Christians Are Not Called to Have Amazing Sex by R Pietka, and the SCCL Push-Back

Christians Are Not Called to Have Amazing Sex by R Pietka – via Relevant Magazine, and the SCCL Push-Back

The essay “Christians Are Not Called to Have Amazing Sex” by Rachel Pietka was discussed over at Facebook group SCCL (Link): here a few days ago.

The consensus by the SCCL readership is that the page – by R. Pietka – is that it’s awful. Many in the SCCL thread did not approve of it or agree with it.

I don’t know why the SCCL readership largely condemned the page, because some of it is right in line with the ex-Christian, or liberal Christian views, about sex and sexual purity.

I’ll give you a long excerpt from the page before discussing it a bit more below:

(Link):  Christians Are Not Called to Have Amazing Sex by R Pietka

What Christians need to remember about God’s design for sex.

…While the [Christian based sexual abstinence] movement is great at detailing— and exaggerating—the benefits of saving sex for marriage, it is dishonest about the challenges abstinence presents to couples who eventually tie the knot.

…Jessica Ciencin Henriquez recently detailed how the abstinence movement affected her sex life and marriage in a revealing article titled, (Link): “My Virginity Mistake.”

Henriquez relays how she pledged herself to Jesus at a purity ceremony at age 14, remained a virgin until she married six years later, and wound up divorced after she and her husband could not make things work in the bedroom.

Looking back, Henriquez states if she had not insisted on waiting for sex until marriage, she could have prevented her divorce.

Henriquez’s story is important because it highlights an issue the abstinence movement rarely acknowledges: sexual incompatibility within marriage.

While this issue may seem irrelevant, it is actually fundamental to traditional Christian beliefs about sex. The fact that sexual compatibility does not matter to Christians when choosing a spouse makes the shocking and countercultural statement that sex is not our God.

It indicates that we are willing to make a commitment to someone with whom we may be sexually incompatible, with whom we may never have good sex, because the purpose of marriage is not pleasure, but formation.

Our discourse about sex, however, tends to tell another story, a story that elevates sex to an inordinate degree. The abstinence movement, relying primarily on anecdotes, promises the young unmarrieds that if they save sex for marriage, they will have what Claire and Eli call  (Link): “reward sex.

In other words, sex will be everything they’ve dreamed it would be—electric, erotic, or, as Elisabeth Elliot, who helped initiate the movement with her book Passion and Purity, writes “unspeakably worth the wait.”

Not only are these promises incorrect, but they imply that the purpose of abstinence is good sex, not obedience to God and the cultivation of virtue.

This discourse is not confined to the unmarried, however.

Once couples say “I do,” for the rest of their lives, they are expected to have good sex and a lot of it. Christian publications are brimming with instructions on these two contradictory principles: sexual compatibility doesn’t matter when selecting a spouse, but after marriage, couples are treated as if having good sex is part-and-parcel of the call to be a Christian.

… Although sex is indeed God’s gift to us, Christians are not directly commanded by God to have great sex.

Couples may find themselves incompatible in the bedroom, and they should not be bombarded with pressure from the Christian community to start having good sex and lots of it.

… Sexual incompatibility, therefore, is a cross that some couples bear, and Christian communities could lighten this burden if we made an effort to put sex in its rightful place.

If sex were viewed as a gift that, like everything else in this world, is marred by sin, it may be easier for couples to accept that bad sex is neither a reason for divorce nor an excuse to stop investing in a marriage.

// end excerpts

I actually agreed with most, or maybe all, of this editorial. I didn’t see too much objectionable with it.

But for some reason, most of the posters at Stephanie Drury’s SCCL group (see link above) seem to feel it’s a sexist piece, because they are assuming that the person in the hypothetical marriages this paper is discussing who are unhappy sexually are wives only.

What about marriages where the wife is happy sexually but the husband doesn’t feel his sexual needs or kicks are being met?

Apparently, sexually frustrated or sexually unhappy husbands aren’t considered at SCCL, or are assumed not to exist.

I don’t see anything in the article that is singling out either biological sex, so the entire point is moot.

I do think that many in the Christian culture have turned sex into an idol, as the article claims, but so too has secular culture.

I remember making a blog post a year or more ago about a married couple where the husband developed some kind of physical condition that left him unable to perform a very specific type of sex act on his wife.

(If I recall the article correctly, the husband was able to have some sex with the wife, just not one particular act she was fond of.)

-So, rather than deal with the sex he could have with her, the wife told the husband that she was going to start having sex with a guy who COULD perform said act on her. The wife began seeing another man who performed whatever the sex act was upon her.

And she expected her husband to put up with it – the guy was partially paralyzed or very sick (I no longer recall all the details of the story), and she was his only care-taker.

Had he said no, that he objected to her seeing another man to get this sex act, the wife was likely going to dump him over it, and leave him in the lurch.

So, in that marriage, the wife was so selfish and greedy about sexuality, that she chose to have an affair on her sick and physically feeble husband.

The wife in that story could have damn well lived without whatever particular sex act it was (the article did not specify).

I’m over 40 and still a virgin. I had opportunities to have sex with guys before but did not go after them, because I was committed to staying a virgin until marriage. I have a normal sex drive. If I can go without, so can anyone else.

So excuse me for not acting indignant – like 90% of the readers at SCCL – that an article at a Christian magazine makes the entirely pertinent, reasonable point that having amazing sex is not a reason to marry, lack of it is not a reason to divorce, nor is it the building block of a good marriage.

I do not feel sorry for anyone who is whining and complaining that they aren’t getting enough sex from a spouse, or not the sort they would enjoy, so they compensate by having an affair, or something like that.

It’s hard to believe that the liberal- to- ex- Christians over at SCCL are pushing back on this article (here is the link to the SCCL chat again about it), when it points out what they complain about (and what I’ve mentioned on my blog more than once):
Christians hype sex to the point that they tell teens if they stay virgins until marriage, the sex will be great, but sometimes, the sex ends up being terrible (according to some of those who waited until marriage and published online articles about it), or,
there is no sex at all (the marriage is sexless).

Well, this article is admitting to all those situations and says Christians need to stop hyping sex to virgins in the manner they do. One would think that the malcontents at SCCL would welcome this honest, open, and frank admission by a Christian publication, but no, they just complained about it.

They actually complained that a Christian author, in a Christian magazine, was advising other Christians to stop making false claims about sex, and to offer more realistic views about sex after marriage.

At one point in the comment section at SCCL, the commentators are addressing the Relevant magazine author’s use of Elizabeth Smart.

(Smart was kidnapped and sexually assaulted and later went on to say that the sexual purity teachings she heard in her religious upbringing were hurtful to her.)

I’ve addressed this subject before on my own blog several times in the past, but here it is again, in a nut-shell:

That some Christians may teach sexual abstinence in regards to consensual sex in a clumsy manner (e.g., using dirty water or used chewing gum metaphors) does not mean that the Bible supports pre-marital sex, and that Christians should either stop teaching about sexual purity altogether, or pretend as though the Bible has no sexual standards, leaving every one free to have any and all the sex they want, whenever and with whomever, and however they want.

Often, those who are opposed to sexual purity culture feel it’s fine to toss out any and all sexual standards the Bible teaches in regards to saving one’s virginity until marriage or in regards to consensual sex, because a few women (and maybe some men) who were molested when younger say they are now uncomfortable with said teachings.

I am opposed, to a degree, with basing one’s biblical interpretations or choice on what or how to teach content, on this method.

I would not say I am completely opposed, because I can see how if a particular teaching or doctrine is causing people distress, it should be re-examined, or taught in a more sensitive manner.

However,  many of the anti-sexual purity types I run across online agree that the Bible does forbid consensual sex prior to marriage, but they want everyone to ignore that standard, all because it may hurt the feelings of sexual assault victims.

I don’t see where it’s intellectually honest or good practice to hold the attitude along the lines of, “Because biblical teachings say that stealing is sinful and wrong, we should no longer teach people that stealing is wrong, because if a bank robber hears that message and gets his feelings hurt due to it, it’s not worth it.”

-And that is what many anti-sexual purity advocates are promoting in regards to the issue of sexual sin, such as fornication.

More on those issues here, before I resume with more commentary:

(Link): “Jesus Didn’t Die to Save My Hymen” Declares An Anti-Sexual Purity Advocate – My Response

(Link): No Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity – Christians Attack and Criticize Virginity Sexual Purity Celibacy / Virginity Sexual Purity Not An Idol

(Link):  Are You Ashamed of Biblical [Sexual] Purity? by J. Slattery

(Link): Slut Shaming and Virgin Shaming and Secular and Christian Culture – Dirty Water / Used Chewing Gum and the CDC’s Warnings – I guess the CDC is a bunch of slut shamers ?

Someone named Christa Thompson at the SCCL thread about this article said this:

So, true love waits, and waiting guarantees​ amazing sex. Except sometimes it doesn’t, and crappy sex is your cross to bear. For your entire life. Got it.

// end quote

First of all, the article author is actually arguing against point 1: she is telling Christians to stop the common practice of telling Christian virgins that being a virgin will guarantee amazing sex once they marry.

Secondly, I wonder, is Thompson advocating the opposite, that marriage should be first and foremost based on sex, and sexual compatibility?

If so, she and those like her in that thread, basically are selfish and viewing their mate as nothing more than a sex blow-up doll who is there to meet their sexual needs.

By the way, something I don’t recall the article or the SCCL commentators mentioning is marital counseling. If a husband and wife are having issues in the bedroom, there are counselors out there who treat sexual dysfunction.

Months ago, I was at the ex-Christian (she’s now an atheist) blog by Libby Anne, called “Love, Joy, Feminism,” I believe it was, where the blog owner was doing a post about how so many Christians teach that masturbation (even within a marriage) is sin.

She said she and her husband sometimes practice masturbation, because there are occasions when one of them is too physically tired, so the other one – who is not tired and is “in the mood” – goes back to their bedroom in private and gets themselves off – alone.

Remember, this is written by an atheist who is an Ex- Christian:

(Link): Masturbation: A Selfish, Addictive, Vicious Cycle by Libby Anne

Excerpts:

Um . . . hi. I’m Libby Anne. I masturbate. I’m also married. I have a beautiful relationship with loads of meaning and significance. Did I mention that I masturbate?

Masturbation does not prevent people from forming relationships. In fact, masturbation can be an important part of any relationship. Why? Because in any relationship, there will be times when one partner is horny and the other isn’t.

Sometimes all the other needs is time to get in the mood, but that’s not always going to be the case. In my own relationship, there are plenty of times when my husband is not in the mood or not available and I’m horny, so I masturbate. And vice versa!

In fact, I can say with 100% certainty that masturbating has strengthened my relationship with my husband. Why? Because I sometimes feel bad when I turn down my husband’s suggestion that we have sex (because I’m in the middle of a project for work, or too tired, or just not in the mood), and knowing that he can masturbate takes the edge off that.

And similarly, when he turns me down I don’t have to spend my time wondering if I’m not attractive enough, or if something is wrong with him (because aren’t men supposed to have crazy high sex drives?). I

Instead, I can just go masturbate. And no, masturbating does not replace having sex. We have as much sex as can be expected for a twenty-something couple with two young children.

// end quotes

My point being, you have an ex-Christian (now atheist), who is also rather left wing, saying that masturbation is or can be a helpful tool within a marriage, where one partner wants sex and the other does not.

(I don’t see why masturbation cannot replace sex with a partner, if that becomes a necessity, or the only option left in a marriage, so on that point, I suppose I would disagree with Libby Anne.)

But overall, I agree – I think that’s a fair and workable solution that does not involve divorce or having an extra-marital affair.

So why can’t the participants at SCCL accept a scenario, where, say, for instance, a woman is not ‘getting off’ in the sack (because her spouse is a clueless idiot at sex), pleases herself?  That way, she and the spouse don’t have to divorce or have affairs on each other.

Perhaps over the course of time, the husband in that hypothetical example can read sex “how to” books, or the couple can go to counseling, or the wife can instruct the idiot on how to get her off in the bedroom by talking to him in the bedroom.

I noticed a few of the people who left comments about this article by Relevant at SCCL completely missed the points the author was trying to make, and some of them, I get the impression, they didn’t even read the article, but merely glanced at the headline and assumed they knew what the page said (and guessed wrong).

Here’s one comment at SCCL by a Jennifer White:

that’s too bad…i had amazing amazing sex with my husband on our wedding night and the night after….guess i’m a terrible Christian/

// end quote

The author of the Relevant article was not saying that all Christians will, can, or should have bad sex. So White misses the point.

The article was saying if two Christian virgins marry, then discover their first few days together that the sex is not very good, they need to realize there is more to marriage than sex – rather than divorce or have affairs to scratch their sexual itch.

I personally do wonder about people who are so f-cking shallow that they make sex this end-all, be-all deal breaker in a relationship to the degree that they feel it’s acceptable to divorce over it – to find a partner who knocks their socks off sexually, or turn to porn, or hire hookers, or have affairs.

Someone named Ariella Tuttle made this cheap shot at the author:

Poor Rachel must be having horrible sex with her husband and has just accepted it as “sexual incompatibility.”

// end quotes

Well, Rachel (the author) did not comment on her own sex life, but supposing she and her husband do have a sub-par love life: she is so far still married to the guy, so she’s following her own advice of not turning sex into a deity and divorcing her spouse over it. The author would then, be, practicing what she is preaching in her article, so where is your ‘win’ there? You don’t have one.

Said Jen Garrison Stuber Handweaver, offering her parody-summary of the article:

Look — sex is a terrible, awful, horrible thing you’re supposed to save to do with someone you really love. We can’t have women going around thinking they should enjoy it, too — that’s going to make it work.
C’mon, Penis Home — you know better than this.

// end quotes

That is also a distortion of what the article was saying.

The author is saying if you marry and discover the sex is bad, that is not a legitimate reason to divorce – and I agree with her on that.

The author did not say or even imply that women should not enjoy sex. She did not say couples who have sexual dysfunction should not seek out counseling.

I also can’t get over how many of the grouchy folks bitching about this editorial at SCCL are focusing on women only. At no time does the author suggest that what she is saying applies to women only. I assumed while reading it that it just as equally applies to men.

Kimberely Handel said:

They’re [Christians are] called to have mediocre, god pleasing sex. Duh.

// end quote

That is also a misrepresentation of the article by Pietka.

Do the readers at Stuff Christian Culture Likes Facebook group lack reading comprehension? I’m starting to think so, based on these recurrent false summaries of Pietka’s essay I am seeing in the comment box under the article.

The author, Pietkawas not advocating that Christians should aim for bad or mediocre sex.

One of Pietka’s main points is that Christian culture, or the church, has promoted sex to such an unrealistic degree that two Christian virgins who marry, will, if they go by church teaching or Christian propaganda, expect the sex to be great from the very start – which will disillusion some, because the sex may not be satisfying.

And, that is a valid point.

These ex-Christian groups will celebrate ex-Christian women who blog or write articles on that very topic – the ones who say they believed purity teachings at one time, so stayed a virgin until marriage, but the married sex was lousy, ergo, they now hate purity teachings and write editorials criticizing those teachings.

The left or ex-Christians normally cheer on that sort of rhetoric by ex-Purity Culture advocates, but when a Christian author says the same thing in a Christian publication, as Pietka has done in this article at Relevant’s site, all the sudden, the liberal and ex-Christians turn on her, or on those points.

Melody Malaviarachchi said in one post at SCCL,

The author fails to consider that sometimes bad sex is indicative of a big problem in the marriage – like lack of respect. I didn’t see any compassion in this article for the woman who discovers her partner is too rough on their honeymoon night and has been brought up with the message that it’s her duty to grin and bear it like a good wife.
// end quote

Sometimes, liberal or ex-Christians expect far too much of a simple, one- page editorial by Christians on whatever topic.

If the author “failed” to discuss rough marital sex that some females may be uncomfortable with:
It was probably because the author was addressing every day, “garden variety,” bad sex and not every contingency under the sun (such as wives who find sex physically painful, or people who were sexually abused as kids and find adult sexual behavior triggering, and whatever other scenario you can imagine, and so on).

I did not see anything in Pietka’s editorial shaming women (or men), or discouraging them, for seeking psychological, marital, or physical medical help if they do find themselves in a situation like experiencing sex that is too rough, left-over issues from childhood sex abuse, etc.

Here you have an editorial that quite correctly points out that some Christian teachings about sex are unrealistic and can damage people later in life, something I would think that liberal and ex-Christians would agree with, but instead, over at SCCL, about 90% of them are mocking or lambasting this editorial.

I suppose the one main point that really sticks in the craw with some of them is the part towards the end, where the author says if you’re in a marriage that has bad sex, that is a cross to bear – I agree with her. I don’t think “bad sex” is a legitimate excuse to divorce someone or to have an affair.

If you feel entitled to great, frequent, mind-blowing sex , and don’t feel you’re getting it from your spouse, so you will divorce or have an affair over this issue, I think you are a selfish, shallow putz and have indeed turned sex into an idol.

I wouldn’t say the problem is with the author of the page. The problem appears to be with you, your attitude about sex and marriage.

Between the two options, though, I believe getting a divorce is better than having an affair – if someone is sexually miserable in a marriage, I’d rather they get a divorce first before porking around than sneak behind a spouse’s back in a marriage to pork around.

But either option is an indication that the person has made much too much from sex. You can live without sex.

By the way, for many years now, I have seen secular movies and T.V. shows make very similar points that the Relevant article was making about sex, and I don’t see the participants at SCCL complaining about it when it comes from secular sources.

I have sat through I don’t know how- many- TV sit coms or movies where one character finds out another hasn’t had sex for months, or, a married couple feels inadequate or like losers, because they discover their best- friend- married couple has super- duper, circus-crazy sex ten times a week, while they have “vanilla” sex just once per week…. and they wonder if they are losers or are messed up by comparison.

These shows and movies usually end with the message: don’t compare yourself sexually to others. If you’re happy having vanilla sex with your sweetie once a week, as opposed to having wild sex 10 times a week, don’t worry about it,  you’re normal and not a loser.

If you’re not going to complain when secular shows make these types of points about married sex, why would you complain when a Christian article makes the same points, as the Relevant article was doing?

I suspect it’s because the type of too-negative, grouchy, and sour puss readers at SCCL have a Pavlovian response to bark at any opinion or point if it comes from a Christian source.

Both secular and Christian culture have in fact made a deity out of sex and have presented it in an unrealistic light, points with which I would think ex- or Liberal- Christians at sites such as SCCL could appreciate and even agree with, but no, most of them complained about the article.

I think this goes back to the (Link): overly-cynical nature of that group.

Any time Steph (who owns the group) posts anything there, the regular visitors automatically assume she’s posting it (whatever it is) for them to criticize and mock, even though I’ve seen a handful of times where she was posting something not to mock it, but to support it, but her regular readers ASSUMED she was posting it to mock it, so they mocked away.

I think that says something about that group and how they view Christianity or life in general… their first reaction is almost always to rip or ridicule any article or photo she posts to that group to shreds.

I’ve seen a few readers get confused when she posts something new, and so they ask her, “Why are you posting this, for us to laugh at? Or are you supporting this?”

I would think that most of the readers there could find a lot in the Relevant article to agree with (I’ve seen them agree with such points when raised by ex-Christians), but they have such a deep, entrenched hatred of Christianity, I guess they refuse to give a practicing-Christian author kudos, even if they are warranted.


Related Posts:

(Link): General Observations Or Concerns About Stuff Christian Culture Likes Group and Blog

(Link):  According to One Poster, If You Are A Virgin, You Have Wasted Your Life or Time – talk about someone who’s made sex into a deity!

(Link):   Weak Argument Against Celibacy / Virginity / Sexual Purity by the Anti Sexual Purity Gestapo – Sexual Compatibility or Incompatibility – (ie, Taking Human Beings For Test Spins – Humans As Sexual Commodities) (Part 2)

(Link):  Married Virgin Asexual Woman Allows Her Husband To Have Sex with Other Women – Why Christians Need to Emphasize Sexual Self Control For Everyone, Not Just Teen Girls

(Link):  CDC Report: Virgin Teens Much Healthier Than Their Sexually Active Peers (2016 Report)

(Link):  Newlyweds Forced to Be Celibate After Bride Diagnosed With Cervical Cancer Just Days After Honeymoon

(Link):  We’re Casual About Sex and Serious About Consent. But Is It Working? by J. Zimmerman

(Link):  Abortion Widens the Gender Gap and Exploits Women – editorial via the Public Discourse Site

(Link):  Some Researchers Argue that Shame Should Be Used to Treat Sexual Compulsions

(Link): When Adult Virginity and Adult Celibacy Are Viewed As Inconvenient or As Impediments

(Link): Perverted Christian Couple Wants to “Wife Swap” (For Sex) With Other Christian Couple – Why Christians Need to Uphold Chastity / Celibacy For All People Even Married Couples Not Just Teens

(Link): New ‘Christian Swingers’ Dating Site Offers Faithful Couples Chance to ‘Hookup’

(Link): Letter to Advice Columnist: Husband Upset That Wife Masturbates – Marriage Doesn’t Guarantee Hot Regular Sex For Both or Either Partner, Contra Usual Christian Claims

(Link):  Christian Swingers: Body-building Christian Couple Advocates and Practices Wife Swapping – and the wife calls this lifestyle “pure”

(Link): Marcotte on Anyone Choosing To Be a Virgin Until Marriage: “It’s a Silly Idea” – What Progressive Christians, Conservative Christians, Non Christians, and Salon’s Amanda Marcotte Gets Wrong About Christian Views on Virginity

(Link): Salon Author Amanda Marcotte Thinks Media Shouldn’t Judge Women’s Sexuality But She Has Mocked Women Over Their Sexual Choices Before (To Remain Virgins)

(Link):   “‘I Kissed Dating Goodbye’ [Book] Told Me to Stay Pure Until Marriage. I Still Have a Stain on My Heart” – Regarding: Dating Book by Author Josh Harris (with other related links about the IKDG book) and Criticizing “Purity Culture”

(Link):  Marcotte on Anyone Choosing To Be a Virgin Until Marriage: “It’s a Silly Idea” – What Progressive Christians, Conservative Christians, Non Christians, and Salon’s Amanda Marcotte Gets Wrong About Christian Views on Virginity

(Link):   Hypocrisy: Secular Pundits Judge Christian Sexuality: Josh Duggar’s So-Called Vanilla Sexual Preferences Deemed Dull

(Link):  Why are young feminists so clueless about sex? by M. Wente

(Link):  After Evangelical Virgins Marry, Then What? (New Study Discusses Problems Male Christians Have After Marriage With Sex)

(Link): Getting Married Does Not Necessarily Guarantee Frequent Hot Satisfying Sexy Sex / (also discussed): Gender and Sex Stereotypes (article)

(Link):  Problems Created by Conservative Christian Teachings About Virginity, Sex, and Marriage: Christian Couple Who Were Virgins At Marriage Are Experiencing Sexual Problems – Re: UnVeiled Wife (Marriage does not guarantee great sex)

(Link):  Self Control – everyone has it, is capable of it, but most choose not to use it (New Study Says Conservatives Have Better Self Control Than Liberals)

(Link):  Virginity is a Sacred Choice, Not a Shameful Status by C. Martin / Giving Sex to a Man is Not A Guarantee for a Lasting Relationship – Contra Comic Chelsea Handler

(Link):  Secular Liberal Author Doesn’t Think A Woman Choosing to Be Celibate is A Form of Feminism – Especially if Motivated in Part by Religious Convictions

(Link):  Teenagers Given Condoms at School Likelier to Become Pregnant and Get STDs / STIs: 2016 Study

(Link):  Secular, Left Wing Feminist Site That Is Against Slut Shaming But For Casual Sex Publishes Article That Inadvertently Makes A Case Against Casual Sex

(Link): Christians Who Attack Virginity Celibacy and Sexual Purity – and specifically Russell D. Moore and James M. Kushiner

(Link): Viral Virgin Brelyn Bowman Talks Purity Backlash From Christians, New Book ‘No Ring, No Ting’ (Interview) 

(Link): When Adult Virginity and Adult Celibacy Are Viewed As Inconvenient or As Impediments

(Link): I Shouldn’t Need An Excuse To Be A Virgin – (Secular Editorial Defends Virginity – More Rare Than a Unicorn Sighting)

(Link):  An Example of Mocking Adult Virginity Via Twitter (Virginity Used As Insult)

(Link): Celibate Shaming from an Anti- Slut Shaming Secular Feminist Site (Hypocrisy) Feminists Do Not Support All Choices

(Link):  WashPost Columnist: ‘Ghostbusters’ Haters Are ‘Virgin Losers’ – (via NewsBusters Site); Both the Right and Left Wing Get Some things Wrong About This

(Link): Sometimes Shame Guilt and Hurt Feelings Over Sexual Sins Is a Good Thing – but – Emergents, Liberals Who Are Into Virgin and Celibate Shaming

(Link): The Christian and Non Christian Phenomenon of Virgin Shaming and Celibate Shaming

(Link):  An Example of Mocking Adult Virginity Via Twitter (Virginity Used As Insult)

(Link): Anti Virginity Editorial by Christian Blogger Tim Challies – Do Hurt / Shame Feelings or Sexual Abuse Mean Christians Should Cease Supporting Virginity or Teaching About Sexual Purity

(Link):  Why Are Young Feminists so Clueless About Sex? by M. Wente 

(Link): Christian Double Standards on Celibacy – Hetero Singles Must Abstain from Sex but Not Homosexual Singles

(Link): How Christians Have Failed on Teaching Maturity and Morality Vis A Vis Marriage / Parenthood – Used as Markers of Maturity

(Link):  Sex Regarded as Passage Into Adulthood

(Link): Douglas Wilson and Christian Response FAIL to Sexual Sin – No Body Can Resist Sex – supposedly – Re: Celibacy

(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): Slut-Shaming Is Bad—But The Overreaction Against It Also Hurts Women by J. Doverspike

(Link):  How Pre-Martial Sex Negatively Impacts People: The Incest Letter

(Link): Fornication or Previous Marriages Can Negatively Impact Other Relationships Later – Another Example or Two (via Ask Amy, Hax)

(Link): Typical Erroneous Teaching About Adult Celibacy Rears Its Head Again: To Paraphrase Speaker at Ethics and Public Policy Center: Lifelong Celibacy is “heroic ethical standard that is not expected of heteros, so it should not be expected of homosexuals”

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s