In honor of the 34th anniversary of the event in question, here is The Underwear Story. This was part of our first podcast series: The Denomination. Alas, the hosting service for that podcast no longer exists. For the curious, this is a story of how a "life event" medical emergency forever changed Derek's underwear preference. At least, on the surface, that is what the story is about.

This is the last episode of season 1 and our last words on why modern evangelical conservative Christianity has it all wrong when it comes to homosexuality, anything else in the LGBTQ+ universe, or sexuality in general. We tie it all together in this episode. All of it. Promise. Thanks for listening and maybe in a year or two, Chris and Derek will write a record season 2. Whoo-hoo. Also, if you have ideas, feedback, threats, or love notes you want to share with Christ and/or Derek, find us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/RiskingDamnation. 

Romans 1 is the favorite chapter for those who condemn homosexuality in spite of it being often read out of context in every respect. Chris and Derek do their best to unpack this passage but, alas, it was difficult. In fact, it took us a couple attempts and there were a few technical challenges as well. Apologies for the variable sound quality. Still, this is the episode where we make our strongest defense for being inclusive and accepting of the LGBTQ+ community in Christianity and our churches.

It only sounds like we are still talking about Leviticus. Really, this episode ties a neat little bow on everything before Paul weighs in on homosexuality in Romans 1. Even more context, ancient languages, customs, practices, and more. Not an exhaustive treatment but we really tried to be fair, honest, and cover all the corners.

Chris and Derek simply tear into everything involving the culture, scholarship, and the original languages not only of Leviticus but how the verse was translated and interpreted over lo these many millenia. This episode digs into how Lev 18:22 has influenced simply everything.

Can't really talk about how the Bible feels about homosexuality (and all other non-CIS sex and gender issues) without talking at least a little bit about Leviticus. Rather than be dismissive of Leviticus for simple "don't worry about it" reasons, Derek and Chris go in-depth establishing an exegetical method, theological framework, cultural milieu, and linguistic lineage (sort of) in order to take Leviticus seriously. Very seriously. This is part 1. Yeah, we go down deep and stay down long, but this informs how EVERYTHING else about homosexuality in the Bible should be read. Totally worth it. Trust me.

In early September, 2023, the Texas legislature passed a bill allowing (unlicensed) chaplains to act as public school counselors. Derek & Chris react, um, let's say, strongly against this law. Enjoy! Errata: while describing the CPE program, I say something about having to do 15-20 hours of actual chaplaincy which is wildly inaccurate and very low. It is more 15-20 hours a week and really, it is best if one has the time to do fulltime chaplaincy. Indeed, part of the challenge of CPE is immersing oneself into the program. Another part of the challenge I do not explicitly mention is how traumatizing it is to see all the horrible things one sees as a chaplain. As a chaplain being a chaplain, I have a couple methods for working through rough days. During CPE, each day is rough and the necessary review and introspection of the program makes it much more difficult to "let go" of the bad and sad.

At long last, Derek & Chris dispense with introductory material and dive head first into the Sodom and Gomorrah passage: Genesis 19. Then, as only the skilled academics can, they segue gracefully into Judges 19. "Trust me, this will totally work," said Derek to Chris before recording. But seriously, this podcast destroys any notion that those towns were nuked because the men were gay. As always, we attempt to stay true to the word, look at all sides, and be as fair as we can be. This is the podcast you are looking for in order to gear up to dunk on your crazy uncle at Thanksgiving this year. 

Like all (wannabe) academics, Chris and Derek like their categories, terms, problems, etc super well-defined. This is another whole episode dedicated to explaining all aspects of human sexuality from genetic/assigned, identity, expression, orientation, tastes and beyond. "Isn't this what you did in the last episode?" No, we continue from where we left off in episode 2. This is good stuff. I promise. Again with the Correction: The book Perv by Jesse Bering is cited numerous times. He, in turn, cites research done likely in the 1990s about fetishes and kinks regarding a perceived difference between men and women. It appeared to the researchers that men locked into their kink or fetish "thing" at a young age and never really deviated for their entire lives. A man who has a foot fetish at 12-years-old will still fetishize feet at 90. It was like the man's brain was concrete in this respect. The researchers found life-long obsession on a "thing" to be less common among women. They speculated a woman's mind was more "plastic" allowing for a variety of interests over their lives. The authors offered no explanation for why men and women would be different in this respect. In the intervening weeks, nay, months since this recording was made, I (Derek) have grown increasingly skeptical about this conclusion. Given the vintage of the study, it is entirely probable the researchers' biasses tainted the way the question was asked. Also, this would have been at a time when it was less acceptable for a woman to be kinky especially in an overt way. It is highly probable kinky women over the past millennia were taught to repress their own interests, taking on (or faking) interest in whatever their man was into. Millennia of reinforced survival behavior doesn't disappear overnight. It seems more likely that gender plays little or no part in kink/fetish development, how strong they are, or if a person's taste changes over the course of their life. Rather it is entirely probable that when asked about strong proclivities and interests, women of the era would not have expressed their tastes as boldly either consciously or subconsciously. As such, I am stepping back from thinking men's brains are "concrete" and women's brains are "plastic," especially in this context, but also, and of course, in any context.

A whole episode dedicated to explaining all aspects of human sexuality from genetic/assigned, identity, expression, orientation, tastes and beyond. Like all theories, it provides categories and context. Correction: The book Perv by Jesse Bering is cited numerous times. He, in turn, cites research done likely in the 1990s about fetishes and kinks regarding a perceived difference between men and women. It appeared to the researchers that men locked into their kink or fetish "thing" at a young age and never really deviated for their entire lives. A man who has a foot fetish at 12-years-old will still fetishize feet at 90. It was like the man's brain was concrete in this respect. The researchers found life-long obsession on a "thing" to be less common among women. They speculated a woman's mind was more "plastic" allowing for a variety of interests over their lives. The authors offered no explanation for why men and women would be different in this respect. In the intervening weeks, nay, months since this recording was made, I (Derek) have grown increasingly skeptical about this conclusion. Given the vintage of the study, it is entirely probable the researchers' biasses tainted the way the question was asked. Also, this would have been at a time when it was less acceptable for a woman to be kinky especially in an overt way. It is highly probable kinky women over the past millennia were taught to repress their own interests, taking on (or faking) interest in whatever their man was into. Millennia of reinforced survival behavior doesn't disappear overnight. It seems more likely that gender plays little or no part in kink/fetish development, how strong they are, or if a person's taste changes over the course of their life. Rather it is entirely probable that when asked about strong proclivities and interests, women of the era would not have expressed their tastes as boldly either consciously or subconsciously. As such, I am stepping back from thinking men's brains are "concrete" and women's brains are "plastic," especially in this context, but also, and of course, in any context.