part in this parable I want to mention: "So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them." I'm not sure what to make of this. It seems to be stating the general principle of "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer", which is indeed how the power structures of the real world work. But, that shouldn't be true in the kingdom of heaven, right? What about "the last will be first, and the first will be last"?

I know the parable of the talents is using money as a metaphor for building the kingdom of heaven- and the money actually belongs to the master, not the servants- so taking the money from the disobedient servant and giving it to the most successful servant isn't really the same thing as a literal rich person finding new ways to exploit literal poor people. Not sure what it is a metaphor for, though. A possible complicating factor is how, in the parable, the master (God, I guess) is the one who gives the money to the servants in the first place (and later gives the third servant's money to the first servant), but I don't conceptualize the real world as "God blessed you with this money/ resources/ abilities/ *cough* white privilege"- I think it's just luck. And if you start down that road of "God intentionally decided that I should have these things that other people don't have" then it only leads to bad places.

So I don't have a good interpretation to give you about the part where the master takes the gold away from the third servant. (Feel free to leave a comment about it if you have something to share!) But, like I said, it doesn't bother me, because I am not coming at the bible from a perspective of "I am going to understand what the author really meant in this passage."

So, in summary: The parable of the talents uses imagery about being an entrepreneur and making investments, as a metaphor for the way Jesus wants us to build the kingdom of heaven. If you have more money and resources, then you should contribute more. You have the opportunity to do more good- so use it. Also, there is always risk when someone starts a business or invests money- and there is also risk if you set out to take actions that actually make a difference in the world. Inevitably, you will make mistakes. But don't let that fear stop you, like it stopped the third servant. The master rewarded the servants for the big picture of how much good they did, and didn't pay any attention to the mistakes they made along the way.

---

Related:

The Parable of the Living Wage 

-------------------

This post is part of a series on the gospel of Matthew.

Previous post: I don't believe in a literal "Jesus coming back." But, be ready. (Matthew 25:1-13)

Next post: Sheep and Goats (Matthew 25:31-46)

Click here to go to the beginning of the series.

Blogaround

1. Home invasion: Mastodon's Eternal September begins (November 9) "Like when you're sitting in a quiet carriage softly chatting with a couple of friends and then an entire platform of football fans get on at Jolimont Station after their team lost. They don't usually catch trains and don't know the protocol. They assume everyone on the train was at the game or at least follows football. They crowd the doors and complain about the seat configuration."

2. Chinese Sailor Returns Home After Circumnavigating the Arctic (November 15) "The 54-year-old man journeyed for 17 months on a solar-powered yacht to raise awareness of climate change."

3. How Many Trans People Does The New York Times Believe There Should Be? (November 15) "Once trans people enter the picture, though, institutions like the Times are eager to reimagine the remaining limitations of modern science and the inherent chance of side effects that come with any medical treatment as invalidating flaws."

4. Eight billion of us: What does that mean? (November 16) 

5. One True Ace Pairing: Toy Story 4 (2019) "A traditional romance movie might have one person make a grand gesture of sacrifice to be with the other, because movies teach us that nothing is more important in life than finding love. But many of us would agree that it is not, and sometimes, even if you’ve met the right person, the circumstances aren’t right for you to be together. But in Toy Story 4, Woody and Bo have cared for each other for a long time, but the circumstances were finally right for them, and I find that just so darn romantic."

6. Missing a Permission Slip (2017) [content note: descriptions of masturbating and sex toys] Here's a really interesting asexual perspective on masturbating.

Sure Of What We Hope For

Image text: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. -Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr." Image source.

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." - Hebrews 11:1

"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." - 1 Corinthians 15:14

"Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." - Matthew 6:10

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

"Ex-evangelical Christian feminist. White American living in China. I believe in resurrection." - subtitle of this blog

---

I want to write about resurrection.

I've been thinking about Hebrews 11:1, and this idea keeps floating around in my head, that perhaps the way to think about resurrection is to believe that it's true, but remember that it's a belief, it's something we hope is true, not something we can really know- but still, to live like it's true. I feel that that's the right way to view it, but I can't quite pin down why, exactly. So let's analyze it. Let's analyze all the possibilities.

And, by the way, when I use the word "resurrection" or talk about the concept of "believing in resurrection", what I mean is, basically, heaven. Like, after we die, there's a perfect world where all the wrongs are made right. I prefer to use the word "resurrection" instead of "heaven" because I grew up evangelical, and "heaven" has a certain feel to it that I'm intentionally trying to avoid. Like, this place which is just nice and there are clouds and you worship God. When I call it "resurrection" instead, it's because I'm trying to get at this idea of powerful, radical transformation, everything is made new, every valley raised up and mountain made low, a new heaven and a new earth, where there is real justice, where He will wipe every tear from their eyes. And I call it "resurrection" because I want to connect it with the Resurrection of Jesus. He was the first- and we will all be resurrected like Him.

Is it good or bad to believe in resurrection? Does the answer depend on whether or not resurrection is real? Yes, surely must depend on that. Perhaps we should list the matrix of possibilities- do we believe or not, and is it real or not- and figure out what the best-case scenario is. 

Perhaps the simplest place to start is here: Surely if resurrection is real, that's a better outcome than if resurrection is not real. (Ah, it occurs to me that I'm very much oversimplifying this... I seem to be only considering 2 options: resurrection vs a naturalistic/atheistic view where you're just gone after you die. There are definitely other possibilities, like reincarnation, or maybe some different variety of heaven which follows different rules than the one I believe in. So yes, I am oversimplifying this- and I would be interested to see if someone has done a similar analysis on other possibilities besides the 2 that are on my mind.) If resurrection is real, that's good news, right? Well, wait. It's not good news for everyone. My view of resurrection includes a judgment. Justice. 

So for people who spent their time on this earth exploiting their employees, making them work unpaid overtime... "the wages you have failed to pay your workers are crying out against you." Yikes. At the resurrection, you don't want to be the guy standing before God telling Them about the innovative new ways you found to make money by ignoring worker protection laws. (The term I use for this practice of "not fairly paying people who work for you" is "living in sin.") Whatever you did to the least of these, you did to Jesus. At the resurrection, justice is not going to be a nice thing for everyone.

Okay, so perhaps we need to add another dimension to our matrix, for whether or not you are trying to make this world- the world we live in now, the world that we know is real- a better place. Or, alternatively, if you are just trying to make a good life for yourself, and you don't care how it affects everyone else/ you don't care about using up the earth's finite resources and how that will continue to affect the world even after you die. Because, I would say, if resurrection is real and justice is real, those are the things that people will be judged on. (If you need a bible reference for that, I give you Matthew 25:31-46, the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, where Jesus teaches us that the criteria to get into heaven are: "I was hungry and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you invited me in. I needed clothes and you clothed me. I was sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you came to visit me." If you wanna come at me with accusations of "that's works-based!" better take it up with Jesus first.)

So, what are our options? Well the dimensions we have to consider are these:

1. Is resurrection/judgment real or not?
2. Do we believe in resurrection or not?
3. And how are we living our lives? Is our priority ourselves, or what's good for the world overall? Ah, at this point I realize my idea of writing out a chart with all the possibilities is not going to work, because this dimension can't be reduced to a binary. (ie, it's more complicated than just "some people are selfish, some people are compassionate.")

And furthermore, when we determine the result of each of these scenarios, it's not necessarily straightforward to sort them into what's a "good" outcome and what's a "bad" outcome. Good for who? For yourself? For the world overall? If someone's life on earth is terrible but then they go to heaven, do we count that as a "good" outcome? Like how do we weigh this life against the afterlife, in order to evaluate if an outcome is good or bad?

Let me give you an example.

Let's imagine a person, we'll call them Person A. They live a fairly privileged life- they have a good job and never have to worry about having enough money for their basic needs. They feel compassion towards people who are in need, and so they donate money to various charities. They don't really know how to do more than that. Person A feels sad about people in the world who are the victims of injustice, but they reassure themself that there is resurrection after death, and all those wrongs will be made right. 

If resurrection is real, does that mean all is good here, with Person A's choices? Are we letting Person A off the hook too easily by saying "oh at the resurrection all those wrongs will be made right, so it's okay that you didn't do more to help people during your time on earth"? 

Okay, how about this example: We have Person B and Person C, and they are activists working together in some movement with the goal of righting specific wrongs in the world. Person B believes in resurrection, and so they believe that the sacrifices they make in this life will be rewarded. And so they continue to work hard to make other people's lives better, even though the cost/risk for themself is high. Person C does not believe in resurrection, and so they believe that this life is our only chance to make the world better. And so they continue to work hard too, just like Person B.

(See, in every religion- and also atheism- there are people who want to do good, and so they find inspiration in their religious beliefs for doing good. And there are people who want to gain power for themselves and control other people's lives, and they also find justification for that in their religion.)

Let's also introduce Person D, who believes in resurrection and judgment, and therefore believes that they have to devote every resource they possibly can to fighting for a better world. Person D always thinks about Jesus at the judgment, asking how Person D kept money in a savings account when there is always someone in the world in need, who could have used that money. This is terrible for Person D's mental health, and eventually the stress of always putting others first causes them to burn out.

If we said "we're letting Person A off the hook too easily"- does that mean that Person A should become more like Person D? I don't think it's good to be Person D. Feeling guilty about having anything more than the bare minimum.

And then we have Person E, a white American Christian who makes the argument "slavery was actually a good thing because a lot of African slaves converted to Christianity, so they go to heaven, which is way more important than anything that happened during their time on earth." Person E's belief in resurrection does actual harm in this world. When I was evangelical, I never went as far as Person E here, but I did believe "people's spiritual needs are more important than physical needs" and "social justice is a distraction from the gospel" and other evangelical talking points along those lines. Although, these ideas don't apply to the type of resurrection I believe in now. Back then, I believed that going to heaven or hell was based on whether you were "saved" (ie, whether you believed specific facts about Jesus). But now I believe it's based on what you did. If you wanna fight about that, like I said, first you better go ask Jesus what he was talking about in Matthew 25.

So yeah... I mean, when I started this, I thought I was gonna get a nice 2x2 matrix like Pascal's wager, but actually it's much more complicated than that. Believing or not believing in resurrection can motivate people in many different directions.

(And also I'm not a fan of Pascal's wager. It doesn't account for the very big ways in which belief/unbelief affect people's lives in this world. Pascal's wager tries to make the argument "might as well believe in God, just in case" but the reality is that following a god will require you to do a bunch of things, and those are things you have to really consider. They're not just trivial things you do "just in case" it's true.)

But I come back to Hebrews 11:1 again- "Faith is being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we do not see." I hope resurrection is real. I believe it. I can't be sure, but I feel like there's something good about living like I'm sure.

At the same time, though, it feels to me like there's something good in not being 100% sure. If we were really 100% sure that heaven was real, wouldn't we just kill ourselves? I want to hold on to this life, in case it's all there is. Make this world better, in case it's the only one we have. Do our best here, and still have that hope that all the problems we couldn't fix will be finally fixed someday.

So to know it's a hope, it's a belief- but to live like I'm sure. I feel that's the right way to see it, even though I wasn't able to make a giant chart that leads to this conclusion. (This is my opinion, but obviously other people come to different conclusions, and that's fine.)

And also, here's something interesting: Reading through the examples of faith in Hebrews 11, I see they all had faith in something bigger than themselves. That this life isn't all there is. But, actually, you don't even need religion, to believe "this life isn't all there is." An atheist who lives their life in a way that makes a better world for people who come after them- they won't be there to see the good that comes of it, and yet they still believe that that good is worth doing. The belief that other things matter beyond your own life. 

Maybe the easiest example is a parent who knows that they would give their life for their child if necessary. You know that your child's life is more important than your own life. You believe the sacrifices you make for your child are worth it, even though you're not receiving rewards for it. In other words, you believe "this life isn't all there is." Or, I could phrase it as "things that happen outside of my lifetime, which I will never personally see or experience, are important to me." It doesn't have to be a religious belief at all. 

An interesting thing about the parent/child example, though: You're willing to give your life for your child because you love them. It's not because you thought your way through a philosophical argument about "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" or anything like that. And my questions about the extent to which I'm morally obligated to give up my own resources/money/etc to right the wrongs of the world are very much in that "logical", emotion-free philosophical space. Isn't it interesting, though, that the causes people get really really involved in are the things that have affected them personally, or affected their family members personally. Love will motivate you to make sacrifices much more than logic can.

So when I'm talking about "believing in resurrection", I mean believing that we literally go to heaven after we die. But that is only a subset of the "this life isn't all there is" ideology. It's possible to believe "this life isn't all there is" (by which I mean, "I care about things that take place beyond my lifetime and never affect me") without believing in any gods or religions at all.

In fact, there are probably some atheists that argue that people who work to make the world better while not believing in resurrection are morally better than people who work to make the world better who do believe in resurrection. Because, the argument goes, you should do good because it's inherently a good thing to do, not because you want the reward and/or you want to avoid hell. I have to say I don't really agree with this argument, because I believe in counting the cost, and I don't believe it's always good to put others first and yourself last. I don't think there's something inherently good about being unaffected by the prospect of getting a reward.

Like, I don't mean you should be like "I don't care about people at all, but I have to do a minimum required number of good deeds or else I won't be rewarded in heaven." Obviously that's a bad perspective to have. I mean it more like, "I am taking a HUGE risk fighting against the powers-that-be, which terrifies me, but at least I know that God sees this and it will matter somehow, someday."

Martin Luther King Jr said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe it's true on this earth, somehow, eventually, if we work for it. And then ultimately this is fulfilled at the resurrection.

And also I want to talk about the resurrection of Jesus.

Yeah, so, I believe Jesus literally was raised from the dead. I've been thinking about this as I think about the concept of resurrection- and also thinking about some tweets from a few years ago... There was a kerfluffle on Twitter related to progressive Christians/ ex-evangelical Christians who don't believe Jesus' resurrection literally happened.

I saw a tweet from an ex-evangelical Christian, that said something like "I guess I missed the memo that when we leave evangelicalism we're not supposed to believe in a literal resurrection any more? I still believe in it." Yeah, that's basically where I stand.

Like, I actually believe if you rewind time 2000 years, you'll see Him get up and walk out of that tomb. The other evangelical beliefs I abandoned because of ethical reasons- for example, I don't believe "prayer works" because the logical conclusion of that is that you need to work yourself into a constant state of anxiety praying for every single thing you can think of, or else it's YOUR FAULT if something bad happens. I can't ethically follow a God who operates that way. But the resurrection of Jesus doesn't lead to ethical issues like that (in my view, at least). It's more like... science issues. Which I'm not concerned about because was just a one-time event, and ... like, miracles by definition have "science issues" because God is intervening to do things that are so rare that science hasn't had a chance to study them and determine what laws are at work.

And speaking of "science issues": If you're expecting an apologetics argument here, intended to convince you to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, I'm sorry to disappoint. If someone were to ask me, "Why do you believe in the resurrection of Jesus?" I would say "... because I'm a Christian?"

I will say, though, I'm very curious about Christians who don't believe Jesus literally resurrected. Like, what do you do about Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 15? I'm not asking this in an evangelical proof-text kind of way, like "HA! I have a bible verse therefore I am automatically right." I am asking because I agree with Paul's logic about why we need to believe in the resurrection, and I want to know how, specifically, the logic would shake out differently for Christians who don't believe Jesus literally resurrected.

Though actually, Paul's argument goes in a slightly different order than mine. His logic is like:

1. Some people are saying there is no resurrection (heaven)
2. If there is no resurrection (heaven), then not even Christ has been raised (empty tomb)
3. If Christ has not been raised, then our whole religion is pointless

Whereas the question I'm asking is more like this:

1. Apparently some Christians don't believe Jesus was literally raised from the dead (empty tomb)
2. If Christ has not been raised (empty tomb), then we won't be raised either (heaven)
3. So... what is this religion about then...? Like what's the difference between that and a world where there is no god?

(Important note: This is not an argument that the resurrection is true. It's an argument that it doesn't make sense to be a Christian and not believe in the resurrection. If someone was trying to argue "well the resurrection must be real because if it's not then Christians are all just wasting their time, and that would be bad" then no, that doesn't follow logically; that is not a sound argument.)

So yeah, I'm genuinely curious about Christians who don't believe there was a literal empty tomb. Feel free to leave a comment if you have some thoughts or links about this.

And I'm not saying this to get approval from evangelicals. Omg, LOL, yeah no chance of that. The idea that Perfect Number is gonna write "I believe Jesus was literally resurrected" and then evangelical Christians are going to be like "ah then yes she is a real Christian," LOLOLOL of course that's not going to happen. I know that's not going to happen, because, how shall I put this... because I'm queer?

Anyway, this post is my attempt to write down my thoughts on resurrection. I feel I've touched on everything but don't have a strong conclusion besides "I believe in resurrection." 

Oh, also...

There are some questions that I think should be further explored: If we don't believe in resurrection, and we believe this life is the only chance we have to make the world better, does that add urgency to our efforts to right the wrongs of the world, and is that urgency a good/important thing? Is believing in resurrection more likely to be a problem because it tells us it's okay to be complacent and accept injustice in this world? Or is it more likely to be a good thing because someone who worked so hard and sacrificed so much but still sees injustice happening can reassure themself that it's okay to rest a little and care about their own mental health, and God will finish the work at the resurrection? 

If heaven is eternal and infinitely good, then how do we avoid the conclusion that what happens on this earth doesn't matter? I 100% oppose any ideology that tries to tell you not to care about bad things happening on earth because it's nothing compared to the goodness of heaven- but am I being illogical about that, if I actually do believe in heaven? 

And I've kind of given myself a logical loophole for the "if heaven is real, then what we do on earth doesn't matter" by saying that what we do on earth is the criteria used to judge us and determine what kind of experience we will have in heaven. But, isn't that just kind of arbitrary? If God decided on some other criteria (for example, "getting saved", ie, having specific religious beliefs) then is the logical conclusion "what we do on earth doesn't matter" inescapable? I'm not really comfortable with how arbitrary it feels that we just solve the problem by saying doing good/bad on earth is the criteria for judgment in heaven.

If resurrection is not real, does it still somehow benefit the world if people believe in it (for example, by making people more willing to make sacrifices for the good of others, because they believe God will appreciate it at the resurrection)?

Also, in this post I've mostly addressed the question of whether belief in resurrection motivates people to do good in this world or not. But another important function of belief in resurrection is giving people comfort when someone dies. This should be analyzed too. Is this good or bad? 

And, is resurrection just a nice story that humans have made up over and over again throughout history because death is too scary?

---

Related:

Yes, I Want Justice (A post about white evangelicals and #BlackLivesMatter)

Someday Dave Ramsey will have to stand before God and explain why he fired a pregnant woman

I Deserve God's Love

"The Author of Leviticus Would Have Been Cool With It" 

Honest Advent: Incarnation

OMG, Big Changes to the Zero-Covid Policy

An airplane landing at an airport in China. Image source.

Complete list is here: Index of Posts About the March 2022 Shanghai Covid Outbreak 

---

Big news! On November 11, China issued 20 updated guidelines for the pandemic control policies.

Here are links to news articles about it:

SHINE

A quick look at China's new COVID-19 control policies (November 11) This page has a really nice infographic that explains the biggest changes (it doesn't include all 20 of the new policies though).

Quarantine period slashed for inbound travelers to China (November 11)

Sixth Tone

China Eases COVID Curbs, Cuts Quarantines and Flight Bans (November 11) Very good article, definitely worth reading.

The New York Times

China Eases Some Pandemic Policies, While Sticking to ‘Zero Covid’ (November 11) Interesting how the New York Times focuses more on the economic impact of these changes, and also emphasizes that this does NOT mean zero-covid is ending. Very true.

NPR

China eases its 'zero COVID' policy with shorter quarantines and fewer restrictions (November 11)

Reuters

China shortens quarantines as it eases some of its COVID rules (November 11)

CNN

China scraps Covid flight bans, cuts quarantine for inbound travelers (November 11) As always, CNN is here with their "zero-covid is bad, everyone hates it" spin.

Since none of these articles have the actual numbered list of 20 policies, let me just type it up here. I got this English translation from an article on the "I Love Shanghai" WeChat account (they cite Bloomberg as a source- but the Bloomberg article is paywalled):

1. Cut isolation for close contacts to five days at a central facility and three days at home, down from 7+3;
2. No longer identify the close contacts of close contacts;
3. People leaving high-risk areas must spend seven days at home, rather than at a centralized quarantine facility;
4. Remove the "medium" risk category; only homes, workplaces and areas often frequented by someone infected will be deemed high-risk; all other areas are low-risk; high risk areas should mostly be confined to residential units or blocks, and cannot be extended at will;
5. Workers in high-risk positions exiting closed-loop operations must spend five days at home, down from seven days at home or in a centralized isolation facility;
6. Remove mass testing in most areas, with citywide tests given only when the source of infection is unknown; [note from Perfect Number- interestingly, our apartment complex's "mandatory" testing this weekend has now been cancelled]
7. Scrap circuit breaker bans for incoming flights and reduce pre-flight PCR testing to one from two;
8. Allow closed-loop systems to ease rules for business executives and sports stars;
9. Set cycle threshold values at less than 35 to diagnose Covid in new arrivals;
10. Cut quarantine for new arrivals to five days in a hotel and three at home, down from the previous 7+3;
11. Increase health care resources, including hospital beds;
12. Promote vaccine usage, especially booster shots for the elderly;
13. Stockpile medicine and equipment to treat Covid;
14. Determine the size of the population still at risk for Covid; [note from Perfect Number- from reading the Chinese version, this means people who are most at risk because they are old or have other medical conditions]
15. React quickly to outbreaks to reduce size and duration needed for pandemic control;
16. Halt excessive anti-Covid measures imposed by local governments;
17. Provide adequate supplies and necessary medical care for people in quarantine;
18. Improve pandemic control measures on school campuses;
19. Implement pandemic control measures in industrial parks to ensure smooth supply chain operations;
20. Arrange orderly departures for people who are stranded during lockdowns.

So, a lot going on here. The policies mentioned in most of the news articles are the very concrete ones- like, changing quarantine time to 5+3, instead of 7+3. ("5+3" means 5 days in the quarantine hotel + 3 days at home. Though actually in reality, from what I've heard from people doing quarantine in Shanghai, the "7+3" policy is really "10+0"- they're making people do all 10 days in the quarantine hotel. So think of the new policy as 8+0.) And then there are the ones that are more vague, like they want to "improve" this or that. Not really sure what that means, but okay, those are good changes, if they actually happen. And then items 11-14... which seem a little different, like, these are the sorts of things you do if you are planning to end the zero-covid policy.

My take on it is, no, they are not ending the zero-covid policy any time soon. I *think* probably the Chinese government believes they can still maintain zero-covid even with these shorter quarantine times, without designating any "medium-risk" areas, only doing contact tracing to the level of "close contacts" and not "secondary close contacts", etc. And they certainly have a lot of data on this- they have the data on "how many people in quarantine tested positive on the 9th or 10th day?"- if it's basically 0, then yeah you can shorten the quarantine by 2 days. "How many secondary close contacts ended up testing positive?"- if it's basically 0, then yeah you can stop contact tracing them. Etc. They definitely have the data on it. 

Or, perhaps a different view on this is: Right now several cities in China are having covid outbreaks (I have heard Guangzhou is having a particularly bad time right now). Perhaps because the number of covid cases is so high right now (not in Shanghai but in other cities throughout China), they just don't have the resources to do all that contact tracing and keep people in quarantine that long. So it's a sign that they're not able to control covid, and won't be able to maintain zero-covid. That's not really my interpretation of it, but I have heard that from some Chinese people.

But of course, for international people in China, this is incredibly good news. We are thrilled. Like, when I heard that the circuit breaker policy is no longer in effect- oh man, you guys, you do not know how incredibly good that is. Like, probably y'all are reading these articles that mention "circuit breaker" and you're like "well that's an odd name, and also I don't really know what it means here." Let me tell you. So the circuit breaker policy said that, for international flights arriving in China, if a certain percentage of the passengers from the flight end up testing positive on arrival or in quarantine, then that airline has to cancel that flight number for the next few weeks. (I am not sure on the specific number of weeks, it depends on how many people tested positive; also the policy has been tweaked several times. Probably about 2 weeks.) And of course, everyone entering China has been required to have 2 negative PCR tests, in order to board the flight (new policy changes it to 1 though)- when people test positive on arrival, it's not their fault and it's not the airline's fault. These are people who have already jumped through A LOT of anti-covid hoops in order to get back into China. So honestly I never thought the circuit breaker policy made much sense; it just felt to me like if they're getting more travelers testing positive on arrival, then they want to limit the number of travelers entering the country, so they picked this mechanism to do it.

Because of the circuit breaker policy, SO MANY people trying to enter China have had flights cancelled, over and over. Like, flight gets cancelled, you buy a ticket for a different flight, that one gets cancelled too, and so on. I have heard of people buying refundable tickets on several different airlines, in the hopes that at least 1 of the flights will actually fly. It is just... oh my goodness, these past 3 years, it has been so HARD to get into China, and the circuit breaker policy was one of the big reasons why. (Another big reason was the requirements for testing before your flight- those policies changed a few months ago to become much more workable, thank goodness. And now, with the new policies announced on November 11, only 1 PCR test is required before flying to China, rather than 2.) 

Like, now it feels like it's actually doable, to leave China and come back. Still have the do the quarantine when you arrive in China, of course; but now it's 8 days instead of 10.

(I have been stuck here almost 3 years, you guys. It's easy to leave China but it's hard to come back.)

And ticket prices should go down now. A few weeks ago I searched, and round-trip flights from China to the US were maybe $2000 or $3000 ish, per person. Cheapest I could find was about $1500. And if your travel dates are not flexible, then I mean yikes you might end up paying $6000, because there are so few options- those relatively cheaper prices I found are NOT available every day. Typically each airline only runs about 2 round-trip flights per week from China to the US. But the flights are definitely going to get cheaper now. I am sure the circuit breaker policy was very costly for airlines; now that it's no longer in effect, prices will come down.

So anyway, wow this is big. We'll see how it goes.

Blogaround

Blood moon total lunar eclipse. Photo taken in Hong Kong. Image source.

1. 11/4 Flashback: Except Steve (November 4) "'Steve' has emerged as a central figure in American theology."

2. The Hardest Sudoku Of Them All: Simon Vs Phistomefel Live (2021) A 2-hour-15-minute sudoku solve video (which was livestreamed). This is incredible.

3. Does Lightyear Prove Wall-E Never Happened? | Pixar Film Theory (November 5) I love this! The Super Carlin Brothers have taken the Pixar theory so incredibly far that now they are asking questions like, "Could this be the reference to the next in-universe Pixar movie to be released? If that's the case, then what would that actually mean? Like, does that suggest that 'Wall-E' never happened on the Pixar timeline?" Completely bizarre questions that only make sense if you've bought into the "Pixar theory" ideology and followed it so many levels deep- but treated like these are the obvious concerns that come up when anyone just simply watches Pixar movies. I love it SO MUCH. I've said before that the Pixar theory is EXACTLY LIKE biblical apologetics. I very much do not believe in the Pixar theory, but it's fascinating seeing how far they can take it- how far away they get from the actual stories told by the actual movies.

The Super Carlin Brothers have taken the Pixar Theory and have gone soooo far off the deep end, and I am here for it.

4. Why Americans living abroad are a voting bloc with untapped political potential (November 6) YES! Very good article! All of this is very true. "That's part of why overseas citizens' turnout is so low, because they don't have that logistical support, and they're on their own with figuring out how and when to vote."

5. How Your Church Can Help With the Housing Crisis (posted November 6) These are good ideas, and in general this should be a role that churches take on. But also, I want to say, this isn't like just a simple "we have extra space so we can let people live here" and you don't put any more thought into it than that. Being a landlord is an actual job. And for people with low income, who are just 1 unexpected expense from disaster, as the landlord you also get pulled into those disasters. Before you become a landlord, you have to educate yourself about how it works, and have a realistic plan about what to do if there are problems. When you get people dependent on you because you provide their housing, it's immoral to stop providing that- even though you're within your rights to evict them- even though you lose money if you let your tenants not pay rent.

So, count the cost.

And yes, the writer of that blog post points out these issues: "It almost goes without saying that congregate living of this nature is going to result in chaos or conflict on some level. As a housing case manager, I came to expect this. Many in the church might not be prepared to deal with the soap operas that result from this kind of living. But isn’t that what the church is called to do—assisting those in need, and helping them to live better lives? To address this, the church could assign a particular deacon to work with the families who live on church property."

Yes, churches should definitely use their extra space to help people who can't afford housing. That's what Jesus wants us to do. But don't do it in a naive way. Do it in an educated way. Count the cost first.

6. The origins of circumcision: Was it a mark of slavery? (July 20) "First, people don’t normally submit to such procedures without coercion. Not initially."

7. In China, Millions of Women Never Learned to Read. Can TikTok Help? (November 4) "'They say it never occurred to them that they could read and write in their lifetimes,' Liu says. 'That’s when it hits me that what I’m doing is truly meaningful.'"

8. Amazing photos of the last Blood Moon lunar eclipse of 2022 (gallery) (November 8) This was so incredible. Here in China, the total eclipse began at 6:18 pm. The moon was rising- I talked to family in the US, and they were able to see the first part of the eclipse but then the moon set for them. Anyway, I saw it, showed it to my kid, it was so incredible.

And if you want to see the 1-hour-43-minute stream of the entire thing: WATCH LIVE: ‘Blood moon’ total lunar eclipse in Asia (November 8)

9. Oh my goodness, this entire thread is SO GOOD:

Purity culture ≠ asexuality.
PURITY CULTURE ≠ ASEXUALITY.

Purity culture is where asexual teens camouflage and asexual adults are increasingly exposed. 🧵🪡

— Ellen Huang (Ell) ♠️🐇🍀☂️ (@nocturnalxlight) November 10, 2022

My favorite part is: "Purity culture emphasizes a virginity-to-consummated-marriage pipeline without preparing anyone for anything."

Shanghai Disneyland Closes Because of a Covid Case (and this affects a lot of people)

"Change my mind" meme with a guy sitting at a table outside- the banner on his table says "Shanghai Disneyland Throws the scariest Halloween parties. Change my mind." Source: WeChat.

Complete list is here: Index of Posts About the March 2022 Shanghai Covid Outbreak 

---

Hi all, here is an update about what's happening with covid in Shanghai.

---

Stats

First of all, to give an overview of the situation, I think it's important that I tell you the actual numbers. Here in Shanghai, a city of 25 million, where we are all required to get covid-tested every few days, recently there have been around 0-10ish cases detected per day.

Graph showing local covid cases in Shanghai, up to November 4, 2022. Image source.

(As I've said before, pay no attention to the difference between "confirmed cases" [which they are using to mean "symptomatic", for some unfathomable reason] and "asymptomatic infections." Because they define "asymptomatic" as "doesn't have symptoms of pneumonia." So it doesn't actually mean asymptomatic.)

---

Shanghai Disneyland

So this was the big news this week:

Shanghai reports Disney-related COVID-19 case (October 31)

All Shanghai Disneyland visitors test negative for COVID-19 (November 1)

Shanghai Disney Closes With Thousands Inside Over COVID Fears (November 1)

Here's what happened: On October 31, a person tested positive for covid. Turns out this person had gone to Shanghai Disneyland on October 27. Therefore, on October 31, everyone in Disneyland was required to get tested (and couldn't leave the park until the results came out), and also everyone throughout Shanghai who had been to Disneyland any time from October 27 to 31 was told they needed to get tested. (They should get tested every day for 3 days, I think is the policy.)

Also, Disneyland closed because of this, and we don't know yet when it will reopen.

And I heard rumors on WeChat that "the Disney princesses are in central quarantine, in the shipping containers that have been converted to quarantine rooms." (ie, the actors who are employed as princesses at Disneyland.) I don't have any actual evidence that this is true. I am sure Disney is not going to confirm this, because they have to keep up the image of Disney magic and all that, and I am sure the government-controlled news media is not going to confirm this, because they have their own image of zero-covid magic they're keeping up... so yeah, not really possible to get actual evidence on whether it's true. 

Anyway, on November 1, my son's school closed. And in the WeChat group for my son's class, the teacher asked all of us if anyone had gone to Disneyland October 27-31. Later that day, we found out that apparently a kid from my son's school had been to Disneyland, so now all the kids from that grade level have to stay home from school for 7 days. 

So yeah, my husband and I have been taking turns working from home because Square Root couldn't go to school this week.

Note that this is not a quarantine. Square Root is not in quarantine. We are allowed to go wherever we want, just not his school. And he has not been marked as a "close contact" or anything like that. It's just the schools being much much more cautious than other venues in Shanghai.

(I saw some jokes on WeChat about "wow this is a dream come true for kids- they go to Disneyland, and then after that they get to stay home from school.")

This Disneyland thing affects A TON of people. Like, thousands of people go to Disneyland every day (people from all areas of Shanghai) and multiply that by 4 days- and also it was Halloween weekend, so it might have been more crowded than usual. On November 1, I heard from several of my colleagues who said that their kids' schools had been closed because of it. The amount of random chatter about "oh so-and-so is working from home because her apartment is in lockdown for 2 days" has been higher than average this week. This is affecting a lot of people.

But, as far as I know, everyone at Disneyland tested negative. (Except that one person who started this whole thing, obviously.) And I kind of feel like, if things get closed for a few days now, and then nothing really comes of it and we just move on with life, that's a much better scenario than if the covid-case numbers grow and then we get locked down for 2 months.

Also, when looking at western news articles about this, I'm looking at the headlines like "WTF?" For example, from Reuters: Shanghai Disney shuts over COVID, visitors unable to leave. SO MANY headlines that make a big deal about people being "unable to leave" or "trapped" inside Disneyland. Makes it sound much worse than it is. Everyone inside the park needed to get tested, and couldn't leave until their result came back negative. This is obviously a huge inconvenience, and must certainly have resulted in people being stuck there several hours longer than they wanted to be. But the western news headlines make it sound like a horrifying thing... One thing I will say, though, is the Reuters article also mentions the panicked rush to the park exits- "Videos circulating on China's Weibo platform on Monday showed people rushing to the park's gates, which were already locked." Now, that can actually be dangerous. And yes, I definitely believe people were running to the exits in a panic. We all have lockdown PTSD here.

Also, you may recall that this same thing happened last year: On October 31, 2021, Shanghai Disneyland had to close, and tested everyone inside the park, because someone who had been there on October 30 turned out to be covid-positive.

From a post I wrote in December 2021:

I know someone who works at Shanghai Disneyland, who was there on October 31, the night that every single person in Disneyland and Disneytown had to get covid-tested because it was discovered that a traveler who had been in Disneyland on October 30 tested positive for covid. (All tests came back negative.) I saw videos shared on WeChat, the pandemic staff covered head-to-toe in their white hazmat suits, sitting at tables administering covid tests to one person after another after another, and the Disney fireworks show in the background.

---

3-year-old boy in Lanzhou dies

(This is in Lanzhou, a city in northwest China.)

3-Year-Old in China Dies After Covid Restrictions Delayed Care (November 4)

Wow, this is bad. This is really tragic. A boy died from carbon monoxide poisoning, after the boy's father was blocked from taking him to the hospital due to covid-related restrictions.

The boy’s father dialed the city’s emergency hotline four times in three minutes on Tuesday but did not get through until the last time, according to a report issued by local officials on Thursday night. On his fourth try, the dispatcher told him that because he lived in an area considered “high risk” for the virus, he could seek only online medical counseling.

The father then sought help from officials in his neighborhood, but several instead reprimanded him for not wearing a mask, the report said. Nearly two hours after he first dialed for help, he finally got his son to a hospital — less than a 10-minute drive from their home. The boy, Tuo Wenxuan, died soon after they arrived.

I read this, and ... yeah, a person with an actual medical emergency being told they can't get help because they're in a "high risk area" and that's just the way it is- that totally is happening in China now. Similar things happened during the Shanghai lockdown. It's not shocking to me that no one in a position of power was willing to help this child. That's really the way it is here now.

Yeah, people in China are mad about this.

---

Miscellaneous

So I skipped one of our apartment complex's "mandatory" tests. We've had to do mandatory testing every few days since March, and this was the first time I have skipped. I just didn't feel like going, and I had been tested the day before anyway, so, whatever. I've still been getting tested every 2-ish days, but this particular time I didn't do it on the specific day that our apartment complex said we had to.

Eh, whatever. (Honestly, I sort of wonder what percentage of people don't pay attention to which specific day is the "mandatory" test, and just go by their own schedule and at least make sure they always have a valid test from within 72 hours. And also, I wonder how many people are just showing a screenshot of a green code to any security guard who asks, and not actually bothering to get tested at all...)

In other news, I saw 2 different ads for Halloween parties in Shanghai which said you CAN'T dress up like pandemic control personnel (ie, the big white hazmat suits). First of all, lol that's hilarious that some Halloween parties are specifically making that a rule, and second, I mean, yes, I can see why that costume is just TOO SCARY.

---

Links:

SHINE

Free PCR testing extended through end of November (October 26)

Man apprehended for standing in for others to take PCR tests (October 26) "The 54-year-old man surnamed Xu who lives in suburban Jinshan District took PCR tests for 26 of his family members, friends and colleagues between August and September."

Registration for inhaled COVID-19 vaccinations begins (October 25) This is good news- China now has a covid booster shot which is inhaled! (No needles!) For now they are saying it's only for people who have not already had a booster shot. So far, China is not allowing people to get a second booster shot if they've already had one. (Ie, you can get the vaccine 3 times but not 4.)

The Wall Street Journal

China Agrees to Approve BioNTech's Covid-19 Vaccine for Foreigners, German Chancellor Says (November 4) This is good news. Right now the covid vaccines available in China use the inactivated virus- there isn't an mRNA vaccine being used in China yet. I would love to get an mRNA vaccine.

Al Jazeera

China locks down millions as COVID cases rise before winter (October 31) 

South China Morning Post

Universal Beijing Resort complies with zero-Covid regime, closes for second time this year following rise in cases (October 26)

Blogaround

From link #1, AI-generated image of "studio photo of a playful black cat wearing a turtle costume". "It has also taken the libery of adding a pumpkin to the costume, I see."

1. AI imagines my cat in costumes (October 28) 

2. Rhett sings himself ‘Overboard’ and out of his faith (October 22) It's a country music album about leaving Christianity and becoming non-religious. This is so good.

3. The Ethics of Looking And The “Harmless” Peeping Tom (March 22) [content note: rape culture] It's about how SO MANY MOVIES have men spying on women who are taking their clothes off, and this is presented like it's no big deal and that's just how men are. Yeah, this trope is really NOT COOL, and it's good that Pop Culture Detective made a video to point out how messed-up this is.

4. What we know about the attack on Paul Pelosi (November 1)

5. Gunman kills 2 at a St. Louis high school, officials say (October 24)

6. John Oliver Roasts the U.K.'s "Very Weird" 10 Days of Mourning for Queen Elizabeth (September 20)

7. Atop a Lonely Sichuan Mountain, Grit, Hope, and Survival (October 30) I've posted links about this before- this is about Gan Yu, a power station worker who was stuck on a mountain alone after an earthquake, for 17 days, before he was rescued. This article gives a lot of details about what happened.

8. Do You Believe in Halloween Jesus? (October 31) "I was taught that Jesus was fully human and fully divine—a doctrine that has confounded and confused the greatest philosophical and theological minds for the past two millennia—but in reality, it was divine Jesus who got all the play."

9. WI State Senate candidate Jessica Katzenmeyer: ‘We could be headed to a dark reality’ (November 1) "I am openly transgender. There’s never been a transgender representative here elected to the state legislature in Wisconsin. I would truly be honored to be the first."

10. Why doesn’t the IRS care when churches endorse candidates from the pulpit? (October 31) 

11. What does it mean to be ‘open-minded’ about sex? (November 1) Wow, I am very impressed by this article- this might possibly be the first time I've ever seen an article about sex, written for a mainstream audience (ie not specifically for an asexual audience) which is genuinely inclusive of asexuals. Usually I see articles that are like, describing sex or giving advice about sex in a way that makes no sense to me as an asexual, and then somewhere near the end there's a little disclaimer about "oh also some people are asexual"- like if you know you're asexual, then the writer is saying you shouldn't take their advice, but everyone else should! This is NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

But this article, "What does it mean to be ‘open-minded’ about sex?" talks about how the concept of "being open-minded" can be used to pressure people into sexual things they don't want to do. This is certainly a concern for asexuals, but hey, even if you're not asexual, there must be some sexual things you don't want to do, and it's NOT COOL if people are pressuring you to do them in order to be "open-minded" or "sex positive." The article mentions the word "asexual" just 1 time- but it's not as a disclaimer, like "none of this applies to you if you're asexual"; no, instead it's an example of a reason why someone might not want to try all the sex things. Just one example of many. There are many many valid reasons to not want to try all the sex things. ("I don't want to" is a good enough reason all by itself!)

Yes, this is how you should write about sex.

October 2022 Carnival of Aces Roundup ("Tell a Story")

Asexual flag. Image source.

Hi everyone! Here's the roundup of submissions for the October 2022 Carnival of Aces, an asexual blog carnival. The topic this month was "Tell a Story."

From sildarmillion:

• Romance is Confusing: She-Hulk "The impression I get from media is that if you feel strong sexual desire for someone, the good outcome is if that is satisfied, but only if you are single. If you are not single, and if you feel this desire for someone other than your partner, then that is a bad outcome. If you are single and suppress this desire, then that’s bad. But if you are not single, then you’re supposed to suppress that desire. In fact, after a breakup, people on TV sometimes say 'Well at least now you can have random hookups.' It’s like the rest of the world thinks its the most natural thing in the world to want lots and lots of random sex, but only if you’re single."
• How Understanding My Asexuality Made Me a Less Self-Righteous Person "Asexuality can be dangerous in conservative societies in which no one talks about sex, and where everyone makes a public display of behaviors and attitudes that are natural to an asexual, and hides the behaviors and attitudes that are unnatural to them."

From Blue Ice-Tea: Growing Up Platoniromantic: That One Time I Had a Boyfriend "I wanted to know him better.  I wanted to spend more time with him.  And dating seemed like the perfect excuse to do that.  After all, isn’t that what people who are dating do?  They go off together and spend time alone, talking, getting to know each other?  All that sounded great to me.  And 'dating' was the only script I had for doing it."

From Sukii: Friendship drama (Or, the one in which I indulge in self-delusion and make the same mistakes over again) "While I was going home I realised that he was totally asking me if he could kiss me in the mouth and that this very probably meant that he actually liked me. Anyway, I didn't really want to accept it, so I sort of pretended that he didn't really like me in that way."

From me (Perfect Number): Sea Monsters on Land, and My Life With Vaginismus "And then suddenly the ultrasound technician is asking me why her ultrasound wand won't go into my vagina, as if I'm supposed to know? How would I know anything about that? I'm a good kid!"

Thank you to everyone who sent in their posts for this carnival! I love this topic~

Blogaround

October 23-29, 2022 is Ace Week! Awesome! Image source.

1. The 2022 Ace Community Survey is now open! Go take the survey! Even if you aren't asexual, it still helps if you take it :)

2. The Unending Lies of Matt Walsh (October 21) Jessie Gender's 4-hour-long video responding to Matt Walsh's "What is a Woman?" documentary. And, wow, Jessie's video is extremely good. Matt Walsh has a lot of disgusting things to say about trans people and about women, and frankly he creeps me out. 

I remember years ago, when I first became aware of Walsh's blog... and it read to me like, take a Christian belief and then take it to such an extreme that it becomes heartless and shockingly offensive. I don't view him that way any more, though- I don't see anything Christian in it; I just see hate. 

Did he change and move farther from the Christianity I knew? Or did I change and can no longer imagine a Christianity compatible with that much hate?

3. Texas Woman Nearly Loses Her Life After Doctors Can't Legally Perform an Abortion: 'Their Hands Were Tied' (October 18) [content note: miscarriage, medical trauma, anti-choice politics] "'It was just so frustrating to be dealing with something so traumatic, and then just gamble with the outcome of Amanda's life unnecessarily,' says Josh."

4. Netflix & AI Discrimination (June 4) "Here’s why Netflix’s response is laughable.  I completely believe that Netflix’s algorithm is not based on race, gender, ethnicity, or orientation. I believe that they only use a member’s viewing history. But that doesn’t make it any better?"

5. Equality vs equity: An overanalysis (February 13) "Of all my complaints about this meme, my most significant is about its choice of words. On the surface level, the meme is educating us about the distinction between 'equality' and 'equity'. However, outside of the meme, that is not how the words are used."

6. I didn’t want a baby (June 27) This writer talks about her feelings about her abortion- how she felt various conflicting emotions, including sadness. 

I think this is a really important story to tell, because I feel like, in pro-choice discussions, it's like you have to say abortion is a great thing, and if you say it's a hard decision or something, then supposedly that cedes ground to "pro-life" people because they're going to jump on that and say "see, it's a HARD DECISION, that's why we need to force women to have unnecessary ultrasounds and a 24-hour waiting period and yell at them from the sidewalk, because they can't just make a HARD DECISION by themselves."

I'm pro-choice. But that doesn't mean I have to believe "abortion is always great and awesome" or whatever. I don't really think abortion is a good thing. (I think the medical technology that allows doctors to perform abortions in a safe way is a good thing! Laws that ensure that people have access to abortion care are a good thing!!!) But you know what else is also not a good thing? Pregnancy. Like, oh GEEZ, pregnancy is THE WORST. I did a whole pregnancy, and I hated it. But it was worth it for me because now I have a perfect child. But DAMNNN obviously no one should have to go through all that if they don't want to. And obviously the pregnant person is the only one who has full knowledge of the situation and is able to weigh the options and make the decision that is right for their situation.

I remember Dr. Parker's book "Life's Work" also talks about this- many of the women that come to him for abortions have complicated feelings about it. He says it's very normal that a woman knows that having an abortion is the right decision for her, but she still has feelings of caring about her "unborn baby." (But I feel like the pro-choice people on Twitter don't want you to say that, because then "pro-life" people are going to swoop in like "AHA, this is why we need to stop women from having abortions.") Women who have abortions aren't the stereotypes that get thrown around in political debates, like this stereotype of a foolish girl who was talked into it and doesn't know what's going on, or the stereotype of someone who says "it's just a clump of cells."

7. Billy Graham’s apology was a lie (October 25) "Billy Graham visited the Oval Office to talk to the president of the United States about the evil Jewish conspiracy that he believed had a 'stranglehold' on America."

8. One Of The 10 Hardest Puzzles We've Ever Seen (October 24) 1-hour-37-minute sudoku solve video. This is incredible.

9. Biden pushes crackdown on bank ‘junk fees’ that government says will save Americans $3 billion a year (October 27)

10. People of faith, Fox News grifter edition (October 11) "Nobody talks about people of politics, because the idea is inherently stupid. The idea of people of faith is similarly stupid — everybody is a person of faith, in the sense that everybody operates from axiomatic metaphysical priors, except for Richard Dawkins, who is just purely rational and objective all the way down to the last turtle — but of course 'people of faith' not really an idea per se, it’s just some idiotic slogan, meant to make conservative white Christians feel like they’re under some sort of constant massive cultural attack by the godless socialist woke hordes."

11. ‘Do They Even Read the Bible?’ — Why Exposing White Evangelical Hypocrisy is a Dead End (October 25) "But the White evangelical Bible isn’t simply a biblical text that speaks to its readers, it’s a complicated assemblage of social, political, and theological assumptions that determine in advance how that text speaks. The White evangelical Bible speaks for itself only after the reader makes arguments out of biblical allusions and citations that reinforce what the White evangelical already knows to be true." This is SPOT ON.

12. Trump’s Ties to Jerry Falwell Jr. and His Wife’s Creepy Pool Boy Sex Saga Revealed (October 26) [content note: Jerry Falwell Jr.'s sex life] "'I felt guilty,' Granda says in the film. 'I’m like, I know the truth about Jerry. He’s trying to appear like this strongman, but I know him as the cuck in the corner of the room.'"

13. The ace nerd (October 27) "It’s obvious that the nonsexual nerd is not 'for' ace nerds, and the writers are not interested in any real world intersection."

14. An Ace Reading of "When She Loved Me," Exploring the Drawbacks and Affordances of Nonhumanity (2021) "When friends get partners and suddenly disappear from our lives, we're told that we should've expected to be dropped eventually."

Sea Monsters on Land, and My Life With Vaginismus

I'm submitting this to the October 2022 Carnival of Aces (which I am hosting). It's more of a purity/ repression/ vaginismus story than an asexuality story, but this is the story that's on my mind right now, so here it is. I think for those of us who are asexual and grew up in "purity culture" it can sometimes be hard to separate out which of your feelings/thoughts/beliefs come from your own asexuality and which come from being repressed- and the way I wrote this post focuses more on the "repression" aspect of my experience (though I would say that being able to successfully maintain that level of complete ignorance about anything sexual is a possible indication of just being naturally asexual). 

Anyway, here it is, maybe some other asexuals can relate.

---

[content note: it's about vaginismus, which is a medical condition where the vagina won't open]

There's a scene from the 2021 Pixar movie "Luca" that I have some feelings about, since I grew up in purity culture and very strictly repressed myself because I was a "good girl."

Some background about the movie "Luca": Luca is a sea monster who lives in the ocean near a small Italian town. The sea monsters in this story have their own advanced society underwater which is sort of parallel to human society. Luca's mom teaches him that "land monsters" (humans) are dangerous and want to kill sea monsters, and therefore he is forbidden to even THINK of going to the surface. And then there's this scene:

Luca meets another sea monster boy, Alberto, who pulls him out of the water, onto the beach. As Luca flails around, screaming and panicking, Alberto just watches him, and then says, "First time?"

And Luca answers, "Of course it is! I'm a good kid!"

And wow that is relatable. Here's Luca, so extremely repressed and ignorant, who had worked hard his entire life to make sure he stayed ignorant. Totally unaware of what his body can do- when he comes out of the water, his fins and scales transform to look like human hair and skin. So completely shocked and horrified at the idea of being out of the water, and then he's just thrown into it and expected to be able to handle it.

And then there's me... I grew up in this Christian "sexual purity" ideology, where the most important thing about dating and marriage is that you NEED to be a virgin on your wedding day. And more than that- you need to have no experience with anything sexual at all. You shouldn't masturbate. You shouldn't have "lustful thoughts." Repress your sexual feelings completely until your wedding day.

(Same thing with romantic feelings- though I guess there's a little more freedom there, because at least you're allowed to be in love with your partner if you know you're going to marry them.)

I followed the rules about sex. Of course I did! I didn't have sex in high school or college. I didn't even consider it, think about it, imagine it. It was just some abstract faraway threat, looming in the background- I never thought of it as something that could actually be a real thing in my life. Never even considered it.

Never masturbated. Never even considered masturbating. Because, I had heard (from Christian teaching about sex) that masturbating was a sin, and you will probably become "addicted to masturbation" and it's just all bad.

I never thought about my own genitals. It's like they weren't even part of my life at all. The most awareness I had was when I occasionally tried to use tampons- but it was very much "taking a shot in the dark" rather than approaching it with a practical mindset about collecting the information I would need in order to insert the tampon correctly.

Better to just know nothing about your genitals at all. If you think about such things, then that curiosity might lead to *wanting* sex, which might lead to *having* sex, and that would just be the most horrible thing in the world.

For me, the moment I was pulled out of the water like Luca was this one time when I was sick and in the hospital, and the doctor wanted to do a transvaginal ultrasound. I don't know exactly why- I think there was some something that looked like it might be a problem and they just wanted to check it.

Anyway, so... like... ooof... I'm a good girl, right? I just do whatever the doctor tells me to do. And then suddenly the ultrasound technician is asking me why her ultrasound wand won't go into my vagina, as if I'm supposed to know? How would I know anything about that? I'm a good kid!

Like I'm trying to figure out what on earth is even happening here, and she's asking me why doesn't it work, how could I not know this, what about my sex life? And I'm just, beyond shocked, why would I have a sex life???? Why would anyone think I had a sex life???? (I was in my 20's...)

The ignorance you work so hard to maintain your whole life- keeping yourself so pure that you literally know nothing- and then suddenly it's working against you.

The ultrasound technician, completely shocked that I have no experience with putting things in my vagina, and me, completely shocked that someone would assume I had experience with that.

(And a similar thing happened when I eventually did start having sex with my partner- and I was expected to know what the problem was. Suddenly, my purity and ignorance were working against me. I had always been taught that if you know nothing about sex, that guarantees that you will have AMAZING sex. In a shocking twist, that's not true.)

It happened like this for me because I had vaginismus. But even for other pure girls who don't have that specific problem, I can imagine they also get thrown into situations where suddenly their purity and ignorance, which they worked so hard to maintain, are working against them.

[content note: discussion of rape. To skip it, scroll down to the picture of Luca watching his hand transform]

So... I have read blog posts about good pure girls who didn't know anything about their own genitals, until they were raped. Didn't even have the words to describe what had happened, because they had never been taught anything even close to actual useful sex ed.

Like imagine a rapist knowing more about your body than you do. And using that against you.

Fortunately that didn't happen to me. But I see that I was really vulnerable back then when I didn't know anything.

Luca looks wide-eyed at his hand as it transforms from having fishy scales to human skin. Image source.

And I could keep this Luca-and-sex-ed metaphor going further: Luca meets Alberto, who is very confident and eager to teach Luca about the human world. But the audience can see that Alberto is actually wrong about A LOT of things. Luca has no idea, though, and just totally believes whatever Alberto tells him. Kinda like when you don't give kids any sex ed, they end up learning all kinds of misinformation from bad sources instead.

Obviously I am not saying this is what the movie is "really about" or anything like that. Just that it reminds me of my own experiences in some way.

Because wow, that scene where Luca is pulled out of the water for the first time, and he's completely scandalized by the idea that someone would think he should know what's going on- I've been there.

---

Related:

How Pregnancy and Childbirth Changed My Asexuality (or, actually, A Post About Vaginismus)

On Gynecologists and Angry Turtles

When the Teacher Says, "Don't Look at Your Report Card" 

I Wanna Preach the Good News of Masturbation

On Purity, Asexuality, and Timing 

They said it was about "valuing our bodies." That was a lie.