“It may be that a gene that makes women super-attracted to males also causes men who express the same gene to also be super-attracted to males.”

Well of course one’s preferred anal sex role shouldn’t be stigmatized. But bottoms DO appear to self identify as more gender nonconforming, whatever that means, and that’s perfectly OK. The study isn’t stigmatizing anyone by documenting that.

Unfortunately, biology is often not that simple. Very few biological phenotypes and/or medical conditions can be linked to a single definitive impetus.

That there isn’t any meaningful difference between a religion and a cult (except time) only belies how close and narrow minded, and uncreative you are. Back in the day there were only 12 Christians, you know?

I mean, Catholics require regular confession. Most Christian denominations and offshoots expect a tithe. The difference is a matter of degree, not of kind.

Scientology has only existed since the 1960s. Judaism: >3000 years. Christianity: >2000 years (more if you count the preceding history of Judaism). Islam: >1400 years. If I sound like I’m excusing what Scientology does, I assure you I don’t mean to do that. I just want people to have a little perspective on what…

Yeah... I’m like... shocked people are defending this or any other abusive religious practices. Are we supposed to be pro-”reparative therapy” so we don’t hurt christian feels, too?

Well that’s all I’m saying. We’re comparing this cult that’s only existed since the 60s with “religions” that have been evolving for 1000s of years. I’m trying to look back at the history a little more and show that look, not so different if you go back far enough.

Again, based on modern conceptions of religion. Look back at the history of, for example, Christianity. Indulgences, Cluniac monasteries where the rich could pay to have their souls get extra prayers, heretics burned at the stake. Come on now. And most, if not all, of that can be found in the early histories of…

How? It isn’t when you consider the histories of what we consider to be the “major religions” which all bear all the warning signs of a cult if you go back far enough. I’m willing to hear an argument contrary to mine, but so far everyone has been cherry picking based on aspects of the “major religions” as they exist…

I gotta agree wholeheartedly. I cringed when I read the headline for this piece. Isn’t it relevant that the star is a Scientologist? Well no, it isn’t. Why was this even a question?

“Misguided”?

Those are all fine points and Scientology does, absolutely, do those things. It is a cult, no question about it. But what I’m suggesting is that if you look back at the histories of the “major religions” you’ll find that they ALL did those things at one point or another. It’s just a matter of time and grafting onto…

Yes, exactly. I was thinking: Would you ask the same of a practicing Catholic, whose church can be tied to every bad thing under the sun? As far as I can tell, she isn’t preaching it. She isn’t trying to convert me or hiding messages about it in her work. She isn’t working to ruin anyone’s life. She’s just living her…

Do you have any notion of how recently it is that books became an affordable thing for the average person to own? Like relative to the length of time these religions have existed? For the vast majority of their existences the texts would have been out of reach of all but the wealthiest people.

If you think shitting on people and ideologies is wrong, why are you reading Jezebel? That’s what they do... that’s nearly all they do.

Well, okay, quick thought experiment: what’s the difference apart from the length of time that they’ve been around? Like what really distinguishes any of the major religions from scientology?

Replace “Scientologist” with “Muslim”, reread the piece and determine if it still sounds reasonable, especially if your argument relies, out of hand, on dismissing a #NotAllMuslims argument. Either judge the person as an individual, or don’t, but don’t cherry pick. I don’t find Scientology to be compelling and their…

I only meant he was “shallow” in the realm of sexual proclivities, and it wasn’t a criticism, just an observation. If he wants to date models I don’t really have any basis for objecting. As long as it’s consensual, it’s fine with me. And I’m sure he’ll be thrilled to hear that.

I think shallow as a descriptive rather than pejorative sense is a super critical distinction.