Virgins and Celibates are Sexual – Not Asexual and Androgynous – You don’t have to have sex to possess sexuality – Duck Dynasty TV Show Star Phil Robertson Says Men Should Marry Girls ‘when they are 15 or 16’

Phil Robertson seen in new video saying men should marry girls ‘when they are 15 or 16’

(Hat tip to blog visitor Jane Zen who sort of suggested I do a post about this story.)

Before I give you the links to the news stories about Robertson’s creepy views that adult men should marry 15 year old girls, here are some of my thoughts.

This is incredibly stupid advice on Robertson’s part.

I am a woman. I had no idea who the hell I was in my teen years, and did not know who I was, until I got to my late 30s, because, like many females, especially ones raised in Christian families, I was conditioned (first and foremost by my very traditional, Christian mother) to look outwards, to look outside of myself, to meet the needs of other people.

I was discouraged from putting myself and my feelings and my needs and my life first; I was discouraged by Christian teachings or attitudes that appeared in books, in sermons by preachers, etc, and my Christian mother, not to figure out what I wanted out of life, and not to figure out what made ME happy.

I was taught to define myself by OTHER PEOPLE, what THEY wanted, what THEIR likes and dislikes were.

I grew up being more attentive to people around me (to see how I could make other people happy, to figure out how I could meet their needs) than I did learning about myself and going after what I wanted in life.

So I had no idea who the hell I even was until I began rejecting these codependent, Christian, traditional gender role views in my late 30s. I was not my own person until I got to my late 30s.

I think one of several reasons I have stayed single this long is because I knew, at least in the back of my mind, as far back as my 20s, that marrying would have been a huge mistake for me – I was not ready yet to marry (though I was engaged in my early 30s, but I broke that off).

Many other females are conditioned to be the same way I was. If they marry at 15, they would be nothing but a robotic “Stepford Wife.” They would not be a full partner to a man in a marriage.

Such females would be more like a naive, little daughter who needs a husband who is a “daddy figure” to protect and provide for them. There might be some men who find that sort of female appealing, but the ones who do tend to be SELFISH, CONTROLLING, and ABUSIVE.

Of course, the left wing, liberal sites are picking Robertson apart for his joke (or serious view?) that girls should marry adult men when they are 15 years old.

However, left wingers are hypocrites on this point.

Liberals are hypocrites on this topic since so many of them are fine with homosexual activists, or hetero sexual hedonists, engaging in the following:

> Preaching about homosexuality to children,

• even ones in kindergarten (who are five years old), and telling them homosexuality is natural and normal

• • (and I’ve read about them teaching public school kids, via their printed curriculum, to experiment in homosexual behavior themselves – not just telling the kids what homosexuality is, but telling them

to go out and try it for themselves

• );

> teaching kids as young as five how to put a condom on a cucumber;
> teaching children about sexual positions, etc.

At the same time, liberals are against anyone teaching these same public school children about the options of celibacy, remaining a virgin until marriage, or about the health risks associated with homosexual behavior.

Liberals think it is okay and peachy fine to teach small kids and teens that behaviors some regard as immoral are “normal,” or to teach the “facts” of sex without any sort of moral guidance, or without telling the kids that NOT having sex is a totally valid option as well.

Liberals think it’s okay to omit from lectures about sex to children and teens that celibacy is an option (they mock this, actually, when it’s brought up under abstinence teaching).

Liberals and other types think it’s fine to teach their form of sexual education, which tends to be garbage – some of it, IMO, is perverted – to five year old children, to 12 year olds in junior high, or 15 year olds in high school. But they balk at some dude saying it’s advisable for a grown man to marry a teen?

I don’t see how their views on sexual issues are any better than Robertson’s quip that men should marry underage girls.

Liberals support and promote sexual deviancy, promiscuity, and hedonism to little children as young as five years of age all the way up to college age students, and they reject teaching celibacy as an option to kids, so I think they don’t have the moral high ground here at all.

— One Does Not Have to Have Sex or Engage in Other Sexual Behaviors to Possess Sexuality —

If liberals and libertarians were as open minded, non judgmental, and free about sex as they claim they are, they would be telling kids that yes, celibacy is indeed an suitable option for life, because celibacy is another form of sexuality.

Liberals are open to any and all forms of sex except for celibacy and virginity.

One does not have to have sexual intercourse to be sexual or to posses sexuality. Many Christians and Non Christians mistakenly believe that engaging in sexual activity is what makes a person sexual; it is not.

Think of it like this: suppose you have a 35 year old, hetero woman who has had sex a 100 times with 20 different men over her life time, but in the past six months, she has not had sex with a man at all, because she’s been too busy with life, or hasn’t met any men she is interested in having sex with.

Just for not having sexual intercourse, or any other sort of sexual activity for six months, does this mean she has ceased being a sexual being? No. Having sex is not what makes her sexual. Your sexuality remains intact whether you are boinking other people or not.

See, your liberals (and sadly, some Christians, Republicans, and social conservatives) have been snookered into thinking that sexuality is limited only to the following scenarios:
full on sexual intercourse (penis in vagina, penis in anus), oral sex; two people getting naked and groping each other; or one person sticking their fingers or penis into someone else’s body parts/mouth, or that sexuality only involves other, physical acts (such as masturbation).

You do not have to be doing any of that stuff to be sexual or possess sexuality.

Most all humans, with the possible exception of asexuals, are born with a sexual nature, whether they are boinking other people or not. That is, remaining celibate (abstaining from sex) is a form of sexuality. But liberals hate teaching about that particular form of sexuality. Liberals want to tell kids all about how to give each other blow jobs or how to pop a pill to avoid pregnancy, but they are loathe to explain that remaining a virgin is perfectly fine.

I am in my early 40s and am still a VIRGIN at this point in my life. Yet, I still have sexuality. Men flirt with me now on dating sites, have flirted with me in my 20s and 30s, and they view me as being “sexy.” (I look damn good in heels and skirts, if I do say so myself). One does not have to have a penis in one’s vagina at one point, and one does not have to suck on a man’s penis, to be sexy, to be deemed sexy, or to have sexuality.

I, as a 40 something virgin, am not asexual, I do not lack libido, and I am not a frumpy, androgynous-looking being.

I will say it again:
You do not have to actually be having sex to be sexual or to possess sexuality. You already have it, you are just choosing not to express it by getting naked with another person and groping their body or sucking on their genitals or exchanging bodily fluids.

(This is also tied closely to another secular and Christian myth: that one has to marry to be considered mature or a grown up. Wrong.

One can be past the age of 30, never have married, and be just as mature as any married person. In the same way, one does not have to be having sex to be a full grown up or to be sexual.

By the way, as I have explained time and again on this blog, some married people are selfish and immature, they get arrested, go to jail for crimes, and some married people write in to advice columnists complaining that their marriage has been sex-less for many years.)

On to the links about the latest Robertson controversy, with more commentary by me below these links:

This is from a left wing site:
(Link): ‘Duck Dynasty’ Star Phil Robertson Advises Men To Marry 15-Year-Old Girls

Professor Says There is Something Homo-Erotic About Christian Men Who Say They Love Jesus

Prof Says There is Something Homo-Erotic About Christian Men Who Say They Love Jesus

Yep, I’ve said it before and will continue saying it: we live in a time and culture where everything is sexualized.

The trend continues:

(Link): MSNBC’s Dyson: Men Loving Jesus More Than Women ‘Sounds Interestingly Homoerotic’

I am right wing, and I spend a large amount of time criticizing fellow right wingers on this blog for their views on marriage, their idolization of the nuclear family, and other subjects.

However, left wingers (liberals, progressives, moral relativists), and some homosexual rights activists (and I assume this prof in the story is left wing) are equally, if not more, moronic or perverted on topics than right wingers are. This is another example.

I wonder what this loon thinks of hetero females who confess love for Jesus? They do exist. Is he going to suggest that hetero female Christians have burning burning lusty love for Jesus? What a creep.

Nobody Bats An Eye at Condemnation of Hetero Sexual Sin – Observations from Duck Dynasty Controversy

Nobody Bats An Eye at Condemnation of HETERO Sexual Sin – Observations from Duck Dynasty Controversy

Duck Dynasty is not a show I watch. I’ve only seen a few moments of it while channel surfing. It’s a reality show on cable channel A&E.

One of the show’s members, a Phil Robertson, got into hot water a few days ago when comments he made about sin in an interview for a magazine were published on the internet.

Here are some of Robertson’s quotes (Link): Source: LA TIMES

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he tells reporter Drew Magary.

“Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers— they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

He also muses rather colorfully about his own sexual orientation: “It seems like, to me, a vagina —as a man— would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

Despite the fact the man named numerous sins, including sexual sins committed by HETERO-sexuals, as well as idolatry, greed, and swindling, most people have for some odd reason, decided to get selectively outraged primarily over his views about HOMOsexuality (a lesser number are upset over his comments about race relations, which I won’t be discussing).

Nobody seems to care that Robertson called out HETERO fornication or HETERO adultery as being sins. They’re only flipping out over his mention of homosexuality. I think that speaks volumes more about people making the criticisms and the overall culture than it does Robertson himself or his views.

I wonder if acceptance of hetero sexual sins has become so ingrained in our nation, that is why people can’t be bothered to get worked up over Robertson’s saying the Bible condemns hetero sins of the sexual variety?

Why do people only go up in arms over homosexuality being referred to as a sin, but nobody gets angry or offended over him mentioning that lying, greed, and idolatry, or hetero affairs are wrong?

It’s also interesting that homosexuals, and their hetero supporters, are choosing to perceive his comments as him equating homosexuality with bestiality and terrorism.

I am a HETERO myself, but despite the fact Robertson named greed, idolatry and bestiality along with HETERO sexual sins does not mean I choose to interpret that as meaning he was saying that all hetero sexuals have sex with animals, are greedy, or are idolaters.

Why do homosexuals choose to include homosexuals with bestiality, idolatry, drunkenness, and the other behaviors Robertson mentioned?

I think it may say something about your world view or morality that you mentally include yourself with others on a list of unrelated behaviors, or automatically assume that was what the commentator was doing.