Love-Sick Teenager Who Won’t Take No For an Answer is Finally Shut Down by his Ex-Girlfriend’s FATHER in an Epic Text Exchange – Men of All Ages Need To Learn to Handle Rejection and to Respect Other People’s Boundaries in Dating

Love-Sick Teenager Who Won’t Take No For an Answer is Finally Shut Down by his Ex-Girlfriend’s FATHER in an Epic Text Exchange – Men of All Ages Need To Learn to Handle Rejection and to Respect Other People’s Boundaries in Dating

If there are any MEN reading this – especially men over the age of 21 – you need to realize that some of you are just as bad in your online behavior, especially on dating sites and apps, as this 15 year old kid is.

See how obnoxiously persistent this teen kid is, how he keeps dragging this exchange on and on with the teen girl’s father? This is how 90% of you men over the age of 21 behave towards grown women online, especially on dating sites.

You men refuse to take “no” from women for an answer, or to choose to view a woman turning you down as the ultimate insult.

You men take rejection by women far too personally, and send negative, nasty, insulting comments to some women, all for merely politely turning you down on a site, for refusing to give you their number, or going on a date with you.

Women you don’t know (single women) don’t owe you squat in life – women don’t owe you a smile, flirtation, chit chat, their phone numbers, sex, emotional support, or dates.

You will be turned down as you go through life by various women you flirt with or ask on dates – it’s a reality. Get over it. Learn to let go, accept defeat graciously, and stop taking it so damn personally.

Learn to respect other people’s boundaries. If a woman or girl tells you “no” or “not interested,” just let it go. Don’t send the girl or woman nasty, insulting messages if or when she turns you down. Just move along.

Continue reading “Love-Sick Teenager Who Won’t Take No For an Answer is Finally Shut Down by his Ex-Girlfriend’s FATHER in an Epic Text Exchange – Men of All Ages Need To Learn to Handle Rejection and to Respect Other People’s Boundaries in Dating”

Advertisements

General Observations Or Concerns About Stuff Christian Culture Likes Group and Blog

This is kind of a follow up to my previous post about SCCL (link at bottom – the group was recently mocking the T. Burpo book).

I found at least one blog post chronicling some of the abusive tendencies within the SCCL group (see link below) – this is so odd.

The SCCL like group members depict themselves as champions of the hurt and abused, but they sometimes bully and abuse other people themselves.

In addition, Drury (who is the owner and maintainer of the SCCL like groups, Twitter account, and blog), who tries to present herself as a feminist, and who also tries to come off as sensitive to homosexuals and more recently, transgendered people and their concerns, has made comments some of them have found offensive on several occasions on Twitter and/or Facebook, but she was reluctant to apologize.

You can read examples here:

(Link): For Surivivors of Christian Fundamentalism seeking refuge in Stuff Christian Culture Likes (group / blog)

A person (Shelly) on that blog left this comment (excerpt from her comment):

Another couple of people [at SCCL] were triggery for me, as they did shit that reminded me of the abuse I received when I was younger, and I no longer felt safe staying there, knowing that

she was perfectly fine to call out the abuse within the church system but wouldn’t call it out within the page that was supposed to be a safe place for the abused.

So I unliked the page, unfollowed her SCCL Twitter (I had unfollowed her personal one after t-gate), and stopped following the blog.

(end excerpts)

I’ve noticed the same thing.

It’s a group that scolds churches or Christian culture for perpetuating certain damaging views, or for allowing or committing abuse, but pretty much allows the regular members to bash the new-comers to the group who may speak up and disagree with whatever topic is under discussion.

I never joined the SCCL Facebook group. I may have left one post at one SCCL blog page once a long time ago (I don’t recall), but something never sat quite right with me about the types of people who post at either the group or blog, so I didn’t join.

The majority of SCCL members can seem kind-hearted and supportive most of the time, but then turn like sharks the next instant on an individual who isn’t keeping with the group think.

I once read a blog post about how even blogs / groups intended for survivors (survivors of church abuse or whatever) can turn out to be just as abusive as the church or cult the person has left. (That post may have also been on Blog on the Way, I can’t remember where I saw it).

If you have been hurt by a Christian, a denomination, or a church, be very, very careful which other groups you choose to align yourself with in the aftermath, or for support or healing.

The group you choose to make your “new home” or support system just may turn on you in the future.

I have seen some people post perfectly polite, fine questions or comments on SCCL Facebook page and get rudely ripped to shreds, ganged up on, by several SCCL members at once over it.

It’s not pretty, and some of the SCCL members, at times, act just as horribly as the fundamentalists, evangelicals, sexists and “homophobes” (what a stupid, inaccurate word, by the way) they complain about.

There are also some hard-core atheists who sporadically show up to SCCL to bitterly complain about theism, the Bible and Christians, and they are some of the most condescending, obnoxious jerks I’ve come across. They usually get shouted down by other SCCL members, but they do post there on occasion.

There is a Christian guy, an older gentlemen (his personal profile photo shows a white-haired guy) named “Warren” who participates at SCCL.

I’d say the guy makes good sense about 95% of the time, but he still gets shouted down and treated rudely by the SCCL regulars – because, in knee jerk reaction, they recoil at anything that smacks of Christian or traditional values.

Continue reading “General Observations Or Concerns About Stuff Christian Culture Likes Group and Blog”

Duggar Family Visits Fertility Specialist To Have Another Baby

Duggar Family Visits Fertility Specialist To Have Another Baby

The mind boggles. I do believe this is nuclear family and baby worship taken to an insane degree.

The Duggars, if I remember correctly, are part of the “Quiverfull” movement. They already have 19, or 20 kids.

(Link): Duggars visit fertility doctor to explore having 20th kid

(Link): ‘Am I ready to catch another baby?’ Mother-of-19 Michelle Duggar visits ‘high-risk’ fertility doctor in hopes of having MORE children aged 47

    Her chances of conceiving are less than five per cent and her odds of having a child with down syndrome are ‘one in four or five’

    This marks the longest time in 27 years that Mrs Duggar has not been pregnant

    The strictly Christian family does not believe in birth control
    By ANNABEL FENWICK ELLIOTT

    PUBLISHED: 10:34 EST, 20 May 2014 | UPDATED: 12:07 EST, 20 May 2014

    Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar, parents to 19 children already, have visited a fertility doctor in a bid to see whether they are ‘ready’ for another baby.

    ‘We would love more children if God saw fit to give us more, I just want to make sure that I am ready to catch a baby if that would happen’, explains Mrs Duggar, 47, star of 19 Kids and Counting, in a clip on Today.com from tonight’s episode of the TLC show.

    ‘My goal is to find out where I am in my life, hormonally speaking,’ she says of visiting Dr Paul Wendel, an OB-GYN specializing in high-risk pregnancies.

    Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar, parents to 19 children already, have visited a fertility doctor in a bid to see whether they are ‘ready’ for another baby.

    ‘We would love more children if God saw fit to give us more, I just want to make sure that I am ready to catch a baby if that would happen’, explains Mrs Duggar, 47, star of 19 Kids and Counting, in a clip on Today.com from tonight’s episode of the TLC show.

    ‘My goal is to find out where I am in my life, hormonally speaking,’ she says of visiting Dr Paul Wendel, an OB-GYN specializing in high-risk pregnancies.

    Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar, parents to 19 children already, have visited a fertility doctor in a bid to see whether they are ‘ready’ for another baby.

    ‘We would love more children if God saw fit to give us more, I just want to make sure that I am ready to catch a baby if that would happen’, explains Mrs Duggar, 47, star of 19 Kids and Counting, in a clip on Today.com from tonight’s episode of the TLC show.

    ‘My goal is to find out where I am in my life, hormonally speaking,’ she says of visiting Dr Paul Wendel, an OB-GYN specializing in high-risk pregnancies.

—————–
Related posts:

(Link): Population Decline and Bay-bee Obsession – Patriarchy, Quiverfull, Traditional Family, Christian Gender Complementarian Nuts

(Link): Otherhood – An overlooked demographic – the Childless and Childfree Women and Singles Especially Women Who Had Hoped to Marry and Have Kids But Never Met Mr. Right (links)

(Link): Parenthood Does Not Make People More Loving Mature Godly Ethical Caring or Responsible (One Stop Thread)

(Link): Loving the child-free people in your church by S. Burden

(Link): Study: Couples Without Children Have Happier Marriages / Study: Having Kids Ruins Your Life

(Link): Widows and Childless and Childfree Have Better Well Being Than Married Couples and Parents says new study

(Link): Cultural Discrimination Against Childless and Childfree Women – and link to an editorial by a Childless Woman

(Link): Study: Couples Without Children Have Happier Marriages / Study: Having Kids Ruins Your Life

(Link): Christian Patriarchy Group: God Demands You Marry and Have Babies to Defeat Paganism and Satan. Singles and the Childless Worthless (in this worldview).

(Link): Lies The Church Tells Single Women (by Sue Bohlin)

(Link): The Isolating Power of Family-Centered Language (How churches exclude singles and the childless) by E A Dause

(Link): Never Married Christians Over Age 35 who are childless Are More Ignored Than Divorced or Infertile People or Single Parents

(Link): If the Family Is Central, Christ Isn’t

(Link): Misapplication of Biblical Verses About Fertility (also mentions early marriage) – a paper by J. McKeown

(Link): Christian Patriarchy Group: God Demands You Marry and Have Babies to Defeat Paganism and Satan. Singles and the Childless Worthless (in this worldview).

(Link): Married Preacher, Father of Eight Kids (and promoter of “Family Values” and Leader of wacko Quiverfull- and- Patriarchy type groups that promotes idolatry of “the family” and Marriage and of Having Lots of Children), Used Nanny as Sex Object – update on Phillips story

(Link): The Irrelevancy To Single or Childless or Childfree Christian Women of Biblical Gender Complementarian Roles / Biblical Womanhood Teachings

Mother Entitlement – Selfish, Self-Centered Mothers Complain that They Are Not Getting ENOUGH Mother Worship from Culture, Church, or Family on Mother’s Day and Some Moms Complain About Churches Showing Compassion to Childless Women

Mother Entitlement – Selfish, Self-Centered Mothers Complain that They Are Not Getting ENOUGH Mother Worship from Culture, Church, or Family on Mother’s Day and Some Moms Complain About Churches Showing Compassion to Childless Women

I remember seeing posts like this (see link below) last year at Mother’s Day – there are actually mothers out there, including Christian and Mormon ones, who feel that their churches do not do ENOUGH to honor them on Mommy’s Day.

Some mothers I’ve seen go further than that and insult or mock childless (or childfree) women in the comments of blogs that ask people to be more sensitive to the feelings of non mothers.

These bitter, hate-filled mothers spit out, on such blogs, comments such as, “Screw the childless women, what about me, I work hard as a mom all year and DESERVE some recognition.”

Yep, they are that blunt and nasty about it in their comments. (I have a real sample below, with a link to said blog, but it’s by a guy, not a lady, but it’s representative of the type of crap angry mothers who whine about being under-appreciated leave on blogs).

No, I am not exaggerating, I have indeed seen a smattering of such vitriolic comments by mothers on various blogs the last two years, even on Christian blogs by women who claim they are Christian!

Even though churches WORSHIP motherhood 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and hype it up on Mother’s Day itself even more so, these selfish mommy dolts think churches should worship mommy-hood EVEN MORE than they already do.

Meanwhile, never-married, childless, divorced, widowed, and childfree adult women get absolutely NO HOLIDAYS in THEIR honor, so why should I care if mommies don’t feel honored enough on Mother’s Day?

Some mothers are the most selfish, hateful people on the face of the planet.

Some mothers expect and demand everyone around them in their families and at church to make a big fuss over them.

I thought motherhood was supposed to be its own reward?

If motherhood is so lofty, so noble, so high and mighty, and it supposedly makes a woman totally content, and you buy into Christian swill about mom-hood being a woman’s only, or most, godly role in life, why do you, little Ms. Entitled Mommy, need or want others to validate the position for you, by throwing you parties and handing you carnations in church services?

I thought Christians said parenthood automatically makes a person more godly and giving than being single and child-free, or it works out that way over a period of years?

That is not so, because I see many mothers online whining like little children that they don’t get enough attention and presents from their spouses or preachers on the holiday.

I cannot believe how self absorbed and self centered some mothers are.

Here is a link to a blog page by a Mormon woman –
Note that while this woman is a Mormon but her points sound about identical to the average Baptist, Reformed, or Evangelical women I see online; just swap out “Mormon” with the word “Christian” and it reads the same:

(Link): Taking Mom Out of Mother’s Day – Have We Gone Too Far?

Excerpts:

    In a desire to be sensitive toward women who are unable to have children I’m concerned that, perhaps, on Mother’s Day, we may be going a bit too far. Not that we can ever be too compassionate in acknowledging the pain that surely accompanies the inability to have children, but at the same time we shouldn’t need to pull back in giving the much needed praise, encouragement and recognition of Moms’, who are actually raising, or have raised, children — and all that that entails.

  • …In order to be politically sensitive, in all circumstances, where the issue of how women fulfill their role as mothers comes into play, it is my observation that we are becoming increasingly comfortable with relegating actual Moms’ to the back of the bus — even on Mother’s Day. And frankly, that kind of bothers me.

Here was the comment I left on her page (but it did not show up last I checked):

    Never-married and childless women such as myself get ZERO holidays for us. None. There are no cards for us. No cakes, no brunches.

  • Churches never have a “recognize and celebrate mature, celibate, never married, childless women” type of service, so I have a very hard time feeling sorry for mothers who feel their churches or communities are not doing enough to honor motherhood.

Continue reading “Mother Entitlement – Selfish, Self-Centered Mothers Complain that They Are Not Getting ENOUGH Mother Worship from Culture, Church, or Family on Mother’s Day and Some Moms Complain About Churches Showing Compassion to Childless Women”

Stop Rewarding People For Their Failure – Christians Speaking Out of Both Sides of Their Mouths About Sexual Sin – Choices and Actions and How You Teach This Stuff Has Consequences – Allowing Sinners To Re-Define Biblical Terms and Standards

Christians Speaking Out of Both Sides of Their Mouths About Sexual Sin – Choices and Actions and How You Teach This Stuff Has Consequences

The over-riding point I wanted to make in my post from yesterday, but I do not think I was clear enough about it (I was half asleep when I wrote the last blog page) is that Christians speak out of both sides of their mouth on the sexual sins front, but then, ironically, have the nerve to complain about sexual sins.

On the one hand, a lot of American, socially conservative Christians complain, whine, and cry about the high rates of fornication, adultery, and homosexual sex and homosexual marriage in American culture, but then turn around and downplay, ridicule, or water down the Bible’s teachings about sexual purity, virginity, and celibacy in their blogs, magazines, sermons, television appearances, and pod casts.

If you want to know one reason homosexuality has taken off or received an embrace among evangelicals to the degree it has, and why there is more fornication now, even among Christians, it’s because the church does not esteem, defend, and respect adult singleness, virginity, and celibacy.

Good lord knows churches either insult adult singles or refuse to help them, something I’ve written of before in several posts, including this one:

Ignoring adult singles and their needs, a respectable amount of whom are staying celibate, or insulting adult singles, and treating them like second class citizens, acting as though singleness and celibacy are not as good and worthy as marriage, or acting as though adult singles are failures (and many married Christians do in fact behave in these ways or adhere to these stereotypes), is contributing to the rise of sexual sin in the church.

Even socially conservative Christians have taken it upon themselves within the last several years to be influenced by emergents, liberal Christians, and post-evangelicals to water-down virginity and celibacy, if not ceasing to preach about the worth of both altogether.

These groups – no longer the post-evangelicals and liberal Christians only, but also the conservatives now – are attempting to re-define terms and words, as well.

Some want to do away with the word “fornication,” for example, because they feel it is too old-fashioned or too judgmental.

Starting around ten years ago, I started hearing Christians on Christian talk shows use phrases such as “born again virgin” or “secondary virginity” which are phrases that are applied to Christians who have committed sexual sin, to make them feel less guilty about having sexual failings.

I do believe that the terms “sexual purity” and “virginity” are inter-changable, but I am seeing more and more Christians try to divide the two, by explaining that sexual purity is not tantamount to virginity – and I disagree.

That is not to say that a fornicator cannot cease having pre-marital sex, because a fornicator can make a change and stop fornicating. That is true.

But, it is also true that virginity is a form of sexual purity. But more and more Christians today are denying that “virginity = sexual purity,” because a lot of self professing Christians have failed to keep their virginity intact until marriage.

It’s so strange to me, and an abject travesty, that Christians are seeking to change biblical teachings, to move the goal posts on what constitutes acceptable and un-acceptable behavior, all based upon people’s failings, sins, and feelings.

It seems to me that robbery is on the increase in the last several years.

Why are we not seeing these same Christians, who are so willing to pardon sexual sin and downplay celibacy – saying things like,

    “Let’s not refer to robbery as “stealing” anymore, let’s call it by a euphemism, so as not to hurt the feelings of bank robbers. Let’s stop sermonizing against theft, because if we keep insisting the God of the Bible is opposed to theft, it might hurt the feelings of all the kleptomaniacs out there. Let’s not positively teach about, or encourage, honesty and holding down an honest day’s labor at a 9- to- 5 job.”

Why would you re-define standards and rules, all to spare the feelings of people who fail to keep those rules and standards, who do not even attempt to keep the rules?

If a person keeps failing at something (as in sexual abstinence), rather than encourage that person to buck up and improve, the majority of the Christian culture very oddly has decided a winning strategy is to go the opposite direction, which is quite un-biblical, and say, “hey, we get it – you cannot help but fail in this area, so don’t even try. Just give up, cave in, and later call yourself a ‘born again virgin.'”

FFS, Christian people. You cannot sit there and say virginity, sexual purity, and celibacy are really not all that important, as is your habit, and tell people you expect them to fail at biblical sexual ethics, then turn around and complain that homosexual and hetero fornication rates are sky rocketing.

Continue reading “Stop Rewarding People For Their Failure – Christians Speaking Out of Both Sides of Their Mouths About Sexual Sin – Choices and Actions and How You Teach This Stuff Has Consequences – Allowing Sinners To Re-Define Biblical Terms and Standards”

Insensitive Valentine Meme – you can’t feel sad about being single if your parents are still living

Insensitive Valentine Meme

I’ve seen an insensitive Valentine meme go around this year, on several sites.

I didn’t save a copy of it, but it’s some text that says something like, “Single this year? Don’t have a Valentine? Well some people don’t have a Mom. Their Mom is dead. Some don’t have a Dad. Their dad is dead. So shut the fuck up about being alone on Valentine’s.”

Yeah, well, my dear mother has been dead a few years now, and I miss her terribly AND I am still single and would like marriage.

So, to whomever dreamed that meme up, be aware there are people seeing it who experienced both kinds of losses.

I can only guess that whomever dreamed that meme up recently lost a parent (or both), and I know that hurts like hell if you were close to either or both, but it’s not cool to bash people who hurt for being single.

Again, my mother is dead, and it was a painful experience for me to endure, harder than anything I’ve ever dealt with, but if you are reading this and both your parents are still alive, but you hurt because you are alone and would like to be married and Valentine’s Day bummed you out – you wish you had a Valentine but do not – you have my sympathy. And I mean that, that is not sarcasm. I am sorry you are single on Valentine’s Day and found it a difficult day to get through.

I think it’s pretty lousy for someone with a dead parent to chide someone else who has living parents, “you can’t be sad about being single since you still have your parents.”

Sorry, no.

That was like after my mother died, some Christians I ran into would do the same thing, and it was just as bad; they would say things like, “You actually have it pretty good. Your Mom may be dead, but at least you’re not an orphan in Africa.”

As if that made the pain over my Mom being gone any easier to bear? It didn’t. It was insulting.

I realize if your parent recently died and you hear people complain about being single on Valentine’s it can sound moronic… it does sound trivial, doesn’t it? You are missing your loved one who is never coming back, but some single guy or lady you know is crying or complaining because they don’t have a sweetie to bring them a box of chocolates or out on a dinner date. I get it.

Shortly after my mother died, I had one friend who kept bitching and literally crying over stupid stuff like her cell phone battery died, her Play Station unit broke, and another friend would complain over trivial things, like her cat kept puking up hair balls on her carpet. Yes, those sorts of issues did sound pretty trivial compared to my loss. So I do get it.

On the other hand… Don’t tell people they don’t have a right to their pain or grief just because it’s not identical to yours. Some singles, if they’re about 35 or older, may be experiencing Valentine’s Day a lot like death.

Once you get to your mid or late 30s and you’re still not married, it can be crushing. You had really hoped to marry. Your expectation of not being married yet can feel very similar to loss, like loss of a loved one. You may go through a mourning process that is similar… it may take a few years to come to terms with still being single.

So I would not so easily brush off or dismiss every single’s tears shed on Valentine’s over being single. It’s actually rather cruel to tell singles who are having a struggle over being single to just STFU.

I don’t know. It just seemed kind of shitty, rude, and insensitive to me that someone would make a meme saying, “Hey, one of my parents is dead, so nobody else has a right to cry or be sad about anything else!” type thing.
———————–
Related post:

(Link): Preacher John Hagee’s Insensitive “GET OVER IT” Sermon – Christians remain ignorant and insensitive to those who suffer tragedy, pain, or mental health problems

Your Preacher Sucks – and People Have a Right To Say So And Explain Why

Your Preacher Sucks

Did you know that your preacher is not God?

Did you know that the New Testament says that Satan poses as an angel of light?

Did you know that the New Testament makes reference to wolves in sheeps’ clothing, that is, false teachers who infiltrate the pulpit and churches, for the express purpose of fleecing the flock, getting rich, or taking sexual advantage of the ladies, or for pushing their false doctrines? Yeah? You were aware of all that?

There are sure a lot of Christians on the internet who don’t act like they are aware of any of this.

Because as soon as anyone says anything critical about a preacher or that preacher’s theology, no matter how politely said criticism is stated, sooner or later, a follower of that preacher will show up on that forum, blog, or site to leave a message – varying from very nasty, downright hateful, to a more chiding tone of, “You’re being such a meanie, Pastor John Doe is such a gawdly man, how dare you criticize Pastor Doe! Who do you think you are?”

It makes me want to barf.

No man – NO MAN – is above criticism, and I don’t care if it’s a famous preacher or who it is.

By the way, this blog post also serves as as reminder about internet safety.

Continue reading “Your Preacher Sucks – and People Have a Right To Say So And Explain Why”

I Blog For Me, Myself, And I – Not For You. Not to get your approval.

I Blog For Me, Myself, And I – not for you. Not to get your approval.

Pertinent links:

—- I BLOG FOR ME, NOT YOU —–

I’ve already made note of this in other blog pages, but here it is again:
I use this blog for me.

I blog predominantly for me, not you.

I’m not interested in pleasing other people. I’m not looking to get a large, regular audience with this blog. If I do, okay. But that is not my goal.

I use this blog to vent publicly. I use it as a journal of sorts.

I’m not here to get other people’s approval.

I am not here to get other people’s input on how they think I should blog or express my views about anything.

This is why I don’t appreciate these condescending morons

    (note: I don’t mind so much the folks who express concern and sympathy for me who are polite. I am talking about the ones who chew me out and who are condescending)

, who stop by this blog and lecture me on how I may “come across” to other people, or,
(and these are some of the sorts of comments I get in the blog posts by visitors that I delete, and they later leave new posts complaining about being deleted, which I only skim the first sentence, then delete, and block them)…
I don’t appreciate these condescending morons …

    who say they think I should change my approach on the blog;

    that they will stop following this blog unless I change quality “X” about the blog or my behavior; e.g.,

    they object to the language I use on the blog lately (ie, cuss words); or,

    they make repeated nutty, crazy, unreasonable, rude demands and threats, such as they will un-follow the blog unless they get my real name (see (Link): this post for more on that); or,

    that they are not happy with my “attitude”

If you go back to the blog archives, for the first year or two I had this blog, I was “Little Miss Sunshine and Sweetness.”

If you don’t like the newer version of me and how I blog in 2013 / 2014, go back and read the blog posts from 2010, 2011.

My 2010 – 2011 posts are very genteel, G-rated, and relatively snark-free.

I’ve noticed since becoming more agnostic – oh hell, even when I was a full blown Christian – that many Christians are uncomfortable with snark, sarcasm, brashness, assertiveness, and people (especially WOMEN) who say it like it is (and I’ve admitted many a time to being a woman on this blog, so you know my gender).

Many Christians seem to be more comfortable with Christians (especially females) who never utter a cross, negative word about anything or anyone, and who are sweetness and light all the time about everything.

I didn’t understand that view, or like it, even when I was a complete Christian.

I’ve always had a biting sense of humor and a negative bent to my nature but had to hide it while a Christian because other Christians frown on it, or act uncomfortable about it.

Most Christians are codependent, by the way – that is why many of you Christians are ill at ease with sarcasm, bluntness, directness, assertiveness, and confrontation.

Some of my views on some topics have changed since I first started blogging with this blog in 2010.

People have a tendency to only read newer posts (from 2013 / 2014), or to react to only the ones that they find most offensive.

Once more, let this fact sink in:
I am not blogging for YOU.

I am primarily blogging FOR ME.

I figure if preachers get wind of some of the blog posts here and change their habits from being marriage-centric as a result of seeing my views, that’s great.

If marriage obsessed preachers don’t see the blog at all, or do and yet remain unchanged, oh well, c’est la vie.

But again, I blog primarily FOR ME.

You are only getting a SLICE of my life, views, and my personality on THIS PARTICULAR blog.

Continue reading “I Blog For Me, Myself, And I – Not For You. Not to get your approval.”

Entitled Controlling Bridezilla Makes Outrageous Picky Demands of Her Bridesmades

Entitled Controlling Bridezilla Makes Outrageous Picky Demands of Her Bridesmades

A bride to be sends out a series of incredibly obnoxious e-mails.

I have to wonder about demanding, petty bitches like this who get husbands, but much nicer women can’t even get a date. Other people in the comments wondered the same thing and surmised she is either super model quality in the looks dept, or she comes from a crazy wealthy family.

(Link): This Terrifying Bride Is Only Joking Except When She’s Not

I am only going to reproduce the first few e-mails this Bridezilla sent to her friends. If you want to see all of her amazingly entitled, bratty e-mails, please click the link above.

Excerpts:

    Everyone has a friend—a terrifying, beautiful friend—who wields humor the way ranchers wield cattle prods; who jokes, and teases, and Just kidding!s her underlings (“BFFs!”) toward the cliff-edge of nervous breakdown; whose sadism is impossible to fight against because it’s just a joke, why can’t you take a joke? Sometimes, that friend gets married.

    The following emails were forwarded to us by a bridesmaid still dazed from her six-month tour in the war zone of her gal pal’s elegant destination wedding. They are a master class in the joking-but-not-joking-seriously-DON’T-cut-your-hair-without-my-permission style of friend management, where every “jest” (no bridesmaids were actually force-fed protein shakes to gain weight) is counteracted by a very real “offense” (one bridesmaid was asked to take diet pills).

    All identifying information has been changed; emphasized words and phrases appear as they did in the correspondence (though we have swapped the fluorescent pink of the original text for a more subdued black). So sit back, pop a diet pill because you’re fat, and then pop a chill pill because can’t you take a joke, fattie? Jeez.

The emails from the Bridezilla, this is E-Mail 1:

    Welcome to my bridal party. I thought today would be a great day to start this chain, as it is officially six months until my wedding day.

    I just wanted to go over some ground rules.

    1. Weigh-ins will begin in 3 weeks. I for one would really like some time after Thanksgiving to make my body forget about what it consumed, so I thought I would give you guys some cushion room

    2. No-one can be skinner than the bride. That means Kelly and Lizzie will be on a protein weight gainer diet exclusively until May. I will have the nutritionist call you to discuss diet plans.

    3. Bed times leading up to the wedding will be strictly enforced. I absolutely cannot have you all have saggy, baggy eyes. I am sure you all understand.

    4. Swimwear attire: I would like everyone to wear matching bikinis that have rhinestones on the tushie spelling out “maids,” which brings me to my next point.

    5. All bikinis leading up to the wedding must be strapless bandeaus. I cannot have terrible tan lines in strapless dresses.

    6. Sunscreen: We need to make sure you ladies look lovely and radiant and not red and reptile like. Pack accordingly.

    7. Speeches: We all know what happened at Taylor’s wedding. So if you plan to make a toast, please submit it for approval and revision, no later than 4 weeks prior to the wedding.

    8. Hair cuts: If you plan on chopping off your locks, please submit your proposed new look prior to any actions (this applies to coloring as well).

    9. Attendance: is strongly requested at all events but I will make some exceptions on a case by case basis.

    10. Ink: Consider this a moratorium on future tattoos until June 5th. Those of you with visible artwork will be privately contacted with (temporary) removal instructions.

    Thank you for your time and consideration. Should everyone abide by these minor requests, I am sure we will all have a memorable weekend.

    Just kidding bitches, well, sorta. love you all,

    [The Bride]

E-Mail 2

    Girls,

    It has been brought to my attention (picture proof) that one of my Maids is in violation of Rule 8 of the Bridal Party Contract. Rule 8 clearly stipulates that “If you plan on chopping off your locks, please submit your proposed new look prior to any actions (this applies to coloring as well).”

    While I am sure this was a minor oversight by my bad little bee, I would like to remind everyone of the ramifications of violating any of the aforementioned rules. Failure to adhere to my commandments, can result in Bridalparty banishment!

    I would appreciate a call from the hair-color-changing culprit immediately, with a proposed remedy by the end of the day.

    Respectfully yours.

    The Queen Bee

E-mail 6,

    Hello my workout bees,

    I was thinking that we should start a daily google docs, where everyone can update in real time their daily calorie content. Due to exams, I have not been the very best at requesting our weekly weigh-ins but thought the food calculator would be a great way for me to monitor everyone’s caloric in take. Thoughts?

    I hope everyone is doing well. Also, there will be a prize to the most obedient wedding bee 🙂 Kinda like an incentive.

    Love you all & and see you all in 17 days!!!

Follow up: BITTER GUY Replies to ‘It’s Okay To Call A Guy Creepy (article) / Little Sympathy for Ugly Single Guys’

Follow up: Bitter Guy Replies to ‘It’s Okay To Call A Guy Creepy (article) / Little Sympathy for Ugly Single Guys’

Someone calling himself “OffTheCuff” left a comment on my previous post, (Link): “It’s Okay To Call A Guy Creepy (article) / Little Sympathy for Ugly Single Guys.” I only skimmed it so far as to see the “you sound so bitter” phrase in his post and then deleted it. (I did not read the whole remark.)

The funny thing is, I’m not bitter and did not feel bitter when writing that post. I was pointing out in (Link): the last post that the ugly- to- average looking guys who complain on the internet that they can’t get dates, because they assume all women want Brad Pitt look-alikes, sound bitter themselves.

My main point was, though, that such men are hypocritical.

1. The majority of ugly, dweeby, scrawny, nerdy, socially inept, or obese males who complain that they can’t get dates often feel entitled to women who look like movie star Angelia Jolie. They chase after Angelina Jolie clones and get angry when such women expect them to be at Brad-Pitt-level-good-looks.

2. Women have been judged, and rejected, based on their looks for years and years in American culture, so why do men feel they should be immune for being judged by women for their physical appearance?

I also explained in my previous post that I went through the awkward-looking phase in my early teens and was cruelly picked on by males in school, but by my late teens, I lost weight, was wearing make-up and males were flirting with me by that time.

Men of all ages still respond to me on dating sites now, where I have several recent photos of myself on my dating profile.

But, men on dating sites generally only care about my photos, they care only about what I look like and not about my profile, where I list information about myself.

Why? Because all most men care about are a woman’s looks. They care not about my dreams in life, my educational background or anything else.

I’ve heard similar stories from other women on blogs who discuss their experiences on dating sites.

Men judge women for their physical appearance all the time, yet expect women, including very attractive ones, to give them a break in the ‘looks department’ and date them, even if they find the male physically unappealing (or socially clueless, or some combination thereof). It’s pure hypocrisy.

I’m not the one who’s bitter about this.

I signed off on my last post explaining I accepted many years ago that most men are shallow putz wads about physical appearance, so I learned to diet, jog, and look my best – and it worked. Guys began asking me out.

However, the whiny guys I see on the internet will not simply accept the fact that women do want to date good-looking guys.

Instead of going to the gym and working out to develop a nice physique, so they can begin getting dates with these ladies, they complain online about female dating preferences.

They find blog posts like mine and choose to call me names and put me down for relating my personal experiences.
—————–
Related posts this blog:

(Link): Nice Guys: Scourge of the Single Woman

(Link):  Nice Guys Aren’t So Nice After All: Men in the “Friend Zone” Often Have A Hidden Agenda, Say Psychologists (Daily Mail article)

(Link): Testosterone-Deficient Gamma Male Whines About the ‘Friend Zone’ (post from The Other McCain) – AKA, Ugly, Fat, Weird, Awkward, or Poor Nice Guys Who Unrealistically Expect to Attract Rich, Pretty, Thin, Socially Normal Women

(Link):  Dudes, Stop Putting Women in the Girlfriendzone

(Link): Nice Guys – the bitter single men who complain women don’t like nice men

(Link): Atlantic: “The case for abandoning the myth that ‘women aren’t visual.’”

(Link): Women Are Visually Oriented Too – Reminder 1

(Link): Superman, Man Candy -and- Christian Women Are Visual And Enjoy Looking At Built, Hot, Sexy Men

(Link): Women Are Visual And Like Hot Looking Men (Part 1) Joseph in Genesis Was A Stud Muffin

(Link): The Annoying, Weird, Sexist Preoccupation by Christian Males with Female Looks and Sexuality

(Link): Article: Scientists: Why penis size does matter [to women]

(Link): Married Women Engage in Sexual Sin – and most men in denial particularly Christian conservatives

(Link): More ‘Men Are Visual’ Baloney, Discussed at Another Blog

(Link):Conservative Christian Sexist Immature Imbecilic Pressure on Women to Look Pretty and Skinny and to Put Out Sexually

The Society of Phineas blog on Singleness

The Society of Phineas blog on singleness

(Link): Manufacturing Singleness Part 2, from The Society of Phineas blog

There are aspects of the above blog page I agree with, and ones I do not.

I will here-after refer to this blogger as “Phineas,” though he also uses the screen name of “ballista74.”

The blogger of the above classifies Al Mohler, DeYoung and Mark Driscoll as “feminist preachers.” There is nothing feminist about Mohler or Driscoll. I don’t know DeYoung well enough to comment on him.

Mohler and Driscoll are actually anti-feminist. They are gender complementarians. They believe in strict gender roles, that women should be sweet, pretty, and passive, while males should be tough, assertive, decisive, and active.

I would not be interested in marrying a Christian man who agrees with Mohler’s or Driscoll’s views on marriage and women.

Most women, Christian and Non, find Driscoll to be a sexist pig, not a feminist who champions their causes. Saying that Driscoll is feminist would be like saying that the Coyote loves and esteems the Road Runner; it does not compute. Driscoll says things that both genders find offensive.

Christian gender complementarians such as Driscoll and Mohler are known for blaming feminism for the lack of marriages among Christians; see this post: (Link): Christian Males Blaming their Unwanted Protracted Singleness on Feminism – They have the wrong target

That Mohler and Driscoll hold young males partially responsible for the drought of marriages among Christians today is not a party line of feminism (feminists are usually anti-marriage, believing it traps women and only benefits men), and more a throw back to their incorrect interpretations of how they think the Bible discusses and defines gender roles.

I do agree with Phineas that many Christians remain blind to the fact that Christian women on occasion commit sexual sins – I would say this is due in part to inherent sexism of their complementarian gender role views.

Christian males don’t like to admit to themselves that Christian women (or Non Christian women) want sex or enjoy sex.

Male Christians like to think of married Christian women as being frigid, uninterested in sex, and reluctant sex partners who have to be cajoled or guilt-tripped into having sex with their husbands.

Witness the numerous sermons by preachers on marriage where the male preacher will usually pound it into the heads of married women in the congregation that men really like sex, so, married ladies, they are told, be sure to sexually service your husband regularly, because men really, really, really like sex!

Sex is viewed as a male activity. Women are told repeatedly that men are “visual,” so that women are pressured to stay very skinny, diet all the time, and look like fashion models day in and day out, so that their spouses will continue to find them sexually and visually appealing.

Men, especially Christian ones, are not under the same kind of pressure so far as physical appearance is concerned.

Christian men get the notion they can let themselves go and be physically repulsive looking and Christian women, they are told by pastors, will still want them sexually, so long as they are a “strong spiritual leader,” or attend church weekly, or some other ridiculous, poppycock, sentimental or churchy sounding reason.

Regarding this part of Phineas’ post:

    So I perhaps shouldn’t be too offended by all the man-up rants [directed at single Christian males], since they are in response to the women complaining about how the 10-15% of the men they do see don’t want anything to do with them.

    They don’t address how the women generally find it repulsive and disgusting to be addressed by the 85-90% that doesn’t meet their hypergamous standards. After all, if they want the Alpha Experience, they should know too that the Alpha just won’t settle down and marry, or follow after Scripture in any way.

-reeks a bit of sexism to me, in part because there are too many assumptions and generalizations about women.

Women are allowed to be attracted to whom they wish to be attracted to. It always sounds like sour grapes to me any time I see a male complaining that women are not as keen to date the less-attractive males.

From (Link): It’s Okay To Call A Guy Creepy (and a partial copy of this is (Link): located here on this blog)

    Women have a right to express that they don’t appreciate a man’s advances.

    by HUGO SCHWYZERJUN

    What SNL played for laughs, many men (and some women) took – and still take – seriously: Some men can’t win with women, these people believe, no matter what they do or say.

    This attitude is best observed in the recent backlash against calling men “creepy.” “Creep is the worst thing you can call a man,” wrote Jeremy Gordon for the Hairpin, pointing out it’s an impossible charge for a guy to disprove. As Gordon writes, “creepy is a vibe you can’t define… you just know it.”

    Others argue that “creepiness” connotes something specific: male homeliness. Men’s rights activist Robert Lindsay titled a post “Creepy” is Woman Speak for “An Unattractive Man Who Shows Interest In Me,” while Thought Catalog’s Johanna de Silentio wrote that “there are also a lot of guys who are labeled ‘creepy’ just because they happen to be really unattractive.”

    I often hear something similar in my gender studies classes. (It was in a “Men and Masculinity” course years ago where an anguished young man first drew my attention to the Brady skit.)

    Whenever the subject of sexual harassment or “creep-shaming” comes up in class, someone–almost always a man–makes the case that SNL was right: the only way for straight men to safely express sexual interest in women is to do so while following the skit’s three rules.

    With almost invariable bitterness, these young men complain that unless a guy has won striking good looks in the genetic lottery, he’s doomed to be rejected and seen as overstepping his boundaries, no matter what he does.

    …… Men’s rage about sexual harassment regulations and “creep-shaming” may well be rooted in an unwillingness to accept these cultural changes that have given women unprecedented power to say “no” to the lecherous and the predatory.

    Complaints that unattractive, socially awkward men are unfairly labeled “creepy” miss the point. “Creepy” describes having “the creeps;” it’s a word that centers on women’s own feelings.

    It’s no more “unfair” for Ashley the hypothetical barista to be “creeped out” by the advances of an older, unappealing co-worker than it is for her to be excited by the same approach from the man to whom she’s attracted.

    In that sense, the SNL sketch got to an important truth: Women’s subjective experiences and instincts matter.

I also recoil any time I see a male use the terms “alpha” or “beta” when discussing other males as on Phineas’ blog, because these terms are usually employed by embittered, women-hating males who blame feminism and women themselves for their singleness.

They are typically the guys who declare they are “nice guys” and that all women really want to date “bad boys” or perfect, really good- looking guys with a lot of money and won’t even give the “nice guy” a chance.

I’ve blogged about “nice guys” before, so I will not belabor that issue here. See these posts at my blog:
(Link): Nice Guys: Scourge of the Single Woman
(Link): Nice Guys – the bitter single men who complain women don’t like nice men

Where Phineas writes,

    There are many more things that could be pointed out. In conclusion, the feminist preachers such as Mark Driscoll, Kevin DeYoung, and Albert Mohler need to look into the mirror and see what they are doing to precipitate the results that they are noticing.

    When you do certain things within a system you create, these things always create very specific results.

    Insanity is to expect different results out of doubling down and doing the same things. The man-up rants that they write come off as complaining that what they have set up and supported is not working as they desire.

I can agree with that in- so- far as most Christian teaching on dating, sex, marriage and gender roles has contributed to keeping both genders perpetually single.

It is not that Driscoll and Mohler support misandry and “blame the males” at every turn that is solely to blame for protracted singleness among Christians, but that Christians, at the root of it, are

1. afraid of fornication (pre-marital sex)

and some Christians are

2. beholden to traditional gender roles (they fear or hate feminism)

I see in another post at Phineas’ site ((Link): Some Problems in Christian Dating) that he does acknowledge that Christian fear of pre-marital sex drives a lot of the absurd teaching on dating that singles receive.

Points 1 and 2 above drive a lot of the ridiculous dating advice that Christian singles receive, an issue I have covered on this blog before, in posts such as (and I’m tossing in a few related topics here)…

(Link): Christian Teachings on Relationships: They’re One Reason Singles Are Remaining Single (even if they want to get married)

(Link): Christian Males Blaming their Unwanted Protracted Singleness on Feminism – They have the wrong target

(Link): Being Equally Yoked: Christian Columnist Dan Delzell Striving to Keep Christian Singles Single Forever

This is hosted on another blog:
(Link): Feminism, Singleness, And The Idol Of The Nuclear Family

(Link): How Christians Keep Christians Single (part 3) – Restrictive Gender Roles Taught as Biblical

(Link): Magical Christian Thinking: If you have pre-marital sex you won’t get a decent spouse

As for Phineas’ part 1 (Link:) Manufacturing Singleness Part 1, I think he blames single women too much and unfortunately plays into some stereotypes about singles that marrieds possess (I’m not sure if Phineas is single or married).

Notice Phineas refers to older single women as being “bitter.”

Phineas also errs in assuming that older singles “have baggage,” which is another stereotype of singles. The truth is that all people of all ages, both married and single, have “baggage.”

Ironically, some of us, as we age, lose whatever “baggage” we had at one time; particularly is this true for females, most of whom learn to accept themselves by the time they reach age 40.

I spent childhood to my late 30s not knowing who I was and being deeply insecure. I now know who I am and what I want in life and am not afraid to go after it anymore. I lost baggage. I would actually make a healthier martial partner now than when I was in my 20s or 30s.

Quoting Phineas:

    This is nothing different that hasn’t been seen in the culture. Women go off and do their own thing, usually career, but other ministry things, too. They do these things with the expectation that they can find marriage at any time they would like in their lives.

    It is well known that the available pool of candidates for marriage decreases considerably as one ages. Marriage is just not a priority for these women, but when it comes time that they find that there just aren’t candidates out there.

    Or they are so set in their ways and their own desires, that they just can’t find anyone to go along with them and get bitter and angry because they couldn’t have their own perfect romance like all the other women around them.

    Then they always have more chance to get baggage that would keep them from getting married.

It is simply the nature of American culture (and likely British, Canadian, and Aussie culture) that people no longer marry fresh out of high school or early college years, like they used to do. Women should not be blamed for this situation, but they are, as you can see in Phineas’ quotes above.

It’s not so much that women deliberately chose to remain single in their late 20s, mid 30s and older.

Honestly, a woman today has no choice but to go out and live life and hold a job down to be able to pay rent.

What do bloggers such as Phineas expect a woman to do, marry at age 18? I was too insecure and in some ways, too immature, to be married so young. I’m not the same person I am in my early 40s that I was in my early twenties. Had I married back at age 18, I seriously doubt such a marriage would have survived to my mid 30s.

If the woman cannot find a partner at age 18, is she to curl up in a ball in her closet and hope that God magically sends her a spouse?

What do you want a woman who is still un-married at ages 23, 27, 35, to do, just sit at home all day? Should a single woman (or man) not be living life in the meantime, while waiting and hoping for a spouse?

I did not get my first boyfriend until around age 27. I had fully expected to be married by my late 20s to mid 30s. Up until I got my first boyfriend at age 27, what would Phinease suggest I have done, sit about all day doing nothing?

Phineas writes,

    Given this trend, it seems the proper course is for “woman-up” rants from the evangelical feminist preachers, not man-up rants. It seems women are just expecting marriage to be there when they are ready for it, after running after being an “empowered woman”, and then are rushing the offices of these people when they aren’t finding it, complaining how men aren’t there to marry them. Then you get the man-up rants out of them because it could never ever be the chaste sinless women’s faults.

Phineas needs to realize that many of these women, the single Christian ones who are upset they arrive at age 30 to 40 still single, are not feminists who bought into “girl power” or “empowerment” messages.

Concerning marriage, Christian women are conditioned by Christian culture and preacheres to be passive and wait on a husband to appear. These Christian women are simply doing as they were taught by church, family, and preacher; they did not opt for feminism or career over husband.

I have seen population statistics which indicate that for about every unmarried Christian man at age 40, there are three or four unmarried Christian females.

In other words, there is only one male to go around for every three or four women.

Complaining and bitching about feminism and so on does nothing to change the numbers. Even had all those age 40 women been willing, able, and ready to marry a man when they were at age 21, there were NO MEN IN EXISTENCE FOR THEM TO MARRY.

I was raised to be a “gender complementarian” from the time I was a girl. I honestly tried to buy into the traditional gender role nonsense, but rejected it by the time I was in my late 30s or so.

In my teens and twenties, I knew if I married, I’d do my best to be the stereotypical June Cleaver, Christian submissive wife that the anti-feminist Christians constantly lecture at women they ought to be.

So, even though I was a sweet, submissive, nice, lady-like Christian girl – who was a virgin and still am a virgin – I did not get a husband.

Most churches I went to did not have single Christian men my age.

I was never on a feminist power trip, and neither are many of the other Christian women who find themselves mid- thirties or older and still not married.

The entire Christian, female gender should not be blamed for an entire cultural shift, much of which took place before we were born or while we were children.

Further, we Christian ladies are raised from girl-hood to believe in ‘Magical Marriage,’ this is, that if you are good, pray to Jesus, and have faith in God, that God will simply send you your Christian husband in a timely fashion.

I was told that nice Christian girls wait on God’s timing for a spouse, that Christian women do not pursue men, that we are to wait passively (though I did go to singles events at churches and so on).

Christian women are told to pray and wait for God to provide a spouse. But then, no husband ever arrives. This is painful for a lot of Christian women who were sincerely trusting God for a spouse – but here Phineas is lashing out at such women on his blog, as though they are at fault, when they are not.

If Phineas is angry at man-bashing preachers, such as Mark Driscoll, he needs to save his vitriol for Driscoll, instead of blaming, shaming, or complaining about single Christian women.

Phineas wrote,

    2. Unrealistic expectations from women for the perfect man for them are not challenged by the feminist preachers.

    …So given this, it seems women are rejecting men that are “good enough” in the sight of God to be her husband for the absolute perfect man, who does not exist.

And that could just as easily read,

    2. Unrealistic expectations from men for the perfect woman for them are not challenged by the gender complementarian preachers.

    …So given this, it seems men are rejecting women that are “good enough” in the sight of God to be his wife for the absolute perfect woman, who does not exist.

I’ve said it before, but a lot of single Christian men, despite being ugly, dweeby, dorky, poor, weird, stupid, socially awkward, fat, or bald, all expect to marry a skinny pretty movie star look-alike, and Christian preachers uphold this unrealistic entitlement attitude by telling women in their congregations things such as, “men are visually wired and like sex, so ladies, be sure to stay thin and pretty and act like a minx in the bed room!”

One never hears preachers saying, “Remember men, women like buff, hot, muscular men with a full head of hair, so attend the gym weekly, get a “six pack,” and use some Rogaine.”

Preachers refuse to acknowledge that women have sexual desire, which I find insulting… well, they will acknowledge on occasion that un-married women have a libido, as they assume (insultingly and incorrectly) that all single women are harlots who fornicate regularly and who are just dying at the chance to bed married men.

Preachers assume that married women, though, are as pure as the freshly drive snow, or are totally un-interested in sex, because, they feel, married women only want “emotional intimacy.”

The bottom line is that both genders face insulting stereotypes from each other, from preachers, from Christians, and in society. Both genders face hurdles in the world of dating. Neither men nor women have it easy in getting dates or spouses, and it is neither wholly the fault of women, men, or feminism.
—————
Related post this blog

(Link): Trends in male employment may not bode well for marriage (article)

Christian Males Blaming their Unwanted Protracted Singleness on Feminism – They have the wrong target

Christian Males Blaming their Unwanted Protracted Singleness on Feminism – They have the wrong target
——————–
EDIT. From another author, who is a Christian man:
(Link): Feminism, Singleness, And The Idol Of The Nuclear Family

I just now discovered the Spiritual Sounding Board blog made a post about a similar topic back in May of this year that you may want to read (as well as comments by the readers at the bottom of the page):
(Link): What is the Big Deal About Feminism and Christianity?

(Link): Trends in male employment may not bode well for marriage (article)
—————————-

Christian Males Blaming their Unwanted Protracted Singleness on Feminism – They have the wrong target

Blaming feminism for protracted, unwanted singleness among males is an attitude that I’ve seen among “average Joe” Christians around the internet the last few years, on their blogs and in forums.

Certainly, conservative Christian groups and think tanks, such as “Focus on the Family,” are probably the most responsible for fostering these views among the unmarried, rank and file Christian males.

These conservative Christian groups blame feminism only, or first and foremost, for everything, for all change in society, or what they perceive as being negative change – for delayed age of first marriage; lower birth rates; women outperforming males in classrooms and on jobs, the rise of divorce, and on and on it goes.

I suppose a feminist was behind the grassy knoll, too. Oswald did not act alone.

If you need a reminder about me (most of this can be found on this blog’s “About” page), and I feel this is pertinent to state up front, because often, male, Christian, gender complementarians (traditional gender role advocates) wrongly assume from the get-go that a (quasi former) Christian woman such as myself, who does not agree with their traditional gender role perspective any longer, must be a bra-burning, Bible-hating, liberal feminist, when the truth is:

  • -I am a social conservative
  • -I am a Republican
  • -I was a Christian since childhood
    (but have been slowly walking away from the faith the last year to two years)
  • -I grew up with a Christian mother who defined herself as being a “traditional wife”
    (in today’s Christian lingo, my Mom was a “biblical gender complementarian”)
  • – I was a “biblical literalist”
    (and still am, to what degree I still identify as Christian)
  • -I tried my hardest to be a “biblical gender complementarian” myself
    … but the older I got, by my mid to late 30s, I saw that the Scripture does not support the view

What I am not, and what I do not believe:

  • -I am not a secular feminist, nor do I agree with all their views
  • -I do not hate men
  • -I am not “anti” family or “anti” marriage

I have on occasion defended unmarried Christian males on this blog.

I think that often, many Christians adhere to offensive stereotypes of Christian men who are over 30 years of age but who have not married.

One common stereotype is that such men are homosexual. Another is that older single Christian males are pedophiles. That they are not as mature as their married counterparts.
Another is that they are not fully in God’s image, that they need to be married (and preferably with kids) to be considered wholly in God’s image. I have written a few blog posts criticizing some of those views.

I do not blame all men every where for the widespread problem of unwanted, protracted singleness among Christians these days.

I also don’t blame feminism. (So it makes me wonder why some of the Christian single men are so vehemently insistent that male singleness is the full responsibility of Christian women. Or of feminism.)

Continue reading “Christian Males Blaming their Unwanted Protracted Singleness on Feminism – They have the wrong target”

Christian ‘Married People’ Privilege – Marrieds Think Single Life = Easy / Marrieds and Parents Turn All Topics Into Them And Their Needs / Problems

Christian ‘Married People’ Privilege – Most Marrieds Remain Amazingly Blinded to Christian Discrimination Against Singles Or Write Unmarrieds’ Concerns Off, As Though They Are Nothing Compared to Marriage/ Parenting.

Marrieds and Parents also turn every thing into them, about them, about marriage and their needs/ problems

I sometimes hear left wing people talk about “white privilege” or “male privilege,” and how it blinds white people or males to the true struggles that people of color or females face in American culture.

I’m not left wing myself, but I do kind of see what they’re saying, to a point.

I think there is something similar at work in marriage vs singleness, which I will call “Marriage Privilege.”

Married people, including Christian couples, don’t often notice the discrimination churches and Christian organizations dish out against Christian unmarried people. If they do happen to notice, they don’t care and take no action to rectify it.

I am going to change some details in the following story so as not to expose exactly who was involved and where, but you should get the idea of what went down.

I was at a discussion board where the moderator began a thread discussing how dismally and terribly churches treat unmarried Christians.

The moderator asked for singles to share their woes and tales.

Lo and behold if not even a third of the way or so into the thread when a MARRIED MAN who HAS A KID jumped in to complain how tough marriage and parenting is, and how his single friends just don’t get it.

I shall call him “Oblivious Doofus Guy.”

ODG (Oblivious Doofus Guy) mentioned he totally understands how tough un-married Christians have things, because he did not marry until he was 34 years old.

Even though much of American church culture is aimed at married people and parents, this married guy still shows up to complain about married life and parenting – in a thread for un-married people to discuss their situations.

Leave it to a married person (and parent to boot) to commandeer a thread FOR SINGLES to bitch and moan about how hard married life and parenting is.

Then, on top of that, to complain that his single buddies just don’t get it, and how the single pals don’t want to hang out with him at 7 A.M. when he takes his kid to soccer practice.

(Please click the “read more” link to read the rest of the post)

Continue reading “Christian ‘Married People’ Privilege – Marrieds Think Single Life = Easy / Marrieds and Parents Turn All Topics Into Them And Their Needs / Problems”

Conservatives and Christians Fretting About U.S. Population Decline – We Must “Out-breed” Opponents Christian Host Says

Conservatives and Christians Fretting About U.S. Population Decline – We Must “Out-breed” Opponents Christian Host Says

I’m right in the middle of writing a post on another topic for this blog when the hosts of the Christian program “The 700 Club” announced they will be interviewing a male author, Jonathan V. Last, of a book called “What to Expect When No One’s Is Expecting: America’s Coming Demographic Disaster.”

This was preceded by a journalist on the show doing a brief news segment high-lighting that birth rates for 20-something American women have declined, while births for ages 35 – 44 American women have increased.

I never cared strongly if I had children or not. I wanted marriage, but kids? I didn’t care strongly about having children. That’s my personal position on the kid issue.

I am watching the interview now, as it’s airing.

The author at least concedes that it’s okay if people choose not to have kids. Host Pat Robertson isn’t fully on board with that view.

Now Last, the author, is going on to say what disasters will befall America if women don’t pop out two point five kids each – not enough tax payers to support medicare, it becomes difficult to sustain defense (not enough 18 year olds to join the military), and so forth.

Robertson is now asking the author, Last, about declining population in Japan (and later, he asks about Germany).

(Please click on the “read more” link below to read the rest of the post. Thanks)
Continue reading “Conservatives and Christians Fretting About U.S. Population Decline – We Must “Out-breed” Opponents Christian Host Says”

Double Standard by Some Non Christian Childfree

I wrote about childfree people in a previous entry. I myself am childfree, but I’m also a social conservative, conservative Christian, and a Republican, unlike most CF (child free people) who seem to be left wing and atheist – and who are hostile towards people such as myself.

One glaring double standard I see on CF (child free) blogs and forums are CF Non Christians who complain about mothers who breastfeed. (I agree that breastfeeding should be done in private and not in public.)

Many CF seem to believe there is something sexual about nude breasts, even in the context of breastfeeding; maybe to an extent they are correct about that. (For example see posts in this thread about Time magazine’s breastfeeding cover at Bratfree Forum).

Here are a few quotes from that CF forum thread regarding the Time magazine breastfeeding story:

by loavesstillsuck

THE HORROR! The look of the self-satisfied moos [mothers] standing their with their adult children (well, practically) sucking on their udders. . . . . . . glaring into the camera lens as if to say “I dare you to think of me sexually with a kid sucking off of me!”

BLEAH! There is no word appropriate enough, save for BLEAAAAAAH and VOMMITTTT.

by gwddee

Yeah I noted the ‘lighten up” twit. What the f*uck? Yep, keep defending that pedophile [mother in photo breastfeeding son], assh*le.

by rudegubmintworker

Why can’t the mom pump her breast and give the brat her boob milk from a cup? Because she gets physical and/or sexual satisfaction from it, loves using it to control the brat. Whether she wants to admit it or not.

When I was almost age 4 (like this kid SUPPOSEDLY is) I was in pre-kindergarten and could already read (and had been formula fed). I can’t imagine leaving school where I read, drew numbers and stick figures to go suck on Mom’s tit. Not to mention – some kids even back in the seventies at age 3 and 4 were skilled in the art of teasing other kids. What happens of other kids get wind of the fact Suckley still nurses? He’ll become the victim of bullying.

There are many, many other similar quotes to those above at that site and at other CF sites, who are equating breastfeeding (or the photo of such on the Time cover) to pedophilia.

Many CF, though, do not believe there should be any or many limits on sexuality in other areas, and they don’t seem to spot their own hypocrisy in this.

Many of the Non Christian CF mock and ridicule Christians or conservatives who teach and believe sex should be for marriage only, teens should not be having sex, and that homosexuality is unnatural and sinful.

Continue reading “Double Standard by Some Non Christian Childfree”

Childfree Christians / Childfree childless

(click “more” to read the entire post)

I’ve visited a few blogs and discussion boards for people who are “childfree.”

Most childfree people bristle at being referred to as “childless,” since most of them never wanted to have kids and intentionally took steps to avoid having any, such as undergoing sterilization procedures.

The term “childless” signifies to them that they wanted kids but could not have them, as well as other unwanted connotations, so they dislike the term.

Before I discuss my views on these childfree sites, here is my background and views as they pertain to kids and other topics I see regularly brought up on childfree forums and blogs:

I do not have any children. I have never had children. I have never married. I wanted to be married and would still like to be married.

I’ve never felt totally comfortable with the idea of becoming pregnant and having a baby, but I was never totally opposed to having one of my own.

I do not hate children, but I don’t like most of them. Most children are irritating and too loud. Most teens are obnoxious and idiotic. I don’t think 99% of infants are cute.

I am pro-life; I do not support abortion, nor do I support homosexuality or the legalization of homosexual marriage.

I am a social conservative and a Republican.

Here are my experiences of visiting childfree blogs and forums…

While I can relate to many of the problems and situations described at some of these sites, such as The Childfree Life discussion board or Bratfree Forum, I am dismayed or put off by some of the comments and attitudes I see by some members.

There is quite a bit of profanity on those particular boards and on others like them;  there are jokes about killing or maiming kids/babies (implied); rude or cruel comments about people who did nothing to deserve it; many generalizations or gross misrepresentations or misunderstandings of conservative Christians.

Continue reading “Childfree Christians / Childfree childless”

Therapists and Whiners / Constant Complainers

(Please click the “more” link to see the entire post)

I have two views on this topic – should you tell a constant whiner to put a cork in it, or indulge them?

On the one hand, it can get very annoying being around someone who whines (complains) constantly. I have a couple of internet friends who do this, two family members, and I’ve had a few coworkers guilty of regular whining.

With one family member in particular, I had to shut her down. After two years of listening to her endless, vicious complaining (it wasn’t even normal complaining, but very mean, negative complaining) mostly about her job and boyfriend.

To make matters worse this person chose to dump all her anger and issues on me in the same time frame I was in deep grieving for someone dear I had just lost that we were both related to.

I tried being supportive and listening to her endless whining and her vicious rants, but it was having a negative impact on me. I am prone to depression anyway, and with the grieving as well, I could not possibly handle listening to her hate-filled phone calls anymore on top of everything else.

So I told her I was not going to listen to her complain anymore about her job and other problems. I had to do it to save my sanity.

On the other hand, I like to talk to someone when I am going through a terrible time.

When I am depressed or angry, it makes me feel better to talk through my views and feelings. It helps me if someone just sits and listens as I discuss what I am feeling.

The sad thing is, most people refuse to perform this service for me, even though I do it for them.

Continue reading “Therapists and Whiners / Constant Complainers”

Nice Guys – the bitter single men who complain women don’t like nice men

This was a page on Buzzfeed; it contains adult language.

I too get tired of seeing bitter guys on blogs complain about how they’re so nice but women don’t want them – they say women (ALL women) only want mean, rude, jerks (which isn’t true of course).

I did not write the following material, it was all written by other people, but I am in agreement with most of it.
—————————–
From Buzzfeed:
The Not-So-Nice “Nice Guys” Of Online Dating
buzzfeed.com/annals/the-not-so-nice-nice-guys-of-online-dating

Author: Ouiser Boudreaux

BuzzFeed Contributor

Nice Guys are an internet standard. To hear them tell it, they are very mistreated! They show up on blogs to complain about how women don’t appreciate Nice Guys like themselves, because even though the Nice Guy is so very nice, women are too self-involved to see the Real Him. The Nice Guy believes he is held back by his intense Niceness.

The truth is, Nice Guys aren’t actually nice guys. They’re entitled jerks who think that if they’re nice to you, you’re obligated to spread. And if you don’t, you’re fodder for the Nice Guy’s extensive complaint box.
Continue reading “Nice Guys – the bitter single men who complain women don’t like nice men”