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”

Preacher Believes Women Deserve Being Raped – especially if they’re wearing Yoga pants

Preacher Believes Women Deserve Being Raped – especially if they’re wearing Yoga pants

What a nutter and a slime ball.

I have to say though, that I’m not on board with the whole feminist “slut shaming” view – one of the reports below contextualizes crazy man Saxton’s views as being slut-shaming.

I don’t think women who have been sexually assaulted are sluts or that they “deserved” to be assaulted, but I do disagree with feminists who reject any notion of sexual boundaries concerning consensual sex (links at bottom of post address that).

If this Saxton guy gets raped by another man (or raped by a woman), can I chalk it up to him wearing jeans and t-shirts?

(Link): College Preacher Says Women ‘Deserve Rape’ for Wearing Yoga Pants (Video)

Excerpts

    “One street preacher said, ‘You know, if you dress like it, you act like it, different things like that, you’re asking for it.’ Therefore, you deserve rape. And his last three words I felt like were nice, and I decided to put them on a sign, and go to the event.”

“I believe there are certain qualities that may be worthy of rape,” claimed Saxton. “If a woman dresses proactively, gets blackout drunk, and is wearing really revealing clothing, then I would say that she is partially responsible for the rape.”

However, Saxton failed to cite any Bible verses to back up his bizarre claim that women should be raped because of their clothing.

According to The Huffington Post, Saxton also opposes feminism, Miley Cyrus, rock music, homosexuals, sex before marriage and Muslims.

(Link): Yoga pants will get you raped, Pastor tells women

    In a new video published on Monday, a pastor from Arizona, who is known for his rants against women and saying that women “deserve” rape, defended his position.

Continue reading “Preacher Believes Women Deserve Being Raped – especially if they’re wearing Yoga pants”

Guest on Christian Radio Show, Focus on the Family’s Mr. Daly, Claims Churches and Culture Don’t Spend Enough Money and Attention on Marriage and Family – Should I Laugh or Cry?

Guest on Christian Radio Show, Focus on the Family’s. Mr. Daly, Claims Churches and Culture Don’t Spend Enough Money and Attention on Marriage and Family – Should I Laugh or Cry?

I was listening to the Janet Mefferd radio program a few days ago, and she interviewed a Christian man from some family values group, I think Focus on the Family.

Mr. Daly sounds like a nice gentleman, but he is living in an alternate reality.

I meant to blog on this earlier but pushed it aside. I think this was the show:
(Link): Janet Mefferd – Jim Daly as guest, “The Good Dad”

Daly – if I heard correctly and understood correctly said that marriage or married couples do not get enough support from churches and/or the culture.

Daly (if I recall correctly) said churches/society need to devote more time and more resources to marriage and married couples.

I just re-listened to the show.

Yes, starting at the 18:50 mark, Daly tells Ms. Mefferd (this is a paraphrase),

    Why should society cater to the one to two percent of the culture? 80 to 90% of us will marry and have children. We are the core of culture. What about us?

I’m not sure what he means by the “one or two percent.”

Does he mean never married adults? Does he mean childless married couples? Or widowers? The divorced? Homosexuals, especially the ones insisting on the legalization of homosexual marriage?

As to his 80 to 90 percent figure: I don’t think that is correct. I don’t know where he is getting that from.

Even if 80% of the American population gets married at some point, they are bound to be single again via our high divorce rates or via widowhood. But I don’t think the 80% number is correct.

Edited to add this link:

Here’s why I think his figures may be incorrect:

    According to census data released in 2005, only 23.7 percent of all Americans households are married couples with children.

  • “Faith and Family in America,” a 2005 analysis by University of Akron sociologist John C. Green, says only 18.5 percent of all families meet the traditional nuclear family ideal: married, never divorced, with children at home.
  • The largest demographic (25.6 percent) is childless couples.
  • Church leaders uphold the former model as the ideal Christian family, but the statistics indicate they are chasing the wind.
  • In some denominations, such as the Episcopal Church, fully half of the members are single. (p 93)
    ____________________________
    Source: Duin, Juila. Quitting Church.

And from census.gov,

  • Single Life
    103 million
  • Number of unmarried people in America 18 and older in 2012.
  • This group made up 44.1 percent of all U.S. residents 18 and older.
  • Source: America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2012
    (Link): Source
  • See also
    (Link): The Changing American Family (article)

    (Link): Single? You’re Not Alone (date of article: 2010)

    Excerpt:

      There are 96 million people in the United States who have no spouse.

    • That means 43 percent of all Americans over the age of 18 are single, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

    Continue reading “Guest on Christian Radio Show, Focus on the Family’s Mr. Daly, Claims Churches and Culture Don’t Spend Enough Money and Attention on Marriage and Family – Should I Laugh or Cry?”

    Preacher: ‘They Will Know We Are Christians By Our Hot SEX Lives’ – and once more, never-married celibate adults and their experiences, wisdom, and input are ignored

    Preacher: They Will Know We Are Christians By Our SEX

    Below: link to a video of a preacher saying Non Christians should realize that Christians have better sex than they do, and he seems to think maybe this will persuade the Non Christians to consider the faith.

    Hmm. So, if you’re a Christian virgin because you have never married – you know, you’re staying faithful to biblical sexual principles and such – nobody can ever learn anything about Christianity from you. Okay. You big weirdo failure.

    Hang your head in shame for making it past 30, 40, or older, and doing what the Bible commands: not having sex because you’re not married.

    Pfft, what could YOU possibly know about Christianity, freak?

    Non-Christians cannot be jealous of your non-sex! So, Christian singles, get out there and starting porking around so you can make Non-Christians jealous of your awesome sex lives!!

    By the way. I don’t get this dude’s strategy. If I were a married lady, I would not necessarily be broadcasting to random Non Christians about my married sex life… that’s a private thing.

    I don’t think homosexual Non-Christian couples are going to be persuaded to give the faith a try based upon boastful HETERO Christian couples telling them what smokin’ hot sex lives they have.

    The Bible nowhere teaches that Christians are to preach about their sex lives to convert the unsaved, but about Christ and Him crucified for their sins. (It’s so sad that even I know this and a preacher does not, and I have one foot in agnosticism.)

    This dude’s teaching also makes the incorrect assumption that most Christians will marry, when the fact is, a ton of us are over age 30 and still single.

    It’s a myth that Christians have great sex lives, by the way… see (Link): this post as one example. Or (Link): this one. Or (Link): this one.

    Then, of course, you have Christians who are asexual. They have no desire to have sex, and while some want to have companionship, they don’t want to have sex with their partner. I guess they are excluded from representing Christ, too?

    What of homosexual celibates, Christians who have S.S.A. who believe the Bible forbids homosexual behavior, so they abstain sexually, how do you think a sermon like this affects them?

    What of Christian divorced, widows, and widowers? They should be abstaining sexually to stay true to biblical teachings on sex. I guess they’re up crap creek too in the witnessing department?

    Wasn’t Paul the Apostle, who wrote like around 4/5ths of the New Testament a celibate, single adult? How on earth did Paul expect any Non Christians to buy into anything he wrote since he didn’t have hot sex to brag about in his epistles???

    ‘By their hot sex they shall know you are my followers’? Is that in the New Testament?

    No, wait, Jesus said something about, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another,” and the New Testament writer was probably using “agape” for love in the Greek there in that verse, not “eros.”

    Oh Jesus, you are so silly! You should have known that SEX SELLS. What were you thinking? Tsk, tsk.

    From The Museum of Idolatry blog:

    (Link): Idolatry Classic: They Will Know We Are Christians By Our SEX??

        Here is Linn Winters of Cornerstone explaining his dream to the folks in his Church that the world would know we are Christians by how much better our sex is. The name of the sermon series was “Greatest Sex Ever.”

    We hate to ask, but how exactly are Christians supposed to demonstrate these superior skills to their unsaved friends?

    Truth be told, we never considered sex to be an evangelistic “selling point” until now…

    ———————
    Related posts:

    (Link): Duggar pastor to married couples: Have lots of sex or lose your spouse to the ‘sexual revolution’

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

    (Link):   Sex is Always the Solution – supposedly, according to Christian writers and preachers. (Also: Christian married men feel entitled to sex, contra 1 Corinthians 7:5.)

    (Link): False Christian Teaching: “Only A Few Are Called to Singleness and Celibacy”

    (Link): New website launched to help Christians experiencing same-sex attraction / Editorial about Celibacy by Ed Shaw

    (Link): Church Holds Church Services in Strip Club

    (Link): Pew for One: How Is the Church Responding to Growing Number of Singles? by S. Hamaker

    (Link): Church Holds Church Services in Strip Club

    (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”

    (Link): Perverted Christian Married 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): 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)

    Church Holds Church Services in Strip Club

    Church Holds Church Services in Strip Club

    M’kay. I was taught from the time I was a girl that sex was for marriage only. Taught this in Christian books, Christian television shows, church sermons, my parents, and obviously, that was the conclusion I got from reading the Bible on my own as a kid and teen.

    I get into adulthood, still single, still a virgin, and I’ll be darned if most of Christianity today is telling singles and teens,

      “Sex is no big deal! Just use “protection.”
      Don’t feel shamed or dirty about pre-marital sex, and God forgives it anyway.
      Let’s do away with purity culture, it’s so damaging to women! It’s forced on women by the patriarchy!”

    Basically, virginity is not only not valued by self professing Christians today, but it’s also been attacked (yes, see (Link): this (Link): this, (Link): this for a few examples – I have more on the site, but that suffices).

    Soooooooo…. I’m bothering to live by biblical sexual values why, exactly? Nobody else is, Christians are not. Christians are making a mockery out of biblical teachings about sex.

    You can listen about this story on Chris Rosebrough’s show here:
    (Link): Church in a strip club? (audio – pod cast)

    I’m not sure if this story from The Christian Post is related to the story discussed by Rosebrough above, but I think it is:
    (Link): Church Hosts Services on Stage at Local Strip Club for Easter Sunday

    Excerpts

      BY KATHERINE WEBER, CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER
      April 23, 2014|4:42 pm

      A gentleman’s club in Ontario, Canada, opened its doors on Sunday to allow a church to gather. The couple leading the church says it is an attempt to attract those who would feel uncomfortable in a traditional church setting.

      Jack and Sharon Ninaber, who are part of the Elora Road Christian Fellowship, held their first church service at The Manor gentlemen’s club in Guelph over Easter weekend. Sharon, Jack’s wife, told the local CTV television station that when she originally suggested the couple begin holding church services at the strip club, she was joking.

      After discussing the idea further, however, the couple decided the unorthodox services would be a creative way to reach those who would shy away from a traditional church setting. They are specifically hoping to attract residents from Sue’s Inn, a nearby transitional house for the homeless and the addicted.

    Why are Christians so obsessed with strippers? If they are not harping on strippers, it’s African orphans. WTF?
    —————————–
    Related posts this blog:

    (Link): Preachers Who Use Strippers, Hula Girls, Topless Hunky Men, and Strip Poles During Church Services and Give Sex Diplomas to Teens – Yes, Really

    (Link): 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

    (Link): ‘Strip Church Network’ Focuses on Stripper Outreach Outside of Las Vegas Sex Industry

    (Link): To Get Any Attention or Support from a Church These Days you Have To Be A Stripper, Prostitute, or Orphan

    (Link): Article: Christians Outreach To Porn Actors and Strippers – But Not To Older Christian Singles

    (Link): U.S. Churches Cancel Services for Football -( Superbowl )- People who are unchurched, dechurched, and preachers who say not attending church is a sin

    Southern Baptist’s New Sexist “Biblical Woman” Site – Attitudes in Total Face Palm of a Site One Reason Among Many This Unmarried and Childless Woman Is Saying Toodle-Oo to Christianity

    Southern Baptist’s New Sexist “Biblical Woman” Site – Attitudes in Total Face Palm of a Site One Reason Among Many This Unmarried and Childless Woman Is Saying Toodle-Oo to Christianity

    There are several reasons I am closer and closer to saying bye-bye to Christianity, but the continued insistence upon Southern Baptists, Neo Calvinists, and other Christian groups, on pushing sexism and codependency for women – under the headings of “gender complementarianism” or “biblical womanhood” – is just one more reason.

    I am now blogging about a new site by Southern Baptists about “Biblical womanhood.” (Link to that site, with screen captures from it, is farther below.)

    First, a preface: IT’S NOT JUST A WOMAN’S ISSUE

    If you are a male, an unmarried male, you need to be concerned about this pushing of gender complementarianism to women. It impacts you as well, oh yes it does.

    If you are a male, do not make the deadly mistake of thinking, “Aw, this is just about ladies, it is of no import for me, I am a dude!”

    No, no, you couldn’t be more wrong because 1. (Link): this page and 2. they equally oppress, pressure, shame, and hound males who do not live up to their narrowly defined list of rules of what constitutes “biblical manhood.”

    Just as gender complementarians limit and enslave women to following a very narrow set of 1950s- American- culturally influenced, un-biblical rules of what constitutes a godly woman (which often includes being married, submitting to a husband, and cranking out children), they do the same to men.

    For example, and depending on what type of breed of gender complementarian we are discussing, they usually define “biblical manhood” to mean ‘MAN WHO IS MARRIED TO A WOMAN AND FATHER TO BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN.’

    Some Christian biblical manhood advocates further tack on additional qualifiers of what constitutes “biblical manhood,” such as, “spiritual leader of wife,” “steadily employed with a big paycheck, so the wife can stay home all day,” and “manly man who drinks beer, belches loudly and often, and who watches cage fighting with great enthusiasm.”

    Yeah.

    So, if you are a single male, or you have never been a daddy, and if you do not care for American stereotypical manly man pursuits (e.g., football, NASCAR, copious amounts of beer drinking) and you even prefer artistic pursuits, such as painting and opera, and…

    If you find yourself unable to support more than yourself on your pay check alone, you will be treated like a second-class citizen in most Baptist and Neo Calvinist churches.

    You will be deemed a failure for not being biblically mannish enough by a host of gender complementarians.

    I do find it telling that the Southern Baptists and other gender complementarians seem to expend more effort and time at talking about women’s roles, though.

    They seem to crank out more books, sites, and so on, to convince women that being submitted doormats is really honest- to- gosh biblical and not the least demeaning, than they do in cranking out as much material convincing men to be Biblical Tough Guys.

    Occasionally, they do, however – about a year ago, preacher Mark Driscoll and other preachers hosted an “Act Like Men” conference (link to that) which emphasized the idea that Christian men should be manly leader men, but it is my impression that conservative Christians are far more obsessed at keeping women in line more so than the males.

    Even so, if you are a single, childless, un- or under- employed, or non- football obsessed male, you have a stake in this topic as well.

    THE BIBLICAL WOMANHOOD SITE

    The Southern Baptist “biblical womanhood” site, as of this writing (Apr. 2014) is a white and pink combination.

    Yes, the web pages have a white background, but there is liberal usage of pink-colored fonts and headings all over the place.

    Even their “biblical womanhood” logo contains pink. Screen capture of their site’s mast head:

    Biblical Womanhood mast head screen shot
    Biblical Womanhood mast head screen shot

    Enough with pink already. I am a woman, but I have never liked pink.

    Historically, by the way, pink was for boys and blue was for girls. Read (Link): this and (Link): this for more on that.

    I am a woman. I have never liked pink. Even as a child, I did not find pink attractive, and it annoyed the piss out of me that companies and manufacturers went default pink on any product made for girls (and they would toss in rainbows and unicorns on the packaging, too. I’ve nothing against rainbows or unicorns, but I was never a horse or unicorn crazy girly girl, and I resented the notion, even at age ten, that I am SUPPOSED to like both just because I’m a girl.)

    Anyway, leave it to a Southern Baptist site that is pushing “gender complementarian” roles to use pink as one of the site’s main colors. They couldn’t break the stereotypes and go with muted teals, greys, or dark red with gold, or other unexpected colors for a woman’s site, oh no, gotta stick with pink because PINK = GIRLY FEMININE! *Sigh.*

    Where in the Bible does it say God defines the color pink as a biblical color for expressing womanhood? If that verse is in there, it must have escaped my attention, and yes, I have read the Bible all the way through.

    Leave it to a Christian biblical womanhood, or gender complementarian, site that is intending to dispel the notion that gender complementarianism is sexist by… are you ready for this? by… upholding sexist stereotypes! – they do, right there on their site, examples to follow in this post.

    Continue reading “Southern Baptist’s New Sexist “Biblical Woman” Site – Attitudes in Total Face Palm of a Site One Reason Among Many This Unmarried and Childless Woman Is Saying Toodle-Oo to Christianity”

    Idiot Author Thinks Childless and Childfree Should Pay Higher Taxes to Subsidize Parents

    Idiot Author Thinks Childless and Childfree Should Pay Higher Taxes to Subsidize Parents

    (Link): Tax the Childless We should slash taxes on parents by jacking them up for nonparents. By Reihan Salam

    Excerpts:

      So now, as a childless professional in my mid-30s, I often reflect on the sacrifices working parents make to better the lives of their children.

      And I have come to the reluctant conclusion that I ought to pay much higher taxes so that working parents can pay much lower taxes. I believe this even though I also believe a not inconsiderable share of my tax dollars are essentially being set on fire by our frighteningly incompetent government. Leviathan is here to stay, whether I like it or not, and someone has to pay for it. That someone should be me, and people like me.

    You might want to read the reader comments under that editorial. Here are a few:

    by LJ

      I thought this was an April Fool, somewhat disgusted to see it was posted 31st March.

      People with children use more resources and, as such, should naturally pay more (for these resources). I could have some sympathy if they were forced to have children, but they choose to have children and it is not right that those who didn’t get a say in them having children should then be forced to help them fund their lifestyle. We all make our decisions in life and we shouldn’t be made to pay for each other’s choices.

      The attitude of the author is especially worrying in a world where we really should be allowing our population to naturally level off and then gradually decrease to a sustainable level. We already (in the UK at least) have benefits systems that encourage people to have children that, if we’re honest, aren’t really all that wanted (rather just accessories, or only wanted while too small to talk back / walk etc.) We should certainly be strongly encouraging a situation where every child is thoroughly planned for an wanted beyond just the baby age!

    hephastia

      @Ben
      I’m a childless professional, and I most decidedly don’t have money coming out my butt. (This is also basic biology.) A good chunk of my monthly income goes to paying the student loans that enabled me to find work in a profession.

      Having children is a choice, and I chose not to. I still pay into things like the educational system even though I don’t have a child to benefit from it. I shouldn’t have to pay more than my share to support those who make different choices.

    by bernacky

      1. I agree with Blair of STFU parents that this article title is click bait.

      2. Children -> tax credits/deductions. So non-parents already pay more than parents do.

      3. The majority of people with children chose to have them. I don’t see why non-parents should be, essentially, punished for the choices other people make.

      I should note that my husband and I are trying to have kids, but I don’t expect extra handouts from others because we will have children.

    ————————–
    Related posts, this blog:

    (Link): Why all the articles about being Child Free? On Being Childfree or Childless – as a Conservative / Right Wing / Christian

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

    (Link): Kid-Friendly Policies Don’t Help Singles – Work and Job Discrimination Against Singles Unmarried Childless Childfree

    (Link): Prejudiced Writer Stupidly Blames Slutty Halloween Costumes and Societal Ills on Childless the Childfree, and Unmarried Adults – but Married people and parents are not perfect either

    (Link): Totally Obnoxious Parent: Childless Couple Who Donates to Childrens Charities Lambasted by Snotty Adult Sister for Not Showering Her Kids with Christmas Presents – Parents Who Discriminate Against the Childless or Childfree

    (Link): Widows and Childless and Childfree Have Better Well Being Than Married Couples and Parents says new study (2013)

    (Link): 23 Responses to 23 Awful Statements Made to Childfree People by TAURIQ MOOSA

    A Female’s Virginity Belongs To Her – Not Her Father or Husband – Re: Christian Purity Balls

    A Female’s Virginity Belongs To Her – Not Her Father or Husband – Re: Purity Balls

    This story has been making the rounds the past week.

    (Link): ‘You are married to the Lord and your daddy is your boyfriend’: Purity balls, in which girls ‘gift their virginity’ to their fathers until marriage, sweeping America, from The Daily Mail

    While I do believe the Bible forbids pre-martial sex and supports virginity until marriage; and that virginity until marriage has been under attack from Christians the past few years (in addition from secular culture); and that a person’s choice to remain celibate should be respected by all (not mocked); that Christian parents or parents with traditional values have a right to instill Christian or traditional morals in their children, I do not support things such as purity balls.

    One of my first problems with these “purity balls” is that they focus on female sexuality.

    In these balls, the young ladies are forced to dress in white wedding type dresses, dance with their fathers, their fathers give them purity rings, and the young ladies pledge their virginity to their fathers.

    As far as I am aware, there is no male equivalent, where young males are told to give their virginity to their mother and later, should they marry, their wife.

    The Bible is clear that pre-martial sex is forbidden for all, for both genders, not just the ladies.

    It is sexist and unbiblical for Christian parents to emphasize virginity only for female children.

    I do not feel purity balls are appropriate for several reasons, but if one is going to hold one for females, one needs to keep things evened out by forcing males to participate in them as well, by having the males pledge their virginity to their mothers.

    Growing up, I was very much turned off at the idea of marrying a non-virgin male. My preference is still to marry a virgin male.

    I do feel that people who have pre-marital sex cheat their future spouse out of something that is rightfully theirs (ie, their virginity).

    I know a lot of liberal Christians, emergents, and so forth hate that reasoning, but I apply it equally to males. I am grossed out at the idea of going on a honeymoon knowing the guy I have married has already placed his penis in some other woman’s orifices.

    As I get older, I realize I may have no choice, because fornication is rampant these days – adult, male virgins are not exactly a dime a dozen. I’ve made peace with that.

    At any rate, male virginity is not valued or upheld nearly as much as female virginity is, especially in religious circles.

    I suspect one reason for this is that religious parents do not want to deal with unplanned pregnancies. Who gets pregnant from sex, males or females? Exactly.

    I suppose Christian parents find it easier to clamp down on their daughter’s sexuality so as not to have to deal with birth control, abortion, adoption, and medical bills, so they up the pressure on the female children not to put out. One does not have to worry about a son becoming pregnant.

    A woman’s virginity belongs to her and her alone.

    At this point, I don’t even want to say one’s virginity belongs to God, though I suppose a biblical case can be made that a person’s body, sexuality and so on belongs to God (and there are biblical passages which indicate this), but God does not force Himself on people, their bodies, and their choices.

    I have seen numerous testimonies by Christian women who admit to having had slept around many times over their life, and they suffered no ill consequences from that behavior.

    God may call pre-marital sex a sin, but He does not enforce any negative consequences – in this lifetime- upon those who engage in such behavior, so far as I have been able to ascertain.

    I actually see the opposite: I often see testimonies by Christian women on television programs who said they were big sluts, they admit they knew the Bible is against pre-marital sex, yet had sex anyway, they say they came down with some kind of awful disease as a result, but when they turned to God again, that God completely healed them of their sexually transmitted disease.

    Still others said the only bad outcome of whoring around is that they came to feel empty or guilty due to said behavior, later stopped, and later met a great Christian guy who they married.

    So, in spite of all the pre-marital sleeping around, they later got married, and now live happy, conventional, married, middle- class- American life styles.

    Whether a female chooses to engage in premarital sex is her choice and hers alone.

    I am not opposed to parents teaching their children to save sex for marriage and bringing up potential health problems involved of having sex, but in the end scheme of things, one’s virginity is one’s own, and one can do with it as one pleases.

    (Note, however, the Bible does in fact teach that pre-marital sex is a sin. You can certainly have pre-marital sex if you so choose, but God does not condone that behavior.)

    Forcing girls to attend faux marriage-like ceremonies where they have to devote their virginity to their fathers is distasteful, borders on incestuous, and places unrealistic, unfair pressure on these young ladies.

    Give the young lady the proper moral guidance and health information she needs, and step out of her way; stop it with the purity balls.

    I find these purity balls to be just as bad as the porn-i-fied culture we live in.

    It’s the reverse extreme: usually in our society, people are pressured to have sex, have a lot of sex with lots of people and to start young. They are told their sexual choice to remain celibate is ridicule-worthy, shame worthy.

    The virgin’s or celibate’s sexual choice to refrain from sex is often not respected. It is belittled. Virgins are shamed and bullied into acting like whores.

    The purity ball is the reverse, but just as bad – pressuring young women into a sexual choice they may not want to make for themselves.

    It’s telling them that their body, their virginity is not theirs, but belongs to someone else, either a father or a future husband.

    I do believe one should save one’s virginity for a future spouse – so in a sense, I’d say yes, your virginity is owed to your future spouse – but at the end of the day, one’s virginity is still really and finally one’s own.

    Your body is yours, not your father’s, not your future husband’s.

    What I am getting at is that one’s choices should be respected. If you make all your kid’s choices for her, she will never be able to function as an adult. At some point, she needs to make choices for herself about herself, and that includes what to do when it comes to sex and her body.

    Another reason these purity balls are so damaging: they make the job of all Christians (or semi- Christian, semi- agnostics with traditional values) who defend the Bible’s teaching on sex, (such as myself), ten times more difficult.

    I already have an uphill battle defending celibacy and virginity as it stands, without these lunatic, crackpot fringe Christian groups holding these bizarre father and daughter virginity dances.

    Staying a virgin until marriage does not guarantee great, regular sex, as many Christians like to maintain. I have numerous examples on my blog; just use the search box and type in “sexless marriage” for example after example of people who stayed virgins until marriage, but then their sex lives were terrible or dried up totally.

    By the way, I am not fully on board with the “you are married to God” talk one sees pop up among some Christians. It sexualizes God and Jesus. I am an adult single – God is not my husband, and I am not “dating” Jesus.

    See these links for more:

    Do the people who throw these purity balls ever stop to consider that their daughters may never marry?

    I was a Christian since I was a child, I was raised with the expectation that I would marry some day. I am still single in my 40s. No “Prince Charming” ever entered my life.

    Continue reading “A Female’s Virginity Belongs To Her – Not Her Father or Husband – Re: Christian Purity Balls”

    Additional Rebuttals to CBMW Gender Complementarian Heresy and Travesty That Declares All Females Must Submit To All Males In Heaven

    Additional Rebuttals to CBMW Christian Gender Complementarian Heresy and Travesty That Declares All Females Must Submit To All Males In Heaven (Part 3)

    I should note that not only are Christian egalitarians recoiling in horror and disgust over CBMW’s “women shall have to submit to all men in the afterlife” editorial, but a number of gender comps have as well.

    Some of the writers or contributors or moderators of some of the following blogs are gender comps:

    > (Link): Headship in Heaven According to CBMW

    > (Link): Eternal Patriarchy? The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood says, “You Bet!”

    > (Link): The Logical Fallacy of “Equal But Subordinate”

    > (Link): (Forum discussion): Eternal submission of women to Men
    ————————————————–
    Previous posts about this topic at this blog (parts 1 and 2):

    Post 1. (Link): Christian Gender Complementarian Group Teaching That There Will Be Marriage in Afterlife and That Women Must Submit To Males in Heaven

    Post 2. (Link): Gender Complementarian Christians Who Teach Gender Inequality Even in Afterlife – an UPDATE

    Kinda related:
    (Link): Does head mean boss when it is connected to the body?

      This is the first in a series about marriage and the connection between marriage to women’s gifts in the church.

      Some people in an effort to keep women’s ministry gifts away from the benefit of men, teach that the term husband as the “head of the wife” means that men are to have authority over women and this eliminates women as having any kind of teaching authority in the body of Christ.

      So does the term “head” mean “boss over” or “authority over” when it is connected to the term “body”?

    —————————
    Related posts this blog:

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

    (Link): Southern Baptist’s New Sexist “Biblical Womanhood” Site – Attitudes in Total Face Palm of a Site One Reason Among Many This Unmarried and Childless Woman Is Saying Toodle-Oo to Christianity

    (Link): Christian Gender Complementarian Group (CBMW) Anti Virginity and Anti Sexual Purity Stance (At Least Watered Down) – and their Anti Homosexual Marriage Position

    Christian Gender Complementarian Group Teaching That There Will Be Marriage in Afterlife and That Women Must Submit To Males in Heaven (post at Spiritual Sounding Board)

    CBMW (Christian Gender Complementarian Group) Teaching That There Will Be Marriage in the Afterlife And/or All (or Just Married?) Women Will Have to Submit to Men in the Afterlife

    In the past, I’ve told anyone reading this blog they should visit Julie Anne’s (Link): Spiritual Sounding Board; it’s a blog that discusses spiritual abuse, as well as some of the topics I cover here, such as how Christians teach about marriage, dating, and gender roles.

    Recently, Julie Anne found an odd page by CBMW (Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood), whose author seems to be arguing that not only will there be marriage in the afterlife for Christians, but that women must submit to their husbands. Here is the link:

    (Link): Is the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Drinking Mormon-Flavored Koolaid?

    The sub heading of that post is:

      Will there be Complementarian or Egalitarian marriages in heaven? What about Biblical gender roles in heaven? What in the world is Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) talking about?

    I don’t want to steal Julie Anne’s thunder, so I’ll not copy in much of her post but just a smidge and encourage you to drop by to read the rest – you should also visit her blog page to read the comments her readers leave. She often gets some very educated or just wise people who leave comments that you can learn from.

    Here is just a brief snippet:

    From the CBMW page “Relationships and Roles in the New Creation,” Walton writes,

      Considerably more controversial, however, than the question of “what we shall be” in the new creation is the question of “what we shall do.”

      Given that gender identity will remain, is there evidence that functional distinctions will likewise remain in the new creation? Will resurrected saints as male and female have gender-specific roles? How will we relate to one another?

      Will male headship apply?

      Initial responses will likely depend on whether such questions are approached from a complementarian or egalitarian perspective. Complementarians, who view male headship and gender-specific roles as part of God’s original plan for creation (and for the present age as well) are more likely to answer these questions in the affirmative

    Other than the Bible saying that saints shall throw crowns at the feet of Christ and worship God, not a lot is said about people’s roles in the afterlife or in the millennial reign of Christ on earth, or in the “New Jerusalem”.

    The Bible is pretty silent on what exactly men and women will do in the afterlife and when the present age ends. It’s foolish to build an entire view of gender and gender roles based on silence.

    Later in the piece, Walton even concedes,

      Although Scripture does not speak directly to the question of the effect gender will have on the lives of resurrected believers in the new creation…

    Walton admits the Bible is silent on the matter and yet feels just fine using his own preferences to assert a bunch of nonsense about marriage and gender.

    Walton, sir, your opinion is just your opinion, your preferences are your preferences: they are not binding on Christians, who are to follow only God’s word.

    It’s laughable that a gender complmenetarian is attempting to carry over gender role concerns into the afterlife. As has been mentioned on Julie Anne’s blog by some of her readers, that is more reminiscent of Islamic or Mormon religion, not Christianity.

    Mormons have an entire system of belief that hinges on a man marrying a woman in this lifetime and having a lot of kids, and their marriage and reproducing here and now has something to do with how many planets their Science Fiction God will bestow upon them later, or some such. (I read about their theology years ago and my memory is shaky.)

    I really question the motives of Christian gender comps, I really do, and I do not mean that in a good way.

    I think in part Christian gender comps are motivated out of a fear or loathing of secular feminism and homosexuality (they, I suspect, figure strict gender roles will keep people from acting out in a homosexual manner, or that they will keep women at home making babies), and a lust for power and control.

    It’s not enough for these complementarians to want men to control women in a fallen world, they want this to hold over after death, in Heaven and the New Earth.

    Jesus specifically told His followers not to lord authority over one another, but that is precisely what gender complementarians do, seek after male power over women.

    In the Bible, Christ says there will be no marriage in Heaven.

    Never mind that, gender complementarian teaching never really addresses never married adult women. It’s just assumed all women over the age of 20 or 25 will marry and have children.

    Continue reading “Christian Gender Complementarian Group Teaching That There Will Be Marriage in Afterlife and That Women Must Submit To Males in Heaven (post at Spiritual Sounding Board)”

    Pastor ‘bans women from wearing underwear at his church’

    Pastor ‘bans women from wearing underwear at his church’

    (Link): Kenyan Church Pastor Bans Female Parishioners From Wearing Underwear

      NAIROBI, Kenya (CBSDC/AP) – A local pastor has ordered all women who attend service at Lord’s Propeller Redemption Church to refrain from wearing undergarments while attending so that they can more easily receive the spirit of Jesus Christ.

    The Kenyan Daily Post is reporting that a pastor identified only as “Reverend Njohi” claimed bras and underwear are not godly. Additionally, the paper says Njohi wants women who attend service at the church to be “free,” and that there would be consequences for those who do not comply.

    NAIROBI, Kenya (CBSDC/AP) – A local pastor has ordered all women who attend service at Lord’s Propeller Redemption Church to refrain from wearing undergarments while attending so that they can more easily receive the spirit of Jesus Christ.

    The Kenyan Daily Post is reporting that a pastor identified only as “Reverend Njohi” claimed bras and underwear are not godly. Additionally, the paper says Njohi wants women who attend service at the church to be “free,” and that there would be consequences for those who do not comply.

    (Link): Kenya Pastor Orders Woman to Attend Church Without Underwear ‘So God Enters Them Easier’

      The women were reported to have adhered to the new rule and attended the Church’s following service without any undergarments. They were even advised to check their daughters were not wearing anything under their outer clothes.

    The church is located in Dandora, an eastern suburb of Nairobi.

    (Link): Pastor Orders Female Members To Remove Underwear So God Can Enter Their Bodies

      Mar 3, 2014

    Kenyan pastor Rev. Njohi has raised not only a few eyebrows but red flags with his unorthodox suggestion of having his female congregants remove their bras and underwear before coming to church, so that Christ can freely enter their bodies with his spirit, according to The Kenyan Daily Post.

    (Link): Pastor ‘bans women from wearing underwear at his church’

      A pastor has reportedly told women attending his church not to wear underwear so they can feel closer to God.

    • The strange request was apparently made by Reverend Njohi at his ministry in Nairobi, Kenya.
    • The female congregants were forbidden from wearing bras and underwear during his service at the Lord’s Propeller Redemption Church, according to the Kenyan Post.
    • Njohi reportedly said worshippers needed to feel free in their ‘mind and body’ when attending, but strangely did not say men needed to leave their pants at home as well.
    • The pastor added there would be grave consequences if his female members did not adhere to the new rule, which was reportedly adhered to as most women are said to have attended the next service with no underwear.

    ——————
    Related posts, this blog:

    (Link): Church allows nude worship because ‘Jesus was crucified naked’

    (Link): Preachers Who Use Strippers, Hula Girls, Topless Hunky Men, and Strip Poles During Church Services and Give Sex Diplomas to Teens – Yes, Really

    (Link): Minister spanked naked bottoms to administer ‘spiritual discipline’, court hears

    President of Uganda Says Lesbianism Caused by Hetero Women Who Are Virgins / Celibate and Can’t Have or Haven’t Had Sex With Men

    President of Uganda Says Lesbianism Caused by Hetero Women Who Are Virgins / Celibate and Can’t Have Sex With Men

    No, this isn’t some prank. I’m not making it up. See
    (Link): The Nutty President

      Jan 2014

      In 2009, American evangelical extremist Scott Lively spoke to the Ugandan parliament for hours about the “evils of homosexuality.” Weeks later, the anti-gay bill was introduced, which parliament passed less than a month ago.

      Last week, Uganda’s president Museveni wrote an eight-page letter to parliament, protesting this same anti-gay law. But hold your horses. Then his letter continues with an onslaught of stupidity:

      “Some lesbian women go into the practice because of ‘sexual starvation’ when they fail to get married.”

    Hmm. I have not yet married, yet I remain hetero – and celibate.

    Here is another link with the same quote:

    (Link): Uganda leader wants law against ‘abnormal’ gays shelved

      BY ELIAS BIRYABAREMA
      KAMPALA Fri Jan 17, 2014 5:47pm GMT

      (Reuters) – The Ugandan president has said he wants an anti-gay bill shelved for further study but described gays as abnormal and said some lesbians may be victims of “sexual starvation”, according to a letter he sent to the speaker of parliament.

      Uganda’s parliament passed a law on December 20 that makes some homosexual acts punishable by life in prison and sent it to President Yoweri Museveni for signing. Under law, he has 30 days to sign a bill or return it to be amended or scrapped.

      …Museveni said he treated homosexuals as abnormal because “the normal person was created to be attracted to the opposite sex”. But he disagreed with jailing or killing gay people.

      “How about the women lesbians? Apart from the ones that are born abnormal and the ones that may become lesbian for mercenary reasons, there may be those that go into that practice because of sexual starvation when they fail to get married,” he said.

    His view is similar to that of evangelicals, Baptists, and Reformed who believe that celibacy is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone over the age of 25 and/or unless God has “specially gifted” someone to be celibate – which is false. I still retain a libido (sexual drive) and attraction to men. Especially movie actor Hugh Jackman. He’s so dreamy 😆 (Click here to see what I mean, don’t worry it’s a “G” rated photo, it’s at the bottom of the post).

    I’m not sure what this guy’s religious beliefs are, this President of Uganda, but true to a lot of conservative Christians (and Non Christian conservatives), they tend to have this knee jerk reaction where they assume if you are a female who has not married by age X, you must be a hetero, man-hating feminist, or, you are a far left liberal lesbian, or God only knows what else (you have too much baggage to snare a man, are too fat, weird… the list of assumptions is about endless).

    At the least the dude acknowledges that women have sex drives, because a lot of Christians assume women aren’t the least interested in sex at all and believe all they want to do is read romantic poetry and snuggle.

    If Christians respected celibacy and adult singleness as much as they do marriage, maybe we would not see such ignorant views about adult singleness and celibacy. (See also: (Link): Singles Who Desire Marriage and 1 Corinthians 7 – but 1 Timothy 4:3 – Also: Singlehood and Messed Up Hermeneutics.)

    Basically, what this Uganda president is doing is a form of what I call “Singles Shaming” or “Celibate/Virgin Shaming.” He clearly views adult singleness and/or celibacy as being abnormal or deviant or suspicious, when the Bible upholds both stations as being normal and acceptable.

    At any rate, people do have some horribly strange, insulting, and inaccurate ideas about adult singles and adult celibacy.
    ————————-
    Related posts this blog:

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

    (Link): Christian Stereotypes About Female Sexuality : All Unmarried Women Are Supposedly Hyper Sexed Harlots – But All Married Ones are Supposedly Frigid or Totally Uninterested in Sex

    This page also corrects false views about adult celibacy:
    (Link): Preacher Mark Driscoll Basically Says No, Single Christian Males Cannot or Should Not Serve as Preachers / in Leadership Positions – Attempts to Justify Unbiblical, Anti Singleness Christian Bias

    (Link): Is Celibacy a Sin? The NYT Has a View – by W. Mead

    (Link): The New Homophiles: A Closer Look (article) Re: Christian Homosexual Celibates and Christian Homosexual Virgins

    (Link): Stigmas and Stereotypes of Single Unmarried Men Over 25 or 30 Years of Age – They’re Supposedly All Homosexual or Pedophiles

    (Link): Sex, Love & Celibacy by Christian Author Dan Navin

    (Link): New website launched to help Christians experiencing same-sex attraction / Editorial about Celibacy by Ed Shaw

    (Link): Gift of Singleness Gift of Celibacy Unbiblical – Those Terms and Teachings Contribute to Fornication / Editorial About Sex Surrogates

    (Link): Singleness Is Not A Gift

    Greedy, Entitled Mother Expects Her Childless Friend to Buy Daughter Computer, DVD Player, or Digital Tablet

    Greedy, Entitled Mother Expects Her Childless Friend to Buy Daughter Computer, DVD Player, or Digital Tablet

    This is from “Miss Manners”:

      DEAR MISS MANNERS:
      My best friend e-mailed this Christmas wish list on behalf of her 12-year-old daughter to her friends (no family members):

      ‘’Greetings all. Zoe has asked me to e-mail you her Christmas list. We’re going to my parents’/grandmother’s for Christmas, so if you need the address to ship anything there, please let me know.”

      The list included a particular laptop, (flat screen) TV and DVD player, money/credit gift card, certain video games, a new bike (“she outgrew her old one”), gift cards (naming a number of stores), a tablet and so on.

      Then, “Look forward to talking to you all soon.”

      Am I wrong for feeling accosted? She is constantly sending out appeals for money or gifts. I wouldn’t have minded a wish list that was actually reasonable, but my friend constantly makes remarks like, “You don’t have any children, so you should have plenty of disposable income.”

      How do I respond? Normally, I would ignore it, but I feel like this is just too egregious and something needs to be said because her e-mails/requests become more outrageous with each round.

    Part of me almost wishes I had a friend like this, so the moment they try this on me, I can call them on the phone, say, “Hey I got your e mail” and then proceed to laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh before slamming the phone down, and maybe later sending her an email asking her to buy me a porsche, mansion, and a trip to Paris, France.

    Unfreaking believable how incredibly snotty and entitled some parents are, especially towards the childless and childfree.

    One of the Very Few Times I Have No Sympathy For A Former Domestic Abuse Victim – Letter to Amy From “Conflicted”

    One of the Very Few Times I Have No Sympathy For A Domestic Abuse Victim

    I’m usually very sympathetic towards women who are married to abusive men, or who have been. I think this may be one exception.

    This woman KNOWS the guy is a womanizing, abusive dirt bag, divorced him, knows he is seriously dating another woman, but is having sex with him in the meantime.

    Note that this woman is having sex with this abusive ex; she must enjoy and like sex. I mention this because usually, evangelical and fundy Christians behave as though most females (especially married ones) are not the least bit interested in sex.

    There is a gender stereotype among Christians that women only like “emotional” intimacy and never feel sexual desire, much less want to act on sexual desire.

    By Amy Dickinson, Published: December 2

      DEAR AMY:
      My conscience is bothering me. Two years ago, I divorced my husband of five years. It was a second marriage for both of us. We loved each other, but our marriage was deeply troubled.

      I frequently caught him lying. He had many inappropriate relationships with other women. His spending was out of control, putting me in serious financial jeopardy.

      Worst of all, during a two-year period of our marriage and on five occasions, he was physically abusive. Not a slap or a shove, but full-out rage. I thought he would kill me.

      Fast-forward to today: He and I continue to be close. We see each other frequently and have a lively sexual relationship. I have no illusions about his other activities and have always assumed that he is dating other women, as I have been dating other men.

      Still, I was shocked to learn that he has been in a serious relationship with a lovely young woman. I looked her up on social media, and I can tell she is head over heels in love with him.

      He has told me they are talking about marriage and children, although he is conflicted (about me). While she knows about our continued “friendship,” she has no idea how entrenched we continue to be, nor does she know that he has been sexually intimate with me the entire time he was courting her. Further, she does not know that he owes thousands of dollars on credits cards and has not filed his taxes in two years. Creditors call me daily looking for him. Clearly, he also has not told her about his history with domestic violence.

      As a mother, I feel protective of her innocence and cluelessness about him. She seems to want children and the white picket fence. I believe he will ruin her life. What obligation do I have to share any of this information with her? I don’t know what to do.
      Conflicted

    When I read lunacy like this, I am glad that I have never married.

    Christian TV Show Host Pat Robertson Disrespects Virginity – Says Pre-Marital Sex Is “Not A Bad Thing”

    Christian TV Show Host Pat Robertson Disrespects Virginity – Says Pre-Marital Sex Is “Not A Bad Thing”

    On today’s “The 700 Club,” a viewer in his early 20s wrote to hosts of the show with a question. The letter writer says he is a virgin and wants to wait for marriage to have sex. The guy said he found out his girlfriend is not a virgin. He wanted to know if dating her is wrong.

    You can watch the video yourself here:
    (Link): Marriage and Tithing questions (question from male virgin about dating a non virgin)

    The 700 Club show provided a transcript:

    PAT:

      THERE IS NOTHING THAT SAYS YOU SHOULD MARRY A VIRGIN. PROBABLY INTERESTING.

    THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY HAS A LITTLE [previous (pre marital) sexual] EXPERIENCE ISN’T NECESSARILY A BAD THING.

    I DON’T THINK YOU CAN SAY, IF YOUR GIRLFRIEND IS PER MISCOWOUS [sic] AND HOPPING IN AND OUT OF BED WITH MULTIPLE SEX PARTNERS, IF SHE HAPPENED TO HAD AN ENCOUNTER WITH SOMEBODY SHE WAS DEEPLY ATTRACTED TO, GET OVER IT.

    —(end quote)—

    Keeping in mind that Pat Robertson engaged in fornication himself (see previous posts on this blog for more on that, complete with links), which is why, I suspect, he tends to excuse hetero fornication, any time someone writes in asking him these types of questions.

    Robertson told the letter writer, “Having [previous sexual] experience is not necessarily a bad thing.” 😯 😯 😯 😯 😯 😯

    Yes, Robertson really said that.

    Robertson passes himself off as a Christian. It’s one thing to inform people that sexual sin can be forgiven, which is all well and good, but quite another to tell a virgin, “Having [previous sexual] experience is not necessarily a bad thing,” which is a round-about way of condoning pre-martial sex and denigrating virginity.

    A Christian should have very high standards in this area and not teach or endorse anything less than what the Bible says about the topic of sex, and the Bible is clear, yes very clear (I know some “nones,” emergents, and liberals hate it when anyone says the Bible is ‘clear’ on anything, but on some topics, yes, it really is), and the Bible is quite clear that sex is for marriage and marriage only.

    That I see self-professing Christians with a huge platform, such as Robertson, with his daily national television show, where he gets to repeat his views to millions, act so dismissive towards virginity, when they should be the first to uphold it, is infuriating and perplexing.

    Robertson will sit there and act critical towards homosexuality on some ‘700 Club’ episodes, but he has this double standard where he downplays or excuses hetero sexual sin, especially if it is hetero pre-marital sex.

    (It’s usually the reverse these days: I see emergent Christians, and other types of Christians (even conservative and orthodox ones), arguing that hetero singles should abstain from sex, but not homosexuals, because, the thinking goes, pity those poor homosexuals who may never have an avenue to have sex at all, if they stay true to Biblical sexual teachings, and who can expect anyone to stay a virgin over a lifetime – never mind that the same fate befalls hetero singles who may never marry because they are unable to find a suitable partner).

    This is also odd on other levels; usually, conservative Christians tell kids and college aged people if they retain their virginity until marriage that they will have mind-blowing, frequent sex – which is of course, not true; I’ve posted many links showing that quite the opposite happens.

    But Robertson is going the other route and telling single and virginal Christians that having sexual experience prior to marriage is not a bad thing, and that, he implies, it can even enhance a marriage. It’s remarkable that he is so anti-biblical on the issue of sexual ethics.

    Many Christians do not support celibacy or virginity; if anything, some of them denigrate and dismiss both.

    You can also watch this Pat Robertson segment on You Tube (the You Tube Link):


    —————————
    Related posts this blog:

    (Link): Pat Robertson Expects Men to Commit Sexual Sin (and it’s not the first time)

    (Link): Advocate of Family Values Doesn’t Uphold Family Values | Stop Asking Pat Robertson for Advice America!

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

    (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): No Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity

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

    (Link): Virgin – and Celibate – Shaming : Christian Double Standards – Homosexuals Vs Hetero Singles – Concerning Thabiti Anyabwile and Gag Reflexes

    (Link): The Activist Who Says Being Gay Is Not A Sin – double standards for homo singles vs hetero singles

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

    (Link): Pat Robertson raises the old canard about females dressing modestly and males supposedly being visually oriented

    (Link): Pat Robertson: (basically): Pre Marital Sex is Okay (or to be totally expected) Because People are “Sexual Beings”

    (Link): “He’s Got Muscles” – Pat Robertson Weirdness (Discussing Tebow’s Sexiness)

    (Link): Pat Robertson Contradicts Himself On Healing and God’s Will

    (Link): Christian TV Show Host Pat Robertson is Fine With Trandgenderism

    (Link): Pat Robertson to married woman: All men are cheaters and sex crazed horn dogs, but that’s okay because they’re men

    (Link): Creepy, Creepy and Sexist Pat Robertson

    (Link): Is Pat Robertson of The 700 Club Show some kind of secret perv? He’s Creepy

    (Link): Robertson Defends His Horrible Advice to Married Woman

    Feminists at Jezebel: Okay for Adult Women to Ridicule A Baby’s Appearance but Not Okay for Adult Men to Do Same to Grown Women

    Feminists at Jezebel: Okay for Adult Women to Ridicule A Baby’s Appearance but Not Okay for Adult Men to Do Same to Grown Women

    I am putting this in its own stand alone post; some of the following content appeared in my previous post:
    (Link): Mean Moms Caught Making Fun of ‘Ugly’ Babies in Secret Facebook Group

    In some areas, I am in agreement with secular feminists, but in others, no. I continued to be puzzled by their glaring double standards and hypocrisy on some issues.

    I’ve written about the penchant for secular feminist hypocrisy before on this blog, such as:

    (Link): Secular Feminists: It Is Okay To Be A Slut But Not Dress Slutty For Halloween or for Companies to Sell Slutty Costumes -huh? Also: Wrong for men to objectify women but okay for women to objectify men -say what?

    This next link is from feminist site Jezebel, which has, in the past, decried what I refer to as “Lookism” (i.e., society telling women their value resides in their physical appearance, so that some women are judged solely on that criteria and/or develop low self esteem or eating disorders as a result).

    The feminists at Jezebel are against society (advertisers etc) or men criticizing or mocking a grown woman’s appearance (For example: (Link): Will Women Ever Have the Freedom to Be Ugly? – from Jezebel), but in the following, the author and many of the post’s commentators are fine with grown women mocking the looks of babies and toddlers.

    (Link): Mean Moms Caught Making Fun of ‘Ugly’ Babies in Secret Facebook Group

    Excerpts:

      by TRACIE EGAN MORRISSEY

      However, the stuff on that Facebook group (which has since been deleted) didn’t seem all that bad, as far as Internet nastiness goes. Mostly, the moms were making fun of the kids’ clothes and the parents’ choice of stupid picture as their profile photo, commentary that doesn’t really have much to do with the kids at all.

      However, the stuff on that Facebook group (which has since been deleted) didn’t seem all that bad, as far as Internet nastiness goes. Mostly, the moms were making fun of the kids’ clothes and the parents’ choice of stupid picture as their profile photo, commentary that doesn’t really have much to do with the kids at all.

      And the meanest stuff was still kind of hilarious:

      [comments by the “mean mothers” on secret Facebook group:]

      Does anyone else look at some photos and think that no matter how much money you pay for an outfit, it’s not going to help your child look cute? I’m probably going to hell for saying that….

      Most of us will be there with you then

      An ugly baby thread. I have died and gone to heaven…why can’t you guys live near me so we can do this over cocktails?

      Before I address this…It…I want to point out that it makes my heart happy that you have a Mean Girls tab in your computer. Good stuff. Now, # 1 is this a he or a she…You absolutely can not fix ugly. This is a God given example of such.

      One post compared a little girl’s face to the mean boy in Toy Story, which majorly pissed off her mom, who made it a point to post that her daughter is developmentally delayed because she was born prematurely. What that has to do with anything is anybody’s guess. Maybe she was trying to garner some sympathy? Was that her way of explaining away her own daughter’s face? It’s almost like she’s admitting that her kid isn’t cute, but that there’s a reason for it, which is actually more fucked up than what the mean moms were doing.

    Notice that the Jezebel blogger was rationalizing the actions of the Facebook group mothers.

    Some of the Jezebel commentators:

      lethekkUTracie Egan Morrissey131L

      Are you kidding me? Why on earth did this make the news, even Fox news? Ugly babies exist. People make fun of them behind their parents’ backs. People are not 100% nice all the time. This is a normal thing. What’s next, a report about how some guy made fun of the way another guy threw a ball?

    One Jezebel poster was excusing the poor actions of the mothers by pointing out bad behavior by others as justification – because people being sexist or rude towards women apparently gives all women the right to be assholes to children and babies, some of whom are disabled:

      [by] Sarah “The Pope”
      SiegelUlethekk51L

      Because it’s a chance to shit on women. Are they covering the endless disgusting shit that Redditors and 4Chan users say all day fucking long? No, but some casually catty comments about ugly babies coming from women is news.

      Ugh.

    Additional comments by various Jezebel commentators below – bearing in mind this site is very much against “rape apologia” or “rapist apologists/ism.”

    That is, many of the participants at Jezebel are vehemently against anyone trying to excuse of justify rape in any way shape or form, and rightly so, but I can’t help but note that a group of women who bristle at rape apologism and ‘lookism,’ when done against grown women by men or marketers, are none- the- less giggling in glee, or defending, grown women who are bashing toddlers and infants based on their looks on a Facebook page.

      Empress FoofypantsUTracie Egan Morrissey141L

      Attention new mothers: Your baby looks like a flying monkey that bit into a particularly sour lemon. Get over it.
      ———————
      moodyonceamonth

      Can I please come sit by you? You’re cracking me up!
      ———————
      anteriorcruciateUTracie
      Egan Morrissey71L

      there have been times when you’ve seen an infant and thought, “Ew.”

      Only a few? Ha.

      They are all uniformly ugly, hideous, mewling creatures and they all look the fucking same. SORRYNOTSORRY, PARENTS.
      ———————
      barelylethal: battle axe shitassUTracie Egan Morrissey1L U
      I can’t get mad over a secret facebook group. It’s not like they were a band of roving shitstirrers all over everyone else’s feed, calling their kids ugly.
      ———————
      crocutaUlethekk1L
      Hell, even their parents make fun of them sometimes. My friend was nicknamed Lardo by his parents as a baby.

    ———————-
    Related posts this blog:

    (Link): How Feminists Are Making Women Easier Rape Targets

    (Link): So According to Some Feminists Believing in Female Equality Means Supporting All Actions and Behaviors by All Females Ever – Even their Pubic Hair Photos and Bloody Vagina T Shirt Designs? What?

    (Link): On Miley Cyrus Being Sexual at 2013 VMAs – Hypocrisy of Secular Feminists

    (Link): Why Comic Characters and Super Heroes Can’t Marry – Marriage Makes People Selfish

    Note to people who use stock photography in commercials – 40 something does not look like age 60+

    Note to people who use stock photography in commercials – 40 something does not look like age 60+

    And I thought this was just pertained to online dating – dudes with grey or white hair with lines and wrinkles contact me, when I specify I will not date more than several years out of my age range. These guys claim they are 35 or 45, but you can tell from their photos they’re in their 60s or older.

    There’s a commercial that is shown every once so often, for insurance, I think. As the commercial narrator is going on and on about the company’s product or service, we are shown a series of photos of men.

    For one photo, the announcer says, “John Doe, age 43, has a mortagage and cancer and a wife and kid, blah blah, buy our service now, like John, blah blah blah,” while this voice is going on, the photo we are shown on screen is a pudgy, lined-faced, white/grey haired dude who appears to be in his 60s. But the voice over says he’s age 43.

    Please.

    Who was the art director who approved these images? Did they let a 23 year old graphic design intern choose the stock photos that appeared? Many 20 somethings seem to assume that 40 = ancient, wrinkles and grey hair (it does not. People in their early and mid 40s do not look radically different from folks in their mid 30s).

    Now, it is true that some people appear to age at different rates. When actress Lindsay Lohan reached age 25, 26, she looked in some photos as though she were 75 years old, so deep and lined and tired was her face… I presume because of her party and drug life style?

    But it looks to me like the so called 43 year old in the TV commerical I spoke of is actually in his 60s, not 40s.

    Unless you are some kind of party meth head 43 year old, you will look more like a mid 30s person and a hella lot less like an old-looking 68 year old.

    Prejudiced Writer Stupidly Blames Slutty Halloween Costumes and Societal Ills on Childless the Childfree, and Unmarried Adults – but Married people and parents are not perfect either

    Prejudiced Writer Stupidly Blames Slutty Halloween Costumes and Societal Ills on Childless the Childfree and Unmarried Adults – but Married people and parents are not perfect either

    This author’s editorial starts out well enough, with despairing the current state of slutty Halloween costumes for children.

    However, I was surprised and a little puzzled to see it devolve into a hit piece on childless and single people.

    To the author, Flynn: hey pal, some of us wanted to get married, but we never met our “Mr. Right.” Stop blaming us singles and childless people for all of society’s problems. I was not about to have a baby out of wedlock, so I remain childless.

    Spend time going through this blog looking at all the posts I have done containing links to news stories of MARRIED people who have been caught in affairs, murdering their spouses, raping children, and then try to tell me that only childless or single people contribute to societal decay.

    Also, pal, I am a 40 something year old virgin. I was raised a Christian girl, was taught and believed that pre marital sex was sinful, so I have abstained for this long.

    Do not, do not, lump all single and childless people into the same group and depict us as all being the same, because we are not. Not all singles are out there sexing it up.

    And I would invite you to check out the numerous links sprinkled through out this blog to see news stories of MARRIED people, some also parents, including preachers, who were arrested for rape, child porn, and other sexual sins.

    Marriage and having children does not make a person more mature, godly, responsible, or ethical.

    As I have pontificated on numerous occasion on this blog (with Scriptural citations to boot), the New Testament of the Bible does NOT say God commands anyone to marry and pro-create: both activities are presented as being left up to individual personal preference.

    The Bible says, via Apostle Paul, that singleness is actually to be preferred to marriage. According to the Bible, God does not value marriage more than singleness, or having children to being childless, or vice versa.

    Here is a link to the editorial by the anti-unmarried, anti-childless bigot, D. Flynn:
    (Link): Whoreoween – Adults acting like kids isn’t just stupid: It’s scary.

    Excerpts

      By DANIEL J. FLYNN
      on 10.25.13 @ 6:09AM

      The scariest thing about Halloween isn’t the goblins, those kids egging your house, or biting down on a sharp surprise in a Special Dark. It’s adults who impersonate children.

      … While the sexes may differ in their approaches to staying forever young, both are jealous guardians of their right to take a pass on that most imporant passage rite: marriage.

      A society with fewer children than ever paradoxically displays greater immaturity than at any point in its history. When we don’t allow kids to be kids, they will inevitably behave as kids when they’re old enough to make their own decisions. Restricted childhood necessarily leads to unrestrained adulthood.

      The presence of young ones forces adults to act their age, while the absence of kids enables the chronologically mature to remain behaviorally immature. Kids see fewer kids on their street; grownups see fewer grownups.

    —————————–
    Related posts this blog:

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

    (Link): Parenting Does Not Necessarily Make People More Godly or Mature: News headline: Tennessee couple rented daughters for pornographic videos: police

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

    (Link): More Anti Singleness Bias From Southern Baptist Al Mohler – Despite the Bible Says It Is Better Not To Marry

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

    (Link): Hypocrisy in Christian Culture – Those who idolize parenting chide infertiles for trying to have kids

    (Link): Population Decline and Bay-bee Obsession – Christian Patriarchy, Quiverfull, Traditional Family, Christian Gender Complementarian Nuts (What they don’t understand: Only Jesus Christ can save people, not the ‘traditional family’ or having babies)

    (Link): Secular Feminists: It Is Okay To Be A Slut But Not Dress Slutty For Halloween or for Companies to Sell Slutty Costumes -huh? Also: Wrong for men to objectify women but okay for women to objectify men -say what?

    (Link): Preachers and Christian Media Personalities: Re: Marriage – You’re missing the point stop trying to argue or shame singles into getting married

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

    (Link): Stigmas and Stereotypes of Single Unmarried Men Over 25 or 30 Years of Age – They’re Supposedly All Homosexual or Pedophiles

    (Link): Do You Rate Your Family Too High? (Christians Who Idolize the Family) (article)

    Continue reading “Prejudiced Writer Stupidly Blames Slutty Halloween Costumes and Societal Ills on Childless the Childfree, and Unmarried Adults – but Married people and parents are not perfect either”

    Christian Hollywood Rorschach – seeing Jesus in every single show, movie, or fictional character

    Christian Hollywood Rorschach – seeing Jesus in every single show, movie, or fictional character

    Obviously, there are a few movies or fictional characters which do run very parallel to, or draw upon, Jesus Christ or some other Bible character, such as Superman (also known as Kal-el), or Neo from The Matrix movies. If you wanted to compare Kal-el to Jesus and Moses, or Neo to Jesus, I could see how you arrive at that point.

    However, I have observed in the last five years or so that Christians have started reading Jesus (or some other Bible figure or biblical principle) into about every other new movie or TV show, warranted or not, even if it’s based on only a mere, tiny smidgen of similarity.

    Here is the latest example:

    (Link): Does ‘Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.’ Tell the Story of Jesus’ Disciples? A Superhero Series About Underdogs

    You have got to be joking. The SHIELD agents are supposed to be based on, or have a bunch of stuff in common, with Jesus’ twelve apostles? I don’t think so.

    Actor Henry Cavill as Superman
    Actor Henry Cavill as Superman

    About a week ago, I also glanced at a review on Christianity Today in regards to the remake of the 1970s horror film “Carrie.” The author was wanting to draw biblical points of reference from that movie; there was supposed to be some kind of hidden Christian message in “Carrie,” according to the Christian movie reviewer.

    I’m sorry, but I do not feel that every single film, character, show, plot, or fictional character has been drawn from the Bible, or has been based on a biblical character, whether Jesus, Moses, Noah, Peter, or whomever.

    I’m not saying it’s wrong to notice similarities, but sometimes Christians go overboard with it.

    I wish Christians would stop trying to find Jesus examples in every single movie and show, the way kids try to see animal shapes in every fluffy, white cloud.

    Oct 30, 2013, here’s another very similar example, a Christian author who sees God in monster stories:

    (Link):

      How Monsters Point Us to God Our uncanny fears tell us about ourselves, and are signs of something more.
      Paul Pastor [ posted 10/30/2013 9:52AM ]

    Update. If it’s not Jesus, it’s some other Christian that Christian reviewers claim to see. Another example:

    (Link): ‘The Hunger Games: Catching Fire’ Reminiscent of Early Church Martyrs, Christian Reviewers Say

    London Firefighters: Don’t Put Your Penis in a Toaster

    London Firefighters: Don’t Put Your Penis In A Toaster

    You know one of the great things about being a celibate adult? It’s having really great sexual self control and not ending up in embarrassing or stupid situations like this one (note that some of the men mentioned in these stories who are sticking their man parts in toasters and metal rings are MARRIED men- quite often in Christian culture, it is wrongly assumed the married men are sexually upstanding and ethical, while single men and women are sex crazed, kinky harlots):

    (Link): Number of people trapped in objects like handcuffs and toilet seat rises

    (Link): London firefighters: Don’t put your penis in a toaster

      • Bill Briggs NBC News
      Oct. 12, 2013 at 6:16 AM ET

    London firefighters have launched a public shaming campaign to stem the rise of locals summoning urgent help to remove foreign objects stuck on — or inside — their bodies, but the kinky topic is so taboo in America some top U.S. emergency workers won’t discuss the behavior.

    Except in Los Angeles.

    Do you really want to call the fire department if you get a body part stuck in the wrong place?

    L.A. Fire Department medical director Dr. Marc Eckstein acknowledges that 911 operators do receive a small number of sexually bizarre rescue pleas and do dispatch ambulances, including instances in which they must assist men with heavy steel rings lodged around their private parts.

    In some of those scattered cases, Eckstein said, the firefighters, paramedics or emergency medical technicians use bolt cutters or, when necessary, the blazing torch of a plasma cutter to burn the rings off of the men’s penises.

    “They have to be careful because the plasma cutters cause a lot of heat and sparks,” Eckstein said, adding he could not provide statistics on the number of such calls. He did emphasize, however, that the L.A. Fire Department receives high a number of other types of “inappropriate” 911 calls from local residents that tie up ambulances, fire trucks and personnel — resources that could otherwise be used for people in actual medical trouble.

    … But in London, fire officials aren’t holding their tongues about how they must perform tasks like freeing a man’s penis from a vacuum cleaner.

    The London Fire Brigade has launched a public campaign dubbed “Fifty Shades of Red,” theorizing that an increase in such randy rescue calls in that city is perhaps propelled by the popularity of the erotic romance novel “Fifty Shades of Grey.”

    The campaign simply urges people in London — especially guys — to exercise more common sense before inserting their manhood into gadgets made for cooking or cleaning. The brigade reports that it responded to 416 stuck-body-part calls in 2010-11, another 441 in 2011-12 and 453 in 2012-13. Among those emergency requests for assistance, 79 people were wearing handcuffs they could not remove.

    [screen capture of Tweet]
    London Fire Brigade (@LondonFire)
    A woman rang to get help for her husband, who was locked in a titanium chastity belt. Keep those keys handy! #fiftyshadesofred #nonemergency


    Related Posts:

    (Link): Wife Accidentally Bites Off Her Husband’s Testicle

    (Link): This Woman Took Photos of 100 Penises and Learned Quite a Bit About Them in the Process by L. Beck

    (Link): Guy So Depressed Over Being Single He Cut Off His Own Penis (article)

    (Link):  Girlfriend, 26, Chops Off Her 40 Year Old Boyfriend’s Penis With Garden Shears

    (Link):  Wife ‘Cut Off Husband’s Penis and Flushed It Down the Toilet Because He Spent Too Much Time on the Golf Course’

    (Link): Husband Has Penis Chopped off for Inter-faith Marriage – Glad to Be Single Series

    (Link):  ‘Sex Starved Wife’ Cuts off Her Husband’s PENIS After He Refused to Make Love to Her for Ten Years

    (Link):  Penis Enhancement Surgery Results In Death For The First Time Ever

    (Link):  Woman Says Her Boyfriend’s Penis Snapped During Sex