I mean, it’s no sliced up shark in formaldehyde or person living in a glass box for a week, but I think it’s very striking. Art is subjective; this is way overpriced but I flinch when something is over $400 because that’s my own budget limit so **shrug**.

It’s better than George W Bush’s art.

So, the exact same reason people buy most of Picasso's shit. Even though they're shitty, they're still a Picasso.

The real question is - Is this good enough to get him to stand in for daddy at the G20 Summit the way Ivanka did?

Yup, he didn’t set the prices, the gallery did. Unlike the Trumps, who jacked up rates at their own properties and made the Secret Service stay there to milk every last dollar out of the American taxpayer.

Yeah. His response is very much of a guy that knows he’s getting paid because of who his dad is and doesn’t care because he likes painting. If this were a Trump kid, they’d be selling the art for millions, with most of that millions going to buying access to their dad.

You can nitpick it, but its not bad, not my cup of tea but not bad. For me, good art has to show skill or effort, the very best showing lost of both. This definitely shows effort and some skill.

Paul is pretty much the reason why “Christianity” is about far from Jesus as you can get.

“how can a woman be brought up believing that sex is shameful (with a tiny little asterisk next to that: *unless you’re married!), and then be expected to just flip some sort of internal switch on her wedding night, becoming an insatiable sex goddess?”

I dated a conservative dude who called himself a sex positive, kinky lover. (I’m paraphrasing.)

I’m starting to think that Paul was a prick.

That 1 Corinthians reference cited in the article is specifically written by Paul, who was celibate (supposedly) and very clearly thought poorly of women (nevermind how Jesus himself treated them!). Most certainly the type of person who should be prescribing a frequency standard within others’ sex lives...

Even beyond the way that evangelical theology privileges the male in the relationship, there’s a fundamental assumption within that community (which is not unique to that community) that only men want sex, only men need sex, and only men truly enjoy sex. With that as a backdrop, of course they tell the woman to lay…

I saw the results of purity culture firsthand about 8 years ago when I was on Tinder and the dating scene after years in a long term, consensual fun passionate sex-filled relationship. (We broke up for out-of-bedroom incompatibility issues).

The Bible was written by multiple people, and in the case of what evangelicals call the “Old Testament”, some of those writers were women. Of course, evangelicals like the parts written by misogynistic psychopaths like Paul.

Evangelical “purity” culture just amplifies the bigger cultural message that refusing sex is a failure in a marriage and that solving it just requires having sex more. Anytime my partner or I have struggled with sex it is due to something completely unrelated to our desire for physical intimacy and relates to much…

That’s because you’re not so deep into evangelical Christian culture that you can actually think for yourself.  They teach this shit and since the women don’t know any better, this happens.  

I’m going back and forth between being furious and feeling sick to my stomach.

These women are treated like frigid cum dumpsters. It’s infuriating.

Taught never to refuse sex with her husband unless it was an absolute necessity, and paired with her then-husband’s demands, Christy was left submitting to what felt like obligatory sex and guilt over how miserable she felt.