7 quick takes: troll ii q&a, take 2
questions from readers continue to pour in to my email account, and i’ve noticed that many of you are especially concerned with my views concerning women and sexuality. after the smashing success of my first q&a post, i’ve opted again to answer these questions here on the blog, so as to avoid unnecessarily multiplying my efforts in responding to the same queries over and over again. here goes…
1. hi troll, ok, i *maybe* understand not wanting to joke about sex, especially in light of your opposition to laughing, but you seem to have a pretty negative attitude toward sex and human sexuality in general. what gives?
well, despite what you may have heard from Greg Popcak or Dr. Ruth or whoever, the fact of the matter is that the catholic tradition is clear that human sexuality is an effect of sin and the single biggest cause of sin. sexual congress within the bonds of matrimony is of course sacred and not sinful, but that doesn’t make it any less disgusting. the way i see it, the marital act is a lot like circumcision: it’s painful and horrible and it makes you cry, and yet God’s inscrutable decree has made it something holy. go figure.
2. you seem to speak from painful experience; are there wounds in your life that need to be healed? have you ever tried Theophostic Ministry™? isn’t it the greatest?
there is a lot about my past that is painful, and yes, i have tried theophostic healing. in fact, before theophostic helped me out, i was a fairly normal church-going novus ordo catholic, never realizing the web of depravity and deceit to which i had fallen victim. theophostic helped me realize that everything i knew was a lie. since then, i’ve succeeded in repressing my sexuality and taking pride in my faithfulness and self-righteousness. thanks, theophostic!
3. um, the experience of sexuality doesn’t have to be all bad, you know. have you ever heard Christopher West? he says that if you read his books you won’t have to struggle anymore with concupiscence.
wow, this is turning into a trip down memory lane. of course i’ve read Christopher West, and i know all about how he thinks we should all walk around naked and enjoy looking at each other naked. personally, i used to love West’s tapes, first because they gave me license to give up custody of the eyes, and then later on, after i saw the light and left shamchurch, because they were the best proof around that “pope” john paul ii’s so-called “theology of the body” was a total crock. the only truly good news about sex that the real church has ever taught is that you don’t have to have it. period.
4. right, so are you currently seeing anyone?
yes, as i mentioned in my post on SALSA dancing, i am presently involved with a young woman i met over the internets. she has asked me not to talk about her on the site, since her family is very much opposed to dancing. and to men. that’s why i don’t usually talk about her or post pictures. ever. it’s not because i don’t actually a girlfriend, or that i’ve made her up or something. here, i’ll prove it: here’s her page on the facebook. hi, kitty kat :)
first off, how could i hate women? me mum’s one. so is our lady of fatima. and my girlfriend. second, when i express disgust at what women do, it’s not because they’re women but because they’re NOT acting like women. it’s like Steve Kellmeyer rightly says, women these days are stupid and sex-crazed and sinful. which of those things am i supposed to like? oh right, none of them. because i’m a real catholic. it’s not my fault that women these days prostitute their femininity by working outside the home and then trip up men by showing off their lascivious bodies, leaving practically nothing to the imagination. i think the more accurate thing to say is not that i hate women, but that i am afraid of them, especially their bodies, which is as it should be, right?
6. speaking of women’s bodies, don’t you think your comments about modesty have crossed a line? i mean, burkas? really?
well, what you find off-putting i would say is just plain common sense. simply put, i find women’s bodies to be absolutely terrifying, since they are basically an efficacious sign of the carnal allurements of the flesh, which must be avoided and condemned at all costs. some might say that at least some responsibility should fall on the man, since he’s the one doing the ogling, but they’re wrong. it’s like Mel Gibson once said, if you go outside wearing pants, you’re probably asking for it.
7. ok, this is getting really offensive, really quickly. in light of the commotion caused by your nfp post the other day, could you please clarify whether there are any other, non-sex-related reasons for irrationally hating it so much?
i don’t know. off the top of my head, i can say that the whole idea of letting the laity prayerfully and prudently discern God’s will for their family sounds silly to me, and an awful lot like planned parenthood. (paging Dr. Sanger.) everything should be left up to God’s will. married couples should never actively try to have children, and should never actively try not to have children. sex is a mystery, a disgusting forbidden mystery, and it simply should never be left up to husbands and wives to be actively involved in cooperating with God in his plan for their family. that’s what the catholic church says about it anyway. at least my catholic church.
remember, if you have additional questions or comments, you can always email me realcatholicsdontlaugh [at] gmail [dot] com.
and for additional (and probably more licentious) quick takes, bang it here. or don’t.