No Habla Español Fellas?

One of the great joys of being 30+ is the ability to laugh at shit that would’ve driven you absolutely WILD in a past life

Truly

*sees the bad disk horse floating about down the river*

Me:

I was avoiding my homework earlier so I ended up searching a bunch of info about ADHD and

Are the neurotypicals okay?

Anyway, large bastard and I have fully drift compatible ADHD and after that search I had to go and find him and tell him how glad I am that's we're a disaster together. Then I raced through my homework and went to turn it in and found out that the professor pushed the due date back by three days.

Girl help the radfem swiftie is getting gender essentialism on my post about how it's shitty to blame relationship problems on your partner in lieu of communicating.

Ma'am. Ma'am. I feel like you might not actually be exhibiting any empathy in your statements here.

I shouldn't have to make this explicit but if you think that half of the population of the planet is irresponsible and untrustworthy and stupid and entitled because of their gender you are an asshole and you should reconsider the things you read and people you interact with that led you to you holding such bigoted, harmful, and unkind opinions.

Also this is, like, very clearly buying into the ableism presented in the screenshots by taking it as read that the ADHD partners in these scenarios are being "shitty" or "toxic" or "bored" or "unfaithful."

ADHD causes some very clear, very well known interpersonal issues in people of all genders and it is possible to recognize that

Can both be true statements.

And that's *aside* from the fact that neurodivergent people generally, and neurodivergent women especially, are more likely to be victims of IPV than neurotypicals are, and that many neurodivergent people who are abused or treated poorly by their partners are DARVO'd specifically on the basis of their neurodivergence.

Just. Like. Way to miss the point in every direction.

Jesus. Is that account satire? The combination of Dworkin quotes and Swiftie drivel makes it really hard to parse.

Ah yes, men with ADHD, those entitled monsters who are (checks notes) *significantly* more likely than neurotypical men to end up incarcerated, have an elevated risk of early mortality, are less likely to have completed college, and are more likely to be chronically underemployed.

That's who we should watch out for, those are the master manipulators of there trying to entrap noble honest sweet kind women into relationships so they can treat them badly.

AND "your ADHD is fake, you're the problem."

Really, really impressively wretched opinions on display in under a hundred words. You used to have to go to Twitter to find this level of radioactive take in such a short format.

Btw it wasn't the ADHD that made me rude and disrespectful. I practiced hard to get to this level of assholery.

Also, question by question:

Anyway, the reason this list of questions irritated me so much is that it looks like an attempt to pin genuine relationship issues on a diagnosis that may have nothing to do with the issues at hand and which has symptoms that are going to vary wildly from one person to the next. ADHD causes emotional detachment except in the people for whom it causes overattachment. People with ADHD like to be touched except for the ones who don't. What your ADHD man needs is to be treated like a human being with autonomy, not a puzzle box you're trying to beat with a youtube video.

People with ADHD *do* search for this kind of information about themselves (after all, I got here because I searched "i have adhd and i don't want to do my homework") but a lot of questions here are clearly from people trying to figure out how their partners tick without just having a fucking conversation about it. This list reads like it should return a PetCo Care Sheet that recommends a one gallon tank and pumice substrate.

maybe a crazy take idk but i dont actually think many scenes in stories are 'unneccesary' i think they just make people uncomfortable and rather than try to understand the significance of that discomfort and why the author mightve deliberately inflicted it, decide that discomfort = bad, therefore that scene + the author are both bad

i cant really tell you how many times (as a csa victim, as someone with an ED, and someone whos struggled with suicidality) how many times one of my real life experiences is called 'unneccessary' despite making complete sense with the path a story is taking. despite being very honest and unglamorized in their depiction.

i think that there is absolutely instances of the abuse people face being made a spectacle of that is 'in poor taste', but this has somehow evolved past 'please handle these subjects with care' to 'its bad to even discuss them at all'.

maybe cain wldnt have killed abel if they had video games to healthily channel the violence between siblings. unfortunately back then the only smash brothers they had was smash brothers head in with a rock

No fucking way LMFAO

i think a big reason that I get frustrated with the "liberals have never made anybody's lives better" is that in the US it used to be legal for insurance companies to charge you more if you were sick or even just straight up deny you the ability to sign up for them if you already had a "pre-existing condition", and this was only stopped by the passage of the ACA during Obama's term. but a lot of people who talk about politics on here are too young to really be affected by that since they would have been on their parents insurance (which the ACA required insurers extend until you're 26). and this was all done via politicking and not blowing up insurance CEOs mansions or whatever.

I'm not saying that the ACA fixed insurance forever, god no. but "you can't deny someone insurance for being sick" is a massive change and people don't realize it!

You are underselling the change. Let us recall "rescission," where as soon as it turned out that someone had an expensive medical condition, the insurance company would start coming through their medical history looking for ways to invent a preexisting condition and revoke their coverage.

It really frightens me if kids don't know about how bad the US insurance system used to be.

My dad didn't have any health insurance in his 40s, because he was a freelancer and his (Frankly not bad at all) existing health issues allowed insurunace to fully deny him.

When his girlfriend was dying of cancer they had to have a long discussion about what they'd do when she hit her insurance's lifetime coverage limit and they would no longer cover her cancer care.

People should understand that it was Obama and the Democrats who stopped that kind of thing.

Yeah the way to avoid that shit was to get a group plan through your employer, without that insurance was unaffordable/worthless

And even those group plans were not reliable unless they were huge. I know someone who worked for a smallish company. About 100 people. One of their workers had a child with hemophilia. Required VERY expensive regular infusions to treat. When renewal time came around, the insurance company gave the company management a choice: They could either exclude hemophilia from the plan or double their premium. They got the (Democratic) state insurance commissioner and their (Democratic) state legislator involved and the insurers eventually backed down. But it could have gone the other way. The real solution is a single insurance pool that includes everyone.

Also: medical transition or a gender dysphoria diagnosis could be a preexisting condition.

I was denied insurance outright for having a high BMI and a thyroid condition, despite being in excellent health at the time. Them not being able to do this anymore is huge, actually.

no thoughts. just anya taylor-joys anatomically correct heart cakes at her wedding

i like the idea of doing shakespeare adaptations set in high school a la 10 things i hate about you or she's the man but i feel like we're missing some opportunities by only doing the comedies. i wanna see macbeth but it's about a really high stakes student council election

#logging in to this website

really recommend getting a partner with a different religion than you and very little knowledge of your religion because the opportunities for explaining things to each other are just exquisite

yesterday she told me some story about the Buddha's wife and child and I was like. Wait. He fucked? And she was like yeah of course he fucked, why wouldn't he, he was the most attractive and loveable and and wise and etc. person who ever lived. why would he not fuck.

this morning she looked perplexed in the kitchen at me and said "did Jesus not fuck?"

I mean, he did. But it was monogamous and his wife was a literal sex worker before their marriage, but people like to ignore that fact.

If you ask the Roman Catholic Church, they will swear that the woman wasn’t his wife and he was a bachelor and virgin.

Guess it's time to debunk some conspiracy theories about Jesus.

(My credentials: I have a Masters of Divinity, which is a combination of Biblical analysis, Christian history, and some other odds and ends. I am not Catholic, and have never attended a Catholic school; my school taught using the standard academic texts about the Bible, not doctrinal assertions from any denomination or Christian group. Although my professors were all Christian, the Biblical and Christian history was taught the same way it would have been if an atheist were teaching it.)

There is absolutely ZERO evidence that Mary Magdalene was a sex worker. The belief that she was is based on a combination of Medieval misogyny (on several levels) and sex negativity. As for Jesus, the only evidence that Jesus was married comes from one fragment of a papyrus with shaky provenance that was probably written at least 200 years after Jesus' death (and probably later than that).

"But that's because the Catholic church suppressed everything!" Well, if you knew anything about the early church, you would realize that's nonsense on several levels. The Catholic church as we know it didn't exist yet. Until Christianity became intrinsically linked to the power structures of the Roman Empire in the 4th Century AD, authority was decentralized. Local areas governed themselves. They had bishops, but there was no central authority appointing them, it was "whichever priest or monk the locals think is especially holy and/or wise". There was no central set of scriptures that everyone agreed to, the central set of doctrines was still under hot debate, as were organizational structures and worship patterns and pretty much everything else. The Catholic church has historically done a lot of censorship and suppression of things it didn't like, but that begins in the Medieval era, when it had the power to enforce things, which it did NOT in the early centuries of Christianity.

Early Christians decided things like "which books should be in the Bible" with a series of ecumenical councils between 325AD and 787AD where hundreds of representatives from all around the Mediterranean and beyond came together and decided on things they could all agree on. When texts were not included in the New Testament, it was because only a handful of churches actually used that text. Not because a central authority told them to, because there wasn't a central authority. But because they didn't like it, or they knew that (despite it claiming to be from the first apostles) it was actually written much later.

We know a great deal about what texts the various early churches used because we've spent a LOT of archaeological time and effort over the last century excavating 1st and 2nd century Christian areas looking for texts. And then scholars worldwide spend years analyzing them to death. (Many of them are not Christian.) (Any translation of the New Testament made in the 20th Century is based on those archaeological manuscripts, not the ones sitting in the Vatican, btw.) We also have a bunch of letters from early church leaders where they discuss all of this. We know with a fair degree of certainty which texts (and which versions of texts) were earlier and which were later. In order for all of that to be wrong, somebody centuries later would have had to come in, dig up all of the archaeology, destroy some of what was there, and put it back so neatly that modern archaeologists can't tell things have been changed.

"But what if those early Christians were sex-negative misogynists who didn't want to record Jesus' marriage?" Christianity's hatred of sex didn't get codified until the writings of St. Augustine in the 3rd-4th Centuries; the early Christians would have had no reason to suppress that Jesus was married, and we have a lot of copies of the New Testament texts that date to the first and second centuries. Besides the Gospels itself, Paul spends a decent amount of time talking about marriage and families in his letters, and he never once even implies that Jesus might have been married.

Also the Catholic church is European. The great Christian power in the Levant, Turkey, Greece, and other areas that had large concentrations of Christians in the first few centuries of Christianity was the Orthodox church. So if there was anybody creating a conspiracy and altering things it would have been the Patriarch of Constantinople doing it, not the Pope in Rome.

In Christian communities, sharing stories, myths, and legends about Jesus was a cottage industry. Everybody was making up and sharing stories. Most of them don't seem to be designed to be taken as factual. The Gospels that made it into the Bible were the earliest ones, the ones that everybody knew dated back to the first generation of Jesus' followers. Those, they were careful about keeping accurate and copying precisely and upholding their authority. The other stories that got passed around were held to different standards--and that's why they weren't included in the Bible. Most of them seem to be designed assert what Jesus would have said or done in such-and-such situation, or in response to a particular topical issue, or just make Jesus seem like The Most Awesome Dude Ever. (It was sort of like fanfic. "wouldn't it be cool if Blorbo From My Religion had said/done X?" and it continued to be a major thing up through the late medieval period.)

So, with that background, where does the idea that Jesus was married come from? Mostly, it comes from The DaVinci Code. I mean, periodically people have thought "wow, wouldn't it be cool if Jesus were married?" but with no evidence or source beyond "wouldn't it be cool." Which also is the sum total of Dan Brown's evidence. People who believe it point to a single fragment of papyrus, written in Coptic. And that fragment is not believed to be a forgery but it doesn't have any provenance and there's a lot of mystery surrounding where it was found. And only a small handful of scholars have been allowed to inspect it. So like. It's shaky, at best. (Also, it wasn't publicized until 2012, and so cannot be the source of earlier stories.) We don't start seeing Christian texts in Coptic (an Egyptian dialect) until the beginning of the third century AD. So the very earliest this papyrus fragment could come from is about 170 years after Jesus' death, in a text written in a language Jesus didn't speak, in an area he never lived in. In a time where people were passing around all sorts of legends. Assuming that it is a genuine ancient text, it's still not very good evidence that it's relating historical sayings of the actual Jesus. The Bible mentions Jesus' parents and siblings, why doesn't it mention a wife anywhere?

Dan Brown made a shitton of stuff up for The DaVinci Code and its sequels. It is a great work of fiction, but it is fiction. The thing he's really good at is coming up with puzzles that tie into things people want to believe, and into various historical conspiracy theories. Please take everything he says with a boulder of salt.

So now let's turn to the question of "was Mary Magdalen a sex worker!" And the answer is no, she was not. You have to understand that there are a lot of women named Mary in the Bible, and lots of people conflate them. For our purposes, the other Mary you need to know is Mary of Bethany (sister of Martha and Lazarus).

In the Gospel of John, Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead. In the next chapter, Mary of Bethany (Lazarus' sister) anoints Jesus feet with oil, presumably in gratitude for her brother's resurrection.

In the other three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), there is also a story about a woman anointing Jesus' feet, but she is unnamed and pretty clearly not Mary of Bethany. She is a sinner who washes Jesus' feet in gratitude for having been forgiven. The context of the story--and the way Jesus talks about it--are completely different. But historically, people would go "eh, all women are the same, right? so this unnamed woman has to be Mary of Bethany" despite all the differences in the text and context.

So then we come to Mary Magdalen. Mary, we are told, had seven demons cast out from her and after that became one of several wealthy women who paid for his and the disciples' bills (this is a patronage relationship, and doesn't imply anything sexual--wealthy people in those days would regularly subsidize teachers they liked. Lydia, for example, supported Paul in his ministry, as did several other women he names in his letters.)

But the medieval Catholic church looked at this and went, "well, all women are basically the same woman, right? Mary Magdalen and Mary of Bethany and all the other Marys (except Jesus' mom) are all the same woman, pretty much. So therefore, Mary Magdalen anointed Jesus' feet, and therefore she was publicly known as a sinner. (Despite the fact that a) Mary Magdalen didn't anoint Jesus' feet, and b) Mary of Bethany, who did, wasn't publicly labelled a "sinner") And also, look at those seven demons that were cast out from her, that's GOT to be a reference to the Seven Deadly Sins, right? (which were a medieval fabrication, not found in the Bible.) And the sin of women is lust, so therefore Mary Magdalen was controlled by lust and therefore she was a prostitute!

And in addition to the fact that there is zero evidence of this whatsoever, there's the fact that the vast majority of sex workers in the ancient world were desperately poor. She would not have had the money to sponsor Jesus and his disciples if she was a former sex worker.

As someone who believes that sex work is work and should be legalized (and that sex workers should be unionized and have legal protections), I'm not saying this because I think her being a sex worker would be a shameful thing. I really like all the modern theology about "Jesus hanging out with sex workers." I wish it were true! But it almost certainly isn't.

tl;dr: Jesus almost certainly wasn't married, Mary Magdalen was never a sex worker, and Dan Brown is a fiction writer not a historian.

Yes. Have YOU considered that sometimes working on hard things is both necessary and worthwhile?

The weirdest guy I ever met in a church was this boy who referred to “Buzz Aldrin and his husband” going to the moon. I was completely baffled, and when I asked if he’d misspoken, he got really angry and accused me of being deliberately ignorant of the facts. It turned out that he was somehow comvinced that Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong were married. It took five Wikipedia articles to convince him otherwise.

The moon landing was fake: tired, passé, heard it before

The moon landing was an elaborate marriage proposal: fresh! sexy! I’m going to be thinking about this for months!

Romcom where two dudes in the 1960s fall in love and come up with an elaborate plan to become astronauts to get married in space because gay marriage is illegal everywhere but it can’t be illegal on the moon

Might make things a little awkward for Mike Collins.

He was the officiator

This is an excellent take. He officiated in orbit, and the landing was their Honey Moon.

Oh my god they were moon mates.

everyone hates marvel until someone brings up winter soldier and then we’re all embarrassed. as we should be

Horniness is not intrinsically less pure than any other human motivation

"He only made this art because he was horny!" ...Yeah, and? You only made a sandwich because you were hungry.

lee pace is dangerous because he has that ‘friendly neighbor who waves when he goes to his mailbox’ thing about him, but then also he has this ‘i am 6’3, strongly built for standing-up fuckin’, and I have a dresser drawer full of handcuffs’ thing about him too.

Sorry not sorry. It's basically a disease.