Why don't nuns wear underpants?

theology students.de

The days appeared in the "online magazine for the Catholic way of life" The Cathwalk a praise of the underwear. Not just any underwear, mind you: it was not its practical, comfortable side that was the focus of the article entitled “And eternally lures women!”, But its seductive, elegant dimension. Not under luxuries, but lingerie. Not Schlüppi, but lingerie.

Screenshot "The Cathwalk"

Any alleged frankness and indecency of the title and text should not hide what the author Ulrike "Weiterdenkerin" Walker actually wants to bring to the people: under the hip neologism Complementism hides nothing other than the marriage and sexual morals of times believed to be in the past.

Down below

What is hidden under the niqab, burqa and of course under the robes of Christian nuns is traditionally the source of amazing male fantasies. Rumor has always been good in the dark and what is hidden with effort has to be good. The most important message on the topic is of course, as the author tells us motherly, "That women who wear new lingerie over and over again have much more loyal men than women with modest underwear."

The cotton panties among us are startled! Isn't the last separation due to different ideas of how we will be together in the future ("We just drifted apart ...") or an escapade, as claimed? It is actually very different from what it looks like: If your partner runs away (here without a gender gap and without any asterisk), you simply haven't made enough effort and thrown yourself into the right lingerie. Congratulation!

If you remove the layers of Walker's text that are called "Ribbons, stones, pendants" Adding to your article, leaving the clickbait headline and photos and the praise of the erotic, style-conscious French women aside, there is little more than the woman to submit to a monogamous couple relationship with a man and of course responsible for their "success" draws, including the fulfillment of male erotic fantasies.

Be complete

With Complementism According to Walker, what is meant is the wholeness of the human being in the God-established couple relationship between man and woman. I don't mind and don't want to mock anyone who has laid out his life like that. I myself try to get married with my wife, including church blessings. We have also achieved the purpose of our marriage, recognized by reactionaries of all stripes alone, by placing a son in this colorful world.

The fact that I still have enough imagination to be able to imagine that one (and woman) can become just as happy (or unhappy) in other constellations as I can in my marriage may be because I am not in one - in this one Meaning - grew up with a full family or simply because I live in the 21st century and with people who have very different views on life. In any case, the idea that a woman or a man, for happiness or bliss, only and exclusively needs a partner of the opposite sex is also theologically great botch.

And the secret beckons forever!

The becoming whole of the human being in the sense of a imago dei according to Genesis 1 (“as man and woman he created them”) ultimately also means to come to terms with one's own female and male “half”. This may or may not happen in straight, homosexual, long and short partnerships. And those who live alone do not stand before God as defective beings. What is meaner: openly expressed resentment or crazy ignorance?

Keywords: eroticism, society, homosexuality, Catholic Church, church, ecumenism, parish, The Cathwalk, theology, future