So what does the BIBLE tell me?

A few weeks ago I took out a trial subscription to Netflix.

To be honest, mostly I’ve been watching Andromeda.

I have, however, also watched for the BIBLE tells me so.

I was very moved by it. If you get a chance to see it then I highly recommend it.

There’s a trailer for it here:

 

The synopsis on the web site says:

Does God really condemn loving homosexual relationships? Is the chasm separating Christianity from gays and lesbians too wide to cross? Is the Bible an excuse to hate? These questions and more are answered in this award-winning documentary, which brilliantly reconciles homosexuality and Biblical scripture – and reveals that religious anti-gay bias is based almost solely upon a misinterpretation of the Bible.

Through the experiences of five very normal, Christian, American families – including those of former House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt and Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson – we discover how people of faith handle the realization of having a gay child or family member.

Offering healing, clarity and understanding to anyone caught in the crosshairs of scripture and sexual identity, this landmark film “boldly takes on a loaded topic and examines it both intellectually and emotionally; the result may well leave you blinking away a few tears.” (Seattle Times)

Some words of Desmond Tutu here:

 

I can't, for the life of me, imagine that God would say:

“I’m going to punish you because you are black. You should have been white.

I will punish you because you are a woman. You should have been a man.

I punish you because you are homosexual. You ought to have been heterosexual.”

I can’t. I can’t for the life of me believe that that is how God sees things.

If you read the comments that people have left along with the above video clips there are the usual polemical attitudes.

Some blame every problem in the world on religion. Some remain adamant that if a person is gay then they are hell bound.

I think the same people might well say the same kinds of things apply to transgendered people.

And of course, I think that life isn’t so simple.

Oasis and the Evangelical Alliance

Today Sally mentioned that during the service at the church she goes to it was mentioned that Oasis had been removed from the membership of the Evangelical Alliance.

The Evangelical Alliance say:

It is with sadness that the Evangelical Alliance have discontinued the membership of Oasis Trust.

Having heard the concerns expressed by the Alliance’s board and council as to what has been perceived by some as a campaign to change the Church’s historic view on human sexuality, the Oasis board did clarify their position as having ‘no corporate view on this matter’.

However they were unwilling to fulfil the council’s request to adjust the content of their website/resources and social media output to equally profile the traditional Christian view.

After many months of prayerful discussion, the Evangelical Alliance council concluded that a relationship between an organisation and one of its members in which the member felt it could not comply with a reasonable request from council, was not tenable.

The Evangelical Alliance council remain deeply respectful of the work and achievements of the Oasis Trust and have a strong desire to avoid any unseemly dispute and to speak well of each other.

Oasis say:

"The Board of Oasis is deeply saddened by the decision of the Evangelical Alliance to remove Oasis from its membership. We would like to take this moment to restate our profound belief that the ethos, values and mission of Oasis sit firmly within the evangelical tradition.

"The Evangelical Alliance made its decision following comments by the Founder of Oasis, Rev Steve Chalke, calling for an open and generous acceptance of people with sexualities other than heterosexual as well as to affirm and support all those who seek to live within faithful, lifelong, monogamous relationships. When making these comments, he argued that they had come from a deep understanding of the overarching message of scripture and has subsequently written about the importance of moving towards a more affirming, compassionate, rounded and thoughtful approach to the Bible, humanity and sexuality.

"At no point has anyone within Oasis tried to impose the Founder’s view on Oasis staff, volunteers or church members (let alone anyone else) and, as such, the board of Oasis continues to give Steve their full support in his quest to seek an open and honest conversation amongst the Church on these issues and on how to restore society’s confidence in the Bible more generally.

"Since the publication of his article ‘A Matter of Integrity’ in January 2013 the Oasis board has been in an on-going conversation with the Evangelical Alliance.  At their request, we have made several changes to our online content and believed that we had reached a point where both parties could be satisfied that our relationship would continue.  We are, therefore, disappointed  by their announcement  but will continue to seek and enjoy a warm relationship with the breadth of the Christian Church in Britain and across the world, forming partnerships to lift people and communities out of poverty and exclusion, and seeking to demonstrate the love of God to all through practical service."

I spent some of this afternoon reading around this. And ultimately was left with the feeling that for many people that categorise themselves as being evangelical Christians there is no room for debate about certain topics. Or perhaps there is room for debate. But there is no room to hold a viewpoint that is different than the one defined by the correct and true view.

I was also surprised to find so many people still write stuff arguing about the infallibility and inerrancy of the bible – even when they aren’t just saying it has to be that King James version.

I’m left with the feeling that the days the evangelical are numbered. 

More from Matthew and the Pickiness of Believing the Bible

It’s been a long time since I looked at Matthew Chapter 1.

But here goes with chapter 2.

This talks about wise men visiting the place where Jesus had been born.

They travelled from the east to Jerusalem and asked where they could find the king of the Jews who’s star they had seen.

This upset King Herod and the people of Jerusalem.

Herod seems to work out that they are looking for the Christ, God’s annointed one, and decides to to take on God. So, I guess, Herod either didn’t really believe in an all-powerful God or he was a fool.

The religious people expected the annointed one to be born in Bethlehem. But not any time soon, I guess.

Herod seems to be happy to tell lies … though maybe he told the lies because he felt more frightened and threatened than happy.

The wise men follow the star until it stops over the house where the annointed one is. No mention of a stable. And it was an unusual star to be able to guide them like that.

They give their gifts and don’t tell Herod where they found the child because of a dream.

Another dream and Joseph, Mary and Jesus head for Egypt.

And then Herod has all the 2 year old and younger children … boys? … in and around Bethlehem murdered. It seems that this would likely have been twenty to thirty of these.

Eventually Herod dies. And another dream and Joseph, Mary and Jesus head back for Israel. Another dream and they settle in Nazareth. No mention that Joseph originally came from Nazareth.

There are things here that surprise me.

The way that dreams are so important.

The death of innocent children.

I read a little additional background here. This says some odd things and makes some illogical assertions. And is biased in a different way than I am. It also includes the following awful statement:

In Deuteronomy 17, God commands his people to execute all astrologers by stoning. Jean Dixon wouldn't stand a chance in such a theocracy! The fact that she--and others like her--are so comfortably tolerated--even well respected!--in modern America ought to show us that the U.S.A. is a post-Christian country--at best . . .

Makes me glad that the author isn’t a man or woman with any real power and also glad that the USA is post-Christian. I’m certainly not a reader of stars, but stoning seems on the extreme side.

It makes me wonder about the kind of person that can think that kind of stuff and write it. The stuff is awful.

And this leads me on to memories of when I’ve heard people say something like “it’s not what I think … it’s the Bible that says it … so that’s what I say as well.”

Tonight Sally and I had a meal at Cafe Rouge and talked a bit about this. I mentioned my new perspective on life … about it not being just a lot of black and white issues … and not just shades of grey … but a whole spectrum of colours. She asked me if some people wouldn’t say that not having definite black and whit views was some kind of a cop out.

But thinking about it, it seems much more of a cop out to say “this is the way it is because the Bible says so” without taking the time and trouble to think and feel about an issue.

I just discovered this:

 

I discovered it here.

I don’t agree with the all the sentiments expressed at the web site, but there’s more than a grain of truth expressed in the cartoon. We are all picky about what we believe and why we believe it.

The original of the cartoon is here.

I don’t think that the second chapter of Matthew’s gospel is something that makes it any easier to be a believer. I’ve heard it said that Matthew’s gospel is written especially for a Jewish readership … hence all the references to fulfilled prophecies from the Old Testament. The first two chapters seem to fall into that kind of category.

It’ll get more interesting a little later.

Matthew Chapter 1: Family history, prophecies and a virgin birth

Here is the beginning of my account of revisiting the Bible.

As I’ve mentioned previously, in my early youth I was an atheist. At the age of 18, as a student, I became a born again evangelical Christian.  More recently I’ve become more of a sceptical kind of agnostic. I’ve also reached a position in my life where I’ve been able to accept and enjoy my own trans or mixed gendered-ness. My opinions and feelings on male and female sexuality have changed a lot.

For a year or more now I’ve been meaning to see if Jesus, Christianity and the Bible still have things to say to me.

As a start I’ve spent some time reading and thinking about the first chapter of Matthew’s gospel. There’s a copy of it here.

In a way it’s tricky.

Who wrote it? What motivated them? Is it trustworthy or true?

Different people say different things about this. I’ve read things that have discussed this.

Like many things in life, there’s no absolute and incontrovertible proof one way or the other.

I’m going to try to read the whole gospel without worrying too much about who wrote it or what their motives might have been. I’ll try and just read the words to see what they have to say to me.  

It begins with a list of what it says are the ancestors of Jesus.

Actually they are ancestors of Joseph.

Soon after the list of Joseph’s ancestors it goes on to say that Joseph wasn’t actually the father of Jesus.

So it’s strange that the ancestors should be classed as ancestors of Jesus. According to this passage at any rate, they aren’t biological ancestors.

The list of ancestors is interesting. Some well known and revered names … Abraham, David, Solomon. None of them perfect. All fallible. A name that seems is given prominence is David and mention is made of Bathsheba.

The story of David and Bathsheba is almost like a soap operatic tragedy. I just read through that again … it’s here and continued here. It’s hard not to get side-tracked from looking at Matthew’s gospel at this point. David did such an awful thing. And it’s hard to understand what God was up to in it all … it seems that God punished David by killing an innocent baby.

Then there is the story of the virgin conception. Joseph didn’t believe it until an Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream.

It’s the kind of thing that doesn’t generally happen, so I can understand why he’d find it difficult to believe. And so do I.

I suspect that most Christians that believe in the virgin conception do so because they are Christians rather than the other way round. People don’t usually become Christians because they got convinced about the virgin conception. It was something else that convinced them about Christianity.

So it was with me when I believed it.

To some … to many… it’s a critically important truth. The thing that allows Jesus to be both Divine and human.

There’s mention that the birth of Jesus came about the way that it did in fulfilment of prophecies made in the Old Testament of the Bible.

To me at the moment, the genealogy isn’t so important. Nor the idea that the birth of Jesus was in fulfilment of prophecies. Nor the concept of the virgin birth.

The passage maybe raises more questions than it gives answers. Life seems to be like that as well. It seems to be there to set the scene and define the credentials of Jesus.

I’ve read that Matthew’s gospel was especially aimed at a Jewish audience for whom all of this would be significant. But is it true? Did it happen that way? Does it matter if it did or didn’t? If it didn’t happen that way … did the person that wrote it know … what does it say about their motives and integrity?

It would be kind of nice if an angel were to come along and explain some of it to me. Or just say to me that it’s how things are. Or that God is there and that all will be well. So far, at least as far as I know, this hasn’t happened to me.

I’ll try and be open to the possibility … but it’s not difficult to be sceptical.

It’s encouraging, in a strange sort of way, that some of the people mentioned in the genealogy are as noteworthy for their shortcomings as they are for their successes.

Korans and Bibles

In the early morning there has been no sign of Zo.

And then there is the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida.

Will they or won’t they spend a day burning copies of the Koran?

It reminds me of a conversation I once had with Jeff Peake … a friend way back when I was a student. At the time I was a born again Christian and Jeff a once-upon-a-time Catholic.

He was leafing through a Bible that I had and asked hoe I’d feel if someone tore it up.

“I’d feel it was  bit of a waste” I said.

He was a bit surprised that that I didn’t see it as being some kind of deeply sacrilegious act.

To me, even then when I believed that the Bible was the divinely inspired word of God, the book in Jeff’’s hand was just paper. The words mattered. But the book was just paper.

On the TV news I saw the posters that declared “Islam is of the Devil.”

Of course, the people that write that kind of stuff really mean “Every religion and philosophy that disagrees with my outlook on life is of the Devil.”

Today I was wondering … would Jesus have burned copies of the Koran if it had been around then?

I wondered other things as well.

I think there are a lot of things He wouldn’t have done even if He had the opportunity.

Would He have fought in a war? Burned religious books? Killed people that burned copies of religious books … even the Bible? Would He have had two coats while He knew of people that had none? Would He have fought against people who wanted to persecute Him? Kill Him?

Pastor Terry Jones … I don’t know you or your congregation. And I’m not a Christian any more. But you know the answers to these questions. You do. Really you do.

Read I Corinthians 13. Read the Bible.

You are wrong.

Honestly.

It’s a shameful day for the Church when the world at large shows more compassion and understanding than does the Church.

And to the people of Islam … isn’t Allah  strong enough to make sure that things work out in the end?

Does Allah really need you to threaten people with death because of the actions of a few extremists?

Does Allah really need anyone to kill anyone?

Cannot God take care of Himself … or Herself.

God, the Bible, Gender, Shellfish, Haircuts, Love and Nail Files

It’s that time of year again. As I take my lunchtime stroll there are bushes overflowing with fruit. It hangs heavily on their branches. The grey footpath is littered with yellow and red.

Each year I think … how extravagant nature is. Or is it wasteful? Or is it so harsh and cruel that there needs to be an over-abundance of fruit … just so that a few survive.

I guess until relatively recently it was the same with people.

A thought that has crossed my mind several times over the past few months is the idea that I should revisit the concept of God.

There was a time that God was a person to me. That Christianity was a relationship … a friendship … much more than it was a religion.

This was all based on the “evangelical” kind of view that the Bible is the final authority on all matters. And, what I now believe to be incorrect, a feeling that there was some kind of definitive logic in the way that evangelicals … the kind of person that I was … interpreted and understood the Bible. That there was some kind of objective and unbiased view that represented the truth.

And yet … there isn’t. We all bring our preconceptions and prejudices. The things that influence what we accept as fact and truth … and those things that need to be “interpreted”, discussed and disregarded.

My friend Dani recently left a comment on a blog posting that I made a while ago … it’s here. Reading the article that Dani mentioned led me on to some more searching around … and there is this … Proof that fundamentalists selectively quote the Bible. It’s worth reading. It makes it clear that if you you are Christian and have hang-ups about Gay or Lesbian people then you should also steer well clear of shrimps and be careful how you shave.

Really I knew this all along.

One of the first “Christian” Books I ever read was a thing by Francis Schaeffer called Genesis in Space and Time. It had a title that intrigued me.

It’s intelligently written … but even then as a new Christian … I wondered why Francis Schaffer was adamant that it was important that there was a literal Adam and Eve … and yet the eating of the fruit in the Garden of Eden was an allegory.

At the time I guess I though that he knew better than me.

In fact, really, I think it’s about what we choose to believe … which then influences how we interpret these things.

Emily Saliers … an Indigo Girl just in case you didn’t know … put it like this in her song Deconstruction:

We talked up all night and came to no conclusion
We started a fight that ended in silent confusion
And as we sat stuck you could hear the trash truck
Making its way through the neighbourhood
Picking up the thrown out different from house to house
We get to decide what we think is no good
We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary
And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory
The one that justifies our daily lives
And backs us with quiver and arrows
To protect openings cause when the warring begins
How quickly the wide open narrows
Into the smallness of our deconstruction of love
We thought it was changing, but it never was
It's just the same as it ever was

 

The song is here:

 

Life is a subjective kind of thing.

Anyway … I digress.

My plan is to try revisiting some of the places that I’ve been before but with an acceptance that it is ok … inevitable even … to have a subjective view on the stuff. That it’s ok not to see it all from an evangelical perspective.

I don’t know where this will lead me. Though I know there is no going back to where I used to be.

Tonight I read through I Corinthians Chapter 13.  It’s here. And I have to say … it’;s hard to disagree with any of it.

I remember, many years ago, someone saying it’s an interesting exercise to take these words:

Love is patient,

love is kind.

It does not envy,

it does not boast,

it is not proud.

It is not rude,

it is not self-seeking,

it is not easily angered,

it keeps no record of wrongs.

Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

It always protects,

always trusts,

always hopes,

always perseveres.

Love never fails.

And wherever it says love or it try substituting with the word I.

And even today, if I do that, I’m left with the feeling … I wish.

So now … though I don’t know where this is leading or what I’m looking for … it’s true to say that even without a belief in God … and in the certainty that I disagree wholeheartedly with the views that some Christians have … the Bible does say some things that are worth listening to.

Like many things though … it’s not what you read … not what you say … or what you say you believe … that matters. Not really. In the end it’s  about what you do.

And now I need a break … so it’s out with the nail file.

Ponies, people, the Bible, Jesus and me

Recently I spent a while chatting with someone using the nick ponygirl in a chat room. For over a year now she explained that she has lived as a ponygirl.

She has an owner … who owns five pony girls at the moment. Some of the things that she has mentioned:

• It’s not a sexual thing.
• She hasn’t been forced into it.
• She is happy.
• The ponies spend a lot of time restrained in various ways … mostly, I think, in ways that make it feel more like being a pony
• They don’t talk
• The ponies are trained
• They are disciplined
• They are well cared for
• The pony that I talked with has access to the internet once in a while
• Her family visit her every so often. They don’t find it easy … but they accept her choice. She doesn’t speak to them when they visit, but they do communicate by email

She said that the thing that she likes most is a sense of belonging.

In some ways, it’s not easy to understand why anyone would want to do this.

I think that quite lot of people would also find it hard to understand what it is that makes a guy want to wear makeup, a wig and a dress.

It’s not natural I’ve heard people say. I’ve even heard myself say it.

But is clothing natural? Plastic? Automobiles? Aeroplanes?

Maybe it’s really more about acceptability than it is about naturalness?

And different things are acceptable to different people.

Plastic, aeroplanes and just wars are acceptable to many people.

Pony girls and transvestites, gays and lesbians maybe to less.

There was a time when the Bible helped me decide what was acceptable and what wasn’t.

I was more of a “hate the sin but love the sinner” kind of person - as opposed to the “fire and brimstone” variety.

Nevertheless, the Bible was the final arbiter when it came to acceptability.

And yet looking back at those times, it was really my interpretation of the Bible that was the arbiter.

And my interpretation of the Bible was always flawed.

I think, in a way, everyone’s interpretation is flawed.

I mean … is it acceptable for women to speak in church? To commit genocide if God tells you to do it? To work on Sunday – or maybe that should be Saturday? To speak in tongues without an interpretation? To use contraceptives? To kill? To be gay? Lesbian? Transsexual? Transvestite? Pony girl? To manufacture weapons? To trade unjustly? To have two coats while someone else has none? To respond to one slap in the face with another?

Different Bible believing people have different answers to these questions.

Back in 1973, just after being Born Again, I remember reading a book Genesis in Space and Time by Francis Schaeffer. Even then it seemed odd to me that the author was adamant that the existence of a real Adam and Eve were fundamental beliefs, but that the story of creation in six days and the eating of the fruit of knowledge could just be viewed as allegories.

And I have had conversations with people that find it easy to own a whole collection of coats and yet condemn, absolutely, a whole series of perversions.

I know, for sure, that I am far from perfection. A little like Amy Ray’s friend:

My friend Tanner she says,
"Y'know me and Jesus we're of the same heart
The only thing that keeps us distant is that I keep fuckin' up"

And I do.

Back at Sparkle, I remember the policeman saying that his view of bad-mouthing members of the trans-gendered community was that it was similar to the racist comments that people make.

Not so very long ago, a man that lived in a Bible believing God-fearing part of the world had a dream:

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

Y’know. I think that pony girls, gay, lesbian and transgendered people are mostly just wanting to be free to be themselves.

Do you believe in sex?

The past week I’ve been working in Bristol, staying at the Premiere Inn at the Haymarket.

The train was on time, no snow and only a little rain.

A couple of nights ago I caught the tail end of a TV programme that featured two girls who were travelling around with parents and grandparents. Having missed the start of the show I’m not certain of the exact details. It seems, though, that the aim of the journey was to help the two girls decide if it was time for them to give up their virginity.

The UK, it appears, is a European leader in things such as teenage pregnancies, sex without condoms and youngest average age (for girls especially) to become non-virgins.

As they say … sometimes one thing leads to another.

The girls spent some time talking with 15 and 16 year old boys at a school. Expert advice indeed.

They said they wished that their mothers could be more open in talking about sex … in particular their own sexual experiences.

They visited Holland … which reputedly has a much more open attitude to sex than the UK. And also much lower rates of teenage pregnancy and a higher average age for loss of virginity.

They talked with a Dutch mother and her 16 year old daughter. The daughter had recently had her first full sexual encounter. Everyone was impressed with the  openness of the relationship between this girl and her mother.

At no point that I saw were the concepts of marriage and sex seen to be related in any way. Perhaps that idea had been discussed or dismissed earlier in the programme.

Soon after meeting the teenager and her mum they went on a walkabout through the red light district of Amsterdam accompanied by a brothel owner as well as the Television crew.

They saw ladies in shop windows … and the brothel owner explained a little about how the places work.

The reaction of the two British girls to this was one of disbelief. Shock. How could people? Isn’t sex all about love? They cuddled mum and cried and sobbed.

I’ve given this reaction some thought. It seems that they hadn’t yet discovered that the significance of sex can be very different to different people.

• A mechanism for procreation
• An expression of love
• A source of pleasure
• A thing to not talk about
• A source of shame
• A necessary evil
• Something that should only ever happen between married people
• Something to sell
• Something to buy

And many other things.

Not all of the above are applicable to all people.

In fact all of the above are applicable to no people.

It’s definitely a some opinions to some people kind of relationship.

And peoples opinions sometimes change.

Once upon a time in the distant past I remember one of those debating sessions in an English class. Pre-puberty, early secondary school.

I am a panel member.

Non-panel members get a chance to pose the debating questions.

Janet Taylor raises her hand.

“Do you believe in sex before marriage?”

Janet Taylor wears the shortest skirts in school. Even shorter than Andrea wears today.

Her legs go a long long way. Maybe she was already post-puberty.

It was, though, more of a question than an offer.

My turn arrives to express an opinion.

“I don’t believe in sex.”

As I said. Opinions change. Puberty does that to a person.

Eventually I came to believe in sex.

At age 18 I was born again. Sex still a belief rather than a practical experience. The belief restricted to the confines of marriage. There were definite rights and wrongs about it.

Today I’m not so sure about the rights and wrongs.

The reaction of the girls in the television programme seemed to be strangely inconsistent.

There are things that I wonder about …

• Maybe some cattle-market-like nightclub dance floors aren’t so different from the red light shop windows of Amsterdam. People seeking the same thing.
• Boys at nightclubs will sometimes invent all kinds of stories to impress girls. At times maybe this is about romance. At other times maybe it’s a lot more basic.
• Maybe a shop window in Amsterdam can be a more honest and safe way of people achieving the same ends without a need to tell lies to each other?

I think that the things that matter most between people include things such as:

• Honesty
• Respect
• Love … in the sense of wanting to help rather than to hurt each other

I guess that in reality love encompasses the honesty and respect.

It sounds a little like things that I heard at Church.

But at Church this was supplemented by an additional framework of rights and wrongs that mattered even more than honesty, respect and love.

These included big stuff like not killing people. Unless of course it’s in self defence, or a “just” war …

And other stuff as well:

• Do not be gay
• Do not be lesbian
• Do not dress in women’s clothing – unless, of course, you are a woman

And you can’t even do these things during a war or in self defence.

Mostly I’ve discarded lists of absolute don’ts.

It’s not that I think that everyone should do them. More that it “depends”.

Sex, like almost all other things, then just fits into an overall framework of honesty, respect and love.

Simple?

Well … maybe.

Easy?

Well … no. Not at all.

I think a lot of this begins with “oneself”.

I recall a Bob Dylan song … “Slow train coming”.

That’s how it’s been in my experience.

A lifetime to get to a place where I can be honest with myself and about about myself. A place where I respect myself. Even my unconventional dressing habits. My flirtations with pornography.  A place where I don’t feel I have to hide it all or live in fear of being found out. A place where I can love myself.

I know … this stuff is in the Bible as well. It says that you can’t love other people if you don’t love yourself.

A little while ago I spent some time talking with a girl that works as an escort. She is married. Has four children.

Her work involves sex. Her husband knows. Her family knows.

They are happy.

Is it wrong?

Whatever the girls in the TV programme feel about this, I have a feeling that it’s a lot less wrong than what happens every weekend at a lot of nightclubs.

Maybe not perfect.

But where is perfection?