Two interesting things today...
Did Jesus visit the UK? Well, no and it seems to me that this question is rather jumping the gun as there's no evidence that this Jesus bloke ever actually existed at all. Before you start arguing over whether he went here or there, which trees he had a slash behind and so on it strikes me that you should first establish the basic foundation of whether he ever lived at all or not. Let me just state that again, clearly.
There's NO evidence that Jesus ever existed.
Even if we eliminate all the supernatural claims from the idea of Jesus existing there's still nothing to suggest that he existed. Yes, I'm a 'mythicist', yes this has been a minority position in the past, yes there's a great deal of inertia on the question due to a history of acceptance but, frankly, it's shocking to me that so many people simply take it, as given, that he really existed. I used to think that he must have, assuming on the same basis that he must have existed because so many people thought so, even people who didn't believe in god but the more I looked into it the more I saw that people were engaged in special pleading, that they were accepting standards of 'evidence' that they wouldn't - and don't - for other figures.
Sure, people will claim the gospels (you can't, you can't use a claim to prove itself and the gospels very much post-date the alleged time of Jesus) and will also claim various sources like Tacitus and Josephus (interpolated, contradicted and non-contemporaneous) and a host of other sources that, while they do mention Christians don't actually mention Jesus and are, in any case, nothing more than hearsay separated in time and space from the alleged lifetime of Jesus.
We can't even know for sure, but given all the Christian interference in history (Eusebius, I'm looking at you) and the lack of evidence for a Jesus I find it incredibly unlikely, especially in the context of what we do have records for from the time. I reckon it's all down to the Essenes and Saul of Tarsus, the L Ron Hubbard of the piece, which makes Jesus Xenu and, as I hope we call all recognise, the existence of Scientologists does not validate the existence of Xenu, and the same follows from Christians for Christ.
The other interesting thing today was this about the confusion between female sexual desire and male confusion and chivalry. I won't go into TMI on my own sexual history or proclivities but it did strike a nerve in things I've noticed in myself and in female friends and sexual partners over the years. There's a definate sharp divide between public and private expectations, between equality and respect in day to day life and the expectations and nature of certain desires. It's too sharp a change for many guys to 'shift gears' I think, even intellectually understanding that the sex is fantasy and that you're doing it because you DO respect and love your partner, you've had it hammered into you - at least in my generation - to be respectful and even to put women on a pedestal that even if you do recognise some of these desires in yourself it's very hard to adjust the 'line in the sand' and to let go without it putting you on the back foot and even losing the moment and putting you off.
I think this is a shift in the sexual politics betwen the genders that hasn't really been addressed yet and it's a topic a lot of people don't want to talk about or deal with, so people are all going to be stuck muddling through and finding out where they stand, quietly, by themselves, probably in a similar way to homosexuals did in times that were less accepting.
I've got nothing to suggest about that, but it's interesting nonetheless!