John Morgan Continues to Report Inaccurate Information / Other Critiques
I have read over the last few posts on Morgan’s blogs. In some of his posts, he makes some decent points, but I see several glaring errors or things I disagree with, and I’ll mention those things.
In his post entitled,
Morgan again states that “single MEN” have been banned from this park or another. Yet, I have corrected this information before. The news story says that both single men AND WOMEN have been banned from the park, not just men.
See this post for more information about that:
Morgan apparently lives in a world where single, celibate women have easy-breezy lives and face no problems, but poor, old, downtrodden single, celibate men have all the problems. I’ve written of that before, too,
- (Link): Male Entitlement and Adult Virginity: Who has it worse, Male Vs. Female? John Morgan Says Men Are, I Say He’s Full of Crap on That
When earlier today, I just posted about a single woman being discriminated against:
(Knowing Morgan, he will probably take that story from my blog, post it to his own three months from now, not credit my blog, and spin the story so that the center figure (a female) will be re-cast as a poor, downtrodden MALE who was barred due to being single.)
In that same post, Morgan writes:
- How many sermons have you heard on it (celibacy)? How many have you heard that addressed marriage, the role of husbands and wives, two becoming one flesh, the husband being the head of the household, etc.? I would estimate 99.95% of Protestant pastors have never mentioned celibacy from a pulpit.
Maybe I am misunderstanding him, but if not, what rock is Morgan living under? I assume he means that one will never, ever hear a Christian minister discuss topics such as “the husband being the head of the household,” etc
There are entire groups of Christians (such as CBMW and Southern Baptists) who do nothing BUT argue and debate those very things! There are entire groups of Christians, and denominations, that do almost nothing but pontificate upon the roles of men in marriage, and in telling women that they are to be submissive and subordinate to their husband, who is supposedly the God-ordained “head” of the marriage.
This is referred to as them as “gender complementarianism,” also known as, “Biblical Manhood / Biblical Womanhood.”
Gender complementarian Christians, in-between bad mouthing Democrats and Feminists, never, ever shut up about how the husband is the ‘head’ in the marriage.
But being a MAN, Morgan probably does not notice how often conservative Christians lecture and propagandize about gender roles in marriage because he is not the one being oppressed, as we women are.
Gender complementarianism is sexism using Christian jargon, and since I am a woman and the target of this oppression, I tend to pick up on it more than Morgan would, since he is not a woman.
- (If you are interested in reading Christian material that refutes the un-biblical positions that the man is the head in the marriage, etc, please visit these sites:
- Link: Christians For Biblical Equality
- Link: Junia Project )
The Bible teaches that marriages are to be mutual, not one in which the male is the “boss” to whom the woman must answer or take orders from. “Head” in the New Testament means “source,” not “authority.” Morgan writes,
- Without the balance of the Lord’s concerns with the world’s concerns, marriage dissolved into state-sanctioned greed and sex worship any way you can get it – as seen with the government’s recent acceptance of same sex marriage with all the standard tax breaks and benefits.
This gets into Morgan’s weirdo views that marriage is not something that needs to be formally acknowledged by the state or federal government, that any two people who have sex are married (ie, it is the sex act which causes two to be married), which I disputed in my own post (Link): located here.
Also related to that:
- (Link): Civil, Secular Authorities and Marriage and The Dippy Christian “Marriage Pledge” Preachers are Being Asked To Sign
- In addition, celibate people are able to see beyond the pressures of socio-political conformity and are able to provide a witness that is free from the bonds of sexual perversion and addiction and stereotypes associated with the American dream. They are not compelled to keep up with the Joneses…
That is a point I raised a year or two ago (in this post: (Link): When Adult Virginity and Adult Celibacy Are Viewed As Inconvenient or As Impediments) – and he left a comment under my post about it.
Morgan cribs my ideas and materials but then never credits my blog. He accused me of being “untrustworthy” or “unreliable,” since I do not blog under my real name.
If you feel I am unreliable, why do you use material and arguments from my blog? Here is what I said on my blog two years ago, in 2013, about this very topic (When Adult Virginity is Viewed as an Impediment, link is above):
- We mature celibates can demonstrate that one does not need to buy into American society’s fantasy that one needs to look to anyone or anything, such as dates, boyfriends, husbands, marriage, parenting, money, career, sex, to find value and fulfillment.
See how similar Morgan’s comments are in his 2015 to mine from 2013? He’s repeating things from my blog on his. Morgan writes,
- Some people think celibacy is especially unfair to women, since they only have a limit number of childbearing years. Instead of being a repressive religious rule, the choice of celibacy is actually able to free women from the repression of objectification and sexual slavery. It is ultimate freedom, beyond that heralded in the era of feminism.
- It frees women from having to choose between a complementarian or an egalitarian role in marriage, a traditional or nontraditional role in society, having children or not having children. She doesn’t have to worry about patriarchy or hierarchies. It restores her dignity
In an earlier post, (Link): Purity Balls and Sex Trafficking Morgan wrote,
- Men cede their moral authority and leadership role to women when boundaries…
I’m not sure if I am understanding him correctly here, but it sounds as though he believes in gender complementarian teachings that men are natural leaders and women are weaker, and God designed women to be led by men. The Bible does not teach that men have “moral authority” or “leadership” over women. Morgan writes (source),
- Hence, it’s one of the reasons we have a feminized church today.
No, we don’t have “feminized” churches. Churches are too masculine, as matter of fact.
Churches are too masculine to the point some churches try to lure in more male members by giving them free tickets to Monster Truck rallies, give them free shot guns (seriously, see this link), and by appealing to other stereotypical, American masculine pursuits.
Morgan is really hung up on “blaming the women” (or femininity or feminine qualities) for what he feels is wrong with church. He feels that churches cater way too much to women- no, it’s quite the opposite.
Women’s voices are silenced in churches, with never married, celibate women being at the very bottom of the totem pole. Married women get much more clout in churches than single women do.
Most churches do not permit women to have a say-so in church at all. Christian women are told that their God ordained roles in life consist of making babies and acting as a fashion accessory to a man, to help the man achieve his dreams in life.
Most conservative churches only allow women to bake muffins and cookies and baby sit in church nurseries. For more on these that issue, please see:
Being a celibate woman never did free me in church circles, nor did it afford me respect.
I would say that biggest role churches assign to women is BABY MAKING MACHINE.
If you are a woman who has never had a kid, you are either ignored, shunned, or treated like a failure or freak. Single men do not get near as much pressure to procreate as women do.
Morgan writes (source),
- In the security and commitment of a marriage, these boundary questions don’t come up at all. They’re not supposed to
He’s wrong about that. Totally wrong. I can guess that Morgan has spent ZERO TIME researching domestic violence dynamics.
You know, I was meaning to do a part 2 and part 3 about male entitlement in dating and marriage (which I hope to get around to eventually), and one point I was going to address is MARITAL RAPE.
There is such as thing as “marital rape,” but there are sexist Christian men swine on the internet who DENY IT (though these types of dudes are in the fringe wacko groups, they are not a part of mainstream evangelicalism), because they feel that once a woman says “I do” at her wedding, that the husband is OWED SEX from there on out.
Abusive men are incredibly entitled. They view their wives as their sex slaves. Some men demand or want sex from their wife (or girlfriend), the wife does not want to have sex, so the husband rapes her.
Some women are okay with having sex, but not penis- in- the- anus variety or whatever particular sex act, but the man goes ahead and performs anal sex on the wife anyhow. Some men pressure their wives into giving them blow jobs (most women do not want to perform oral sex on a man).
So yes, even within a marriage, there needs to be BOUNDARIES.
Just because two people are married to each other does not give them carte blanche to have sex whenever and however they want it.
A wife has a right to say, “No, I am not going to suck on your dick, I don’t want to, that is gross, I don’t care how much of a turn on you find the idea.” And the husband needs to respect such boundaries and back off.
However, some Christian men guilt-trip women into thinking it is their DUTY to give a husband sex.
Witness Preacher Mark Driscoll, who told women at his church that God commands them to suck on their husband’s dicks – google for it. Look up “Driscoll Song of Songs oral sex” and you will find it.
If Morgan thinks that there are no sexual boundaries in marriage, or that there should be no boundaries in marriage, he is VERY WRONG. Morgan writes (source),
- Third, femino-purity tells men that all women want one thing – sex.
No, Morgan has it backwards. Generally, purity culture teaches the following:
- married women are totally un-interested in sex and only care about getting their “emotional” needs met;
- single women are harlots who want sex constantly and will intentionally target married men to have affairs with;
- all men, single and married, are horny horn dogs who lack self control and who are horny constantly
One thing I want to mention: outside of fringe, wacko cults, such as Quivering families, most Christians do not hold “purity balls.”
Your regular, average Joe evangelicals will teach kids in Sunday School to sexually abstain, but that’s about it.
Garden variety evangelicals do NOT generally hold or put on purity balls. (If or when purity balls become mainstream among normal evangelicals, I would probably blog about them more often. But as it currently stands, I don’t see purity balls as being common among Southern Baptists or evangelicals.)
So I’m not sure why Morgan keeps harping on purity balls – you will notice I don’t blog on them too much on my blog because they are not common, not in mainstream Christianity.
Mainstream Christianity will ask teens to take virginity pledges and wear a purity pledge ring on their hand until they marry, or carry around a True Love Waits card in their wallet, but that’s about it. It’s your far out there crack-pot Christian groups who hold purity balls. Morgan writes (source),
- Third, femino-purity tells men that all women want one thing – sex. It tells them that they’ve got what all women want – a body part to fit theirs. “I mean, assembling all these virgins in one room for a purity ball, what else could they want, right?” “We know what they need.” “Those girls must want it want it really bad.”
What on earth is Morgan talking about?
I seriously doubt even hormonal, horny teen boys would step in a room of virgin girls at a purity ball and think these thoughts. I think this may say more about Morgan’s assumptions or views about teen virgin girls than it does what teen boys might think.
I would assume the message teen boys would get if they attended a female purity ball – and side note, I don’t think they do. The only people who attend these things are teen girls and their fathers. (Much has been made on liberal Christian sites about the father-daughter incest undertones of purity balls.)
But if a teen boy attended a purity ball, he might not think anything about sexuality per se, or, if so, he might think, “These girls are going to abstain until marriage,” not, “Look at all these horny girls, they are here because they want to have sex WITH ME!!”
After all, teen boys are intelligent enough to discern the reason of a purity ball is to express one’s intent to stay sexually pure, to refuse sex until married. Which is the total opposite of “I want to have sex.”???
So where the hell does Morgan get the notion that a teen boy would go to a purity ball and assume “all these girls want sex.” Morgan writes (source),
- Sexual trafficking depends on an inaccurate definition of purity and womanhood. It depends on girls who feel unloved and under-valued who acknowledge the compliments and attention of pimps.
Is he not aware that a lot of girls are KIDNAPPED into sex rings?
I just saw an interview today with a Christian guy who helps women and girls who escaped from sex trafficking. He mentions that one girl he met was thirteen years old when she was kidnapped from a shopping mall and forced into prostitution for two years before police got her and set her free.
That is, not every girl who ends up being pimped has “daddy issues,” low self esteem, was abused at home, or was previously sexually active with a previous boyfriend.
Some women are FORCED into prostitution because they were kidnapped by strangers.
Yes, low self esteem, abuse in family of origin, etc, can play a role in why and how some girls enter into prostitution, but that is not always the case.
Morgan writes (source),
- Men don’t know what self control is and women don’t expect it.
No, some women do expect (or at least want and hope) for men to be sexually pure, but most men are not – that is the reality of the situation.
Christian sociologist and writer Regnerus got push back for telling single women to stop expecting to marry a virgin man, that they ought to settle for marrying fornicators and porn users, and he got yelled at by single (and some married) women for that, see this post,
- (Link): Male Christian Researcher Mark Regnerus Believes Single Christian Women Should Marry Male Christian Porn Addicts
Morgan writes (source),
- They never see what a chivalrous man looks like. …They begin to doubt if godly men exist at all.
Because he claims to be celibate, Morgan no doubt fancies himself a “godly, chivalrous” man.
However, Morgan’s attitudes towards women over the course of his posts I’ve read the past year have an under-current of sexism; he stalked me for months; when he got angry I would not release my name, he wrote a passive aggressive post thanking celibate women online who DO blog under THEIR real names (this was an in-direct swipe at me because I’m one of the ones who does NOT blog under her real name); and, he keeps taking ideas from my blog without crediting me.
Stalking a woman online, cribbing her material without crediting her, issuing passive aggressive posts against a woman, having sexist attitudes about women, etc, is not godly, chivalrous behavior.
Celibate men can be sexist, rude jerks, too.
Being celibate does not make a man necessarily more godly, or more fair in how he treats women, than a man who abuses women in other ways (such as sexually exploiting them).
There are other, NON-sexual ways to be rude to women, which I don’t think Morgan realizes. I was not having sex with my ex-fiance Fred (not his real name), but Fred was a self absorbed pig who didn’t meet my needs, and he used me financially.
Fred, my ex, was not using my body for sex, but he was still a pig because he was mistreating me in other, non-sexual ways. Does this kind of thing not compute for Morgan?
Morgan writes (source),
- Since many of these disenfranchised girls can’t discern good guys from the bad guys, they are easy prey for smooth-talking pimps.
This is actually condescending towards women, assuming women are easily deceived and taken advantage of.
There are plenty of women – who are mature, intelligent – who end up with “smooth talking pimps” because these “pimps” pass for being respectable, mature, godly men, around OTHER PEOPLE.
Abusive men often fool their bosses, church preachers, and neighbors, that they are good, pure, men of integrity. Abusive husbands put on an act. They want people to trust them.
Same goes with pedophiles or serial killers: every time police arrest a man for pedophilia or killing numerous women, the neighbors, when interviewed by journalists, always say,
- “Why, I never would have suspected that man, he was SO NICE! Always wore a suit and tie to work, waved at me every day all friendly, smiled at me. Such an upstanding young man, I never would have suspected him of being a child rapist!!!”
Morgan is so ignorant about domestic violence issues. He needs to educate himself by reading books and blogs on the topic of spousal abuse.
I could easily write about 80 pages about why women end up dating and marrying abusive men, and I will skip doing so here, but it’s not what Morgan thinks.
If one visits forums and blogs for Christian women who had to divorce their Christian husbands because the husband was being abusive (and abuse is NOT only physical, it can also be financial and emotional), you will see that these women were not “duped” into marrying these men.
That is, these women who married (and later divorced) abusive Christian husbands were not naive, nor were they so damaged that they could not tell good guys apart from the bad.
These are grown women who are wise, trusted God, knew the qualities they wanted in a husband, are very discerning, but the abuser put on a “good show.”
It’s not that all women who end up married to an abuser are looking for a daddy figure and are easily deceived by a Playboy Pimp (this may be true for some women, but not all), but in some cases, it’s that many abusive men will hide their TRUE COLORS until AFTER They have married the woman.
Domestic abuse expert and counselor Bancroft wrote a book about these issues: he says every abusive man is different, but the majority of them view GETTING MARRIED as their right to “OWN” a woman. (With other abusive men, it might be the first time he has sex with the woman, or after three dates, or after six months of dating – each abuser has his own marker, for many, it is marriage.)
Once you marry such a man, he feels it is HIS RIGHT to treat you like HIS PROPERTY, to exploit and abuse. Such men will “play nice” and pretend to be a loving, sweet, godly man UNTIL MARRIAGE.
Abusive men will put on a facade to lure the woman into a sense of trust, but once the marriage happens (or first sex, or six months of dating, whatever the trap is in the man’s mind), BOOM, the abuse starts. I previously wrote about this stuff here,
- (Link): Don’t Be Pat Robertson: Learn That, Yes, Abusive Jerks Masquerade As Nice Guys Until They Marry the Woman Then They Abuse Her – Pat Blames A Woman Again For Marrying A Jerk
- (Link): Christian Host Pat Robertson Tells Christian Woman Who Married Christian Man Who Turned Out to Be Totally Unethical That She has Discernment of a Slug – Single Women: toss Be Equally Yoked teaching in the trash can
When I first saw Morgan’s post about Purity Balls (source), he made some comment in the post, which I cannot find at the moment, where he said something about how churches place values on a woman’s X.
He got the X wrong. I can’t remember the X he talked about was women’s “purity” or “vagina,” or whatever he was babbling about, but he got it wrong.
I’d say the number one value conservative Christians place on women above all else is MOTHERHOOD.
This is why women who sleep around prior to marriage, or who have an extra marital affair and get pregnant by their lover, and who get abortions, or who have a baby out of wedlock, will be treated with more respect by most churches than women like me who are past 40 and a virgin – we older virgin ladies have never MADE BABIES.
Centuries ago, Martin Luther or Calvin, or some other dead theologian (which one escapes me at the moment), said in an Anti Roman Catholic tract where they were bashing celibacy, that at least fornication brings about new life, a baby, but celibacy does not, ergo, the Protestant guy wrote, at least fornicators are better than celibates.
Christians in America today hold that view in their subconscious minds. Christians feel it better for a woman to sleep around and get pregnant (even if she aborts the kid later), than for a woman to never, ever, use her vagina and uterus to get pregnant to start with.
The only thing more shameful than having a baby out of wedlock, having an affair, or sex prior to marriage, is a uterus that never, ever makes a baby, especially when done from deliberate choice: if you
- 1. have sex, but use birth control and don’t have a baby
- 2. stay celibate (no sex means no pregnancy)
that is the BIGGEST SIN. Christians seem to think point 2 is worse than point 1, because at least in point 1, the genitals are being used by a man, even if there is no baby. (When I say these things are the biggest sin ever, I mean according to most Christians. That is not my personal view.) So, where Morgan writes (source)
- And since their (male) purity is never affirmed or valued from a Christian perspective, why should they (males) wait until marriage? Who cares? He’s got condoms and two tickets to paradise. And she’s got contraception. Even if pregnancy occurs, who will pay the heaviest price. The girl, of course. So what’s his incentive not to bang every girl on the street he encounters?
Not all girls can get contraception or can afford it.
Of course, if a woman gets pregnant and does not want the baby, yes, in a fashion, she pays a larger price than the man who got her pregnant. It’s going to be the woman who carries the baby to term, goes thru labor pains, or who goes to the abortion mill to get the kid scraped out of her body.
But, however, most Christians will treat her with respect and offer to buy her free diapers and baby formula.
Christians think very poorly of women who never mate and make a baby. In the world of conservative Christianity, a woman’s GREATEST SIN is NOT fornication, it’s NOT abortion: it’s never getting pregnant at all.
Christians tend to view the only function of woman as BABY MAKING MACHINE because women have BABY MAKING BODY PARTS.
If you are a woman not using your BABY MAKING PARTS you are suspect or deemed a selfish monster, soul-less, or weird by most Christians.
—More Copy-Catting by Morgan—-
In his post (Link) Land of the Grey, a post from 2015, Morgan writes,
- Rape/sex abuse is not addressed on this blog.
That’s something else he got from my blog. In several of my posts from the past, I made note to mention that my blog posts discuss CONSENSUAL SEX, not rape or sexual assault. I even had to write an entire post about it (this is from 2014),
- (Link) Confusing Sexual Assault and Sexual Abuse with Consensual Sex and Then Condemning Sexual Purity Teachings – and other, related topics
Morgan copies off my blog all the time but never gives credit. Another example. Morgan writes, from Feb.2015, (source),
- The lack of any formal affirmation of the adulthood of the single effectively makes marriage the only way to attain adulthood or, as we see today, the default idol of the age.
Yep, I’ve covered that too in a few posts, such as
- (Link): How Christians Have Failed on Teaching Maturity and Morality Vis A Vis Marriage / Parenthood – Used as Markers of Maturity Or Assumed to be Sanctifiers
- (Link): Sex Regarded as Passage Into Adulthood
- (Link): A Grown-Up, Not Sexed-Up, View of Womanhood (article) – how Christian teachings on gender and singlehood contribute to raunch culture and fornication etc
- (Link): The Holy Spirit Sanctifies a Person Not A Spouse – Weekly Christian Marriage Advice Column Pokes Holes in Christian Stereotype that Marriage Automatically Sanctifies People
Morgan writes (source – 50 Shades Of Violence),
- But has anybody studied what kind of chemical reactions occur when that bonding takes place outside of God’s natural design of marriage, especially when it does not lead to a lifetime commitment?
Now he’s contradicting himself. In previous posts, he has said that it is the sex act itself that makes a man and woman married.
He argues that one does not need a court or a piece of paper to say you are married, you are married when you have sex with someone – a view which I dispute fully, see my link above.
Morgan spends a lot of time in that post discussing how society has gone down hill because people have “tossed out the Bible” or “tossed out Judeo Christian values.”
I have to disagree a bit. I am no fan of most secular, left wing values, do not misunderstand me.
However, there are many conservative, Bible believing Churches who believe in the Bible, defend it, and preach it, who say they agree with and cherish Judeo Christian values, but they are still having affairs or looking at X rated web sites.
On a pretty regular basis, (Link): I publish news stories on this blog of Christian preachers who read the Bible and defend it but who are doing things such as raping children in their spare time.
Obviously, reading the Bible and believing it are not preventing some who do those things from having affairs, viewing porn, and so forth.
Using the Bible or reading it, or agreeing that Judeo Christian morals are awesome, is not a magical elixir that keeps a person from sexually sinning.
Sexual sin takes place in and among conservative Christians quite a bit. Morgan writes, in comparing the religion of Islam to the movie 50 Shades of Grey (source),
- The most it can hope for is to maintain social norms based on an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. In other words, the survival of the fittest depends on who has the biggest guns and is the most violent. It depends on who can protect their property. One of their most prizes possessions is a woman. Individual rights do not include women’s rights. No discussion about that. There sole reason for existence is to serve the men who own them and, of course, talk favorably about them at all times. So guess where a big hunk of their violence is directed? You guessed it – women. Kicked, punched, slapped, stabbed. It’s all just a way of life for Muslim women. Sound familiar? Have you heard of 50 slashes from the master’s whip?
Maybe Morgan hasn’t been visiting my blog too much lately, because I just pointed out in a post about a week ago that Christian views on gender are very similar to what Muslims and Mormons teach, and he should know better than to discuss Islam as though it’s an oppressor of women but Christianity, as taught in America, is liberating for women – because American Christianity also keeps women oppressed. See this post for one example,
- (Link): Similar Views of Women Between Christian Gender Complmentarians and Islamic Group ISIS
- (Link): Extremist Muslims Like Family Values Too – Muslims are joining ISIS / ISIL (extremist Islamic group) because they believe it supports “Family Values” – When Christianity and Islam sound alike
American Christians teach American women that they are to be submitted to their husband, which equates to, the woman is inferior, the man gets all final decision making, the woman is there to meet the man’s needs, the woman exists to help the man achieve his dreams in life, women are to be modest, a woman’s sexuality is a threat to men, etc – all of which is what Islam teaches, too.
Christians do not force women to wear burkas (head to toe clothing), and they do not stone women adulterers to death, but they are a watered down form of Islam never the less.
The under-pinnings of American Christian views on women are identical to what Muslims believe, only the penalties of infractions differ, and some minor life style differences exist (eg, most American Christians are fine with women driving cars, but in some Muslim nations, women are forbidden from driving).
By the way, SOME Christian groups (the kooks, such as Reconstructions) do in fact want it to be American law that adulterers get stoned to death. Go google for that, it is out there on the internet.
- The brides of the future need not worry about getting chewed out for burning their husband’s steak. Instead, they’ll get a few fingers chopped off.
- So my advice for single women today who don’t care about Christian ethics is to go see 50 Shades Of Gray. It will groom you to be the perfect wife, a piece of property, a means of pleasure. Just take whatever violence Hollywood glamorizes and multiply that by a hundred to get an idea of what awaits you in the future.
What Morgan describes there – allowing yourself to be treated like property, getting physically abused, and so on – this is already taking place in some American Christian marriages and precisely because of Christianity. Here is just one example:
- (Link): Christian Husband Raped, Beat His Wife, Made Her Sign “Slave Contract” – Why Christian Single Women Should Not Date or Marry Christian Men
Please, visit forums and blogs for American Christian women who had to divorce their husbands because their husbands were beating them for any number of reasons – having burnt their toast, for having had a bad day at work – and when these women go to Christians for help, most Christians, most of the time tell them,
- “The abuse is YOUR fault. Surely you do things that trigger him to hit you. He is your husband, submit to him more, pray to the Lord for peace, and he will eventually stop.”
Some branches of American Christianity as taught by preacher Mark Driscoll, John Piper, etc, tell single women that to be a Christian wife means that you must be the “perfect wife,” endure abuse for a season, you are a piece of property, you are ordered by God to perform oral sex on your husband, you are required to give your man sex even if you feel bad, you are nothing but a big sex doll to meet your man’s sex needs.
Morgan is totally out of the loop if he thinks the only people in the world demeaning women are Hollywood movies like “50 Shades of Grey” and Muslims in Iraq.
Christians in America are demeaning and oppressing women every bit as much Muslims and Hollywood are, only Christians couch their type of sexism using “Bible” words and cherry-picked Bible verses, to make their type of sexism sound acceptable before God.
Instead of Koran or Hadith quotes, you’ll get “Ephesians Chapter Five” or whatever quoted at you by Christians to rationalize their oppression of women.
American Christians may not be doing things such as hitting a woman fornicator to death with rocks, as Muslims do, but many of their understandings and assumptions about women are very similar to what I have seen Muslims teach and believe.
As far as the 50 Shades of Grey movie: some Christians, such as pastor Mark Driscoll, who is a sexist pervert, tell women that they are supposed to offer up kinky, bondage sex to their Christian husbands.
Preacher Driscoll spends his marriage book and blog pages telling women that Jesus expects them to give blow jobs to their man. Driscoll also writes that women are to submit to anal sex – if you are sick, Driscoll says to women, that is no excuse to with-hold sex from your man, let him stick his penis in your anus if you are on your period.
That is actually worse than the consensual sex in 50 Shades, where the woman chooses to go along with getting her nude butt spanked by her millionaire boyfriend, whatever he is.
(Note: though it is my understanding there is at least one similar scene in the Shades book, where the jerk boyfriend forces the girl to have sex while on her period. See? Some Christians are not so different from perverted Hollywood. Some Christians are also teaching women to have forced sex with a man, even when they are dead sick or on their period, and for most women, they feel dead sick when they are on their period.)
Morgan needs to get out of his evangelical bubble and start opening his eyes: Christians, even “conservative” ones, are teaching material (including sexually related material) that is just as bad, sexist, and degrading to women as Muslim and Hollywood material.
Christians have been promoting kinky bondage sex, NOT JUST Hollywood. I’m talking theologically conservative Christians – they are teaching women to submit to sex or specific sex acts with their spouse that they don’t want to do.
Conservative Christians are no less guilty of pushing kinky, deviant sex on to women than Non-Christians are.
I think there was another point or two I wanted to make about one of his posts, but I cannot remember what. I might edit this post in the future and add thoughts about that, I don’t know.
By the way I started a very long post about “50 Shades of Grey” movie and book, and about how Christians are reacting to it, about a week ago but it’s saved as a draft.
I don’t know when or if I will finish it and publish it. I was going to make it into a 2 or 3 part series
(Link): Christian Host Pat Robertson Tells Christian Woman Who Married Christian Man Who Turned Out to Be Totally Unethical That She has Discernment of a Slug – Single Women: toss Be Equally Yoked teaching in the trash can