Product Descriptions as Social Constructs Print
The Cave
Written by Editor   
Tuesday, 17 May 2011 13:27

IVP has released a new book called The End of Sexual Identity. The book challenges the idols of categories like “gay” and “straight,” social constructs that do not take into account complex postmodern realities—themselves social constructs developed by professors who spent too much time in junior high huffing model airplane glue out of brown paper lunch bags.

Where was I? Ah . . . here is the Amazon product description.

Product Description
Sexual identity has become an idol in both the culture at large and in the Christian subculture. And yet concepts like "gay" or "straight" are relatively recent developments in human history. We let ourselves be defined by socially constructed notions of sexual identity and sexual orientation--even though these may not be the only or best ways to think about sexuality. Anthropologist Jenell Williams Paris offers a Christian framework for sexual holiness that accounts for complex postmodern realities. She assesses problems with popular cultural and Christian understandings of heterosexuality and homosexuality alike. The End of Sexual Identity moves beyond culture-war impasses to open up new space for conversations in diverse communities both inside and outside the church.

But here is the concern that we all have here in the editorial department of the Cave (located in the back, where it is particularly dark, and kind of damp), which is that we are prioritizing this all wrong. Before we can topple the idols of sexual identity, we must first throw down the idol of Amazon’s quote unquote product descriptions. Ya know? This is an idol which has maimed more souls, isolated more egos, and marginalized more people than any other idol in the history of North America. Think about it! It is beyond ironic that IVP failed to come to grips with this idolatry before listing their new book with Amazon. Physician, heal thyself! And not only did they allow a product description, they also allowed the book to be categorized—given an identity, forsooth!—under Books > Religion & Spirituality > Religious Studies > Gender & Sexuality. But before the Enlightenment, there were no such Amazon categories. Is this not obvious, people? Before Oscar Wilde, there were no gender & sexuality books. So why do we put up with them now? Hmmm?




Share the goodness
Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Free and Open Source Software News Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! TwitThis
Comments
Why not use Torah Scripture to solve this dilimma?
Juanster (Registered) 2011-10-08 10:25:44

It is written that the Creator designed "the mudball" in his exact image and likeness, no ifs ands or buts, period. With this being the case, it is also written that this single mudball entity was designed as both male and female. period!(Gen.1:26-27) If this wasn't clear enough, it was reitterrated again(Gen.5:2). When this sequence of events are recognized, this molded ball of mud was an exact duplicate of the Potter. The names of this bisexual mudball image of the Creator as the Potter is: Hermaphodite. At this point in time, Eve was still an integral of the man, Adam and both were addressed simultaineously as being integral parts of each other by being addressed as a singular ADAM at (Gen.5:2). Here's current evidence of this phenomenom alluded to in Gen.1:26-27 Gen.5:2:
. It wasn't until Eve was surgically removed from Adam that the Serpent BEGUILED her, sudduced her and begot Cain thereby eliciting the reference of The Lord as her sedducer and impregnator instead of t...
Why not use Torah Scripture to solve this dilimma?
Juanster (Registered) 2011-10-08 10:42:10

It is written that the Creator designed "the mudball" in his exact image and likeness, no ifs ands or buts, period. With this being the case, it is also written that this single mudball entity was designed as both male and female. period!(Gen.1:26-27) If this wasn't clear enough, it was reitterrated again(Gen.5:2). When this sequence of events are recognized, this molded ball of mud was an exact duplicate of the Potter. The names of this bisexual mudball image of the Creator, as the Potter is: Hermaphodite. At this point in time, Eve was still an integral part of the man, Adam and both were addressed simultaineously as being integral parts of each other by being addressed as the singular ADAM at (Gen.5:2). Here's current evidence of this phenomenom alluded to in Gen.1:26-27 Gen.5:2: Google:"Born A Hermaphrodite".
It wasn't until Eve was surgically removed from Adam that the Serpent BEGUILED her, Sudduced her and they begot Cain, thereby eliciting the reference of ...
Cont. Why not use Torah Scripture to solve this di
Juanster (Registered) 2011-10-08 10:50:33


It wasn't until Eve was surgically removed from Adam that the Serpent BEGUILED her, Sudduced her and they begot Cain, thereby eliciting the reference of The Lord as her sedducer and impregnator, instead of the man, Adam. Eve's lord was the creature that opened her eyes via the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
What can also be deduced from these allegations is the Serpent's foreknowledge of the effects of this fruit on Eve, before he/it offered it to her. Had this serpentine creature first eaten of this forbidden fruit him/it's self? What is also portrayed in this Garden of Eden scenario is; the possible personal attractiveness of the Serpent. Think of his/it's penalty after Eve's beguilment and sedduction. Why didn't she find this Serpent repulsive before his/it's approch? Think of where she was as Adam was charged with naming all of the beasts? She was still and integral part of Adam at this time. Her separation from Adam didn't eliminate all of the male ...
Why not use Torah Scripture to solve this dilimma?
Juanster (Registered) 2011-10-08 10:55:07

It is written that the Creator designed "the mudball" in his exact image and likeness, no ifs ands or buts, period. With this being the case, it is also written that this single mudball entity was designed as both male and female. period!(Gen.1:26-27) If this wasn't clear enough, it was reitterrated again(Gen.5:2). When this sequence of events are recognized, this molded ball of mud was an exact duplicate of the Potter. The names of this bisexual mudball image of the Creator as the Potter is: Hermaphodite. At this point in time, Eve was still an integral of the man, Adam and both were addressed simultaineously as being integral parts of each other by being addressed as a singular ADAM at (Gen.5:2). Here's current evidence of this phenomenom alluded to in Gen.1:26-27 Gen.5:2:
. It wasn't until Eve was surgically removed from Adam that the Serpent BEGUILED her, sudduced her and begot Cain thereby eliciting the reference of The Lord as her sedducer and impregnator instead of t...
Why Not Use Torah Scripture
Juanster (Registered) 2011-10-08 10:57:31

Eve's lord was the creature that opened her eyes via the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
What can also be deduced from these allegations is the Serpent's foreknowledge of the effects of this fruit on Eve, before he/it offered it to her. Had this serpentine creature first eaten of this forbidden fruit it self? What is also portrayed in this Garden of Eden scenario is; the personal attractiveness of the Serpent. Think of his/it's penalty after Eve's beguilment and sedduction. Why didn't she find this Serpent repulsive? Think of where she was as Adam was charged with naming all of the beasts? She was still and integral part of Adam at this time. Her separation from Adam didn't eliminate all of the male traites from her , or all of the female traites from Adam, as we witness to this very day.
Only registered users can write comments!