I Liked A ‘High-Value’ Man’s Photo on a Dating App – He Rejected Me Because I’m ‘Fat’ by A. Diaz

I Liked A ‘High-Value’ Man’s Photo on a Dating App – He Rejected Me Because I’m ‘Fat’ by A. Diaz

I feel for this lady. This man who contacted her on this dating app sounds like a narcissistic, arrogant, entitled douche.

This woman doesn’t strike me as being like the entitled, obese, progressive “body positivity” or “fat acceptance” women who say bizarre things – like dieting is a part of white supremacy – and who demand that thin men date them.

The woman in the story below does appear to be on the large size (there were photos of her on the page), but she doesn’t have an entitled “attitude,” so, IMO, the guy who texted her back was being unnecessarily rude about the whole thing – he’s also a flaming A-hole and someone should kick him in the balls repeatedly for how he thinks about women, and how he treated this particular woman.

Amended this post to add the following observations:
The article says she met this guy on a “Christian” dating app (Plenty of Fish). I want to educate the married Christians out there, who keep hyping “Christian dating sites” to their lonely heart single friends: stop doing it because “Christian dating sites” are also filled with jerks, abusers, and rapists.

Years ago, I was on a few dating web sites, one of which was considered to be “Christian,” and the so-called self professing Christian men on those sites who approached me were gross, their profiles were peppered with inappropriate sexual talk
– I may blog here about sexual topics (and get quite frank about it), but when I’m on a dating site, I don’t want to see sex jokes or smutty humor on a guy’s profile, nor do I openly and frankly discuss sex-related stuff on any of my old dating site profiles, nor did I engage in “smutty” humor talk with any of the men who contacted me (I kept things clean).

There have been news stories in the last ten years of MARRIED Christian men (with HIV and AIDS) who lie and say they’re single and then meet single women on dating sites, some of which are “Christian” dating sites.

There was a serial rapist who said he was a Christian to women he met on dating sites, but once he’d get to know them and then meet them in person, he’d rape them (here’s one post on my blog about that).

So… secular and “Christian” dating sites and dating apps are not guarantees for meeting quality, up-standing, loving men. Meaning, you idiot Christian married couples out there need to stop dishing out the simplistic advice of “Just join Plenty of Fish or eHarmony to get a Christian spouse!” – we singles have tried that, and for a lot of us, those sites have NOT worked.

(Link): I liked a ‘high-value’ man’s photo on a dating app — he rejected me because I’m ‘fat’

Dec 8, 2022
By Adriana Diaz

A plus-size mom claims she was harassed last month by a man on a dating app with self-proclaimed “above average” looks and “high values.”

“It was so ridiculous that it was comical,” Krista Brown told Kennedy News.

Brown, 36, said she downloaded the Christian dating app Plenty of Fish in November after being single for three years. She was unprepared for the cringeworthy communications she said she received from a match who turned out to be a mismatch.

The Minnesota budget support specialist recalled thinking the cyberspace Casanova was “kind of cute” despite his “pathetic mustache.” She claims she swiped right, but didn’t message him. She says the unidentified man reached out to her — in a big way.

“He sent me a whole huge, long paragraph asking why I think I’m worthy of dating him, and what do I bring to the equation? He had a very condescending tone. He was so absolutely ridiculous,” she lamented.

Experts Can Sometimes Be Wrong On Their Topics of Expertise, and Experts Sometimes Disagree with Other Experts in the Same Field – It’s Okay To Disagree with Experts

Experts Can Sometimes Be Wrong On Their Topics of Expertise, and Experts Sometimes Disagree with Other Experts in the Same Field – It’s Okay To Disagree with Experts

People or organizations who are regarded as being experts in one field or another can be incorrect at times; therefore, one should not uncritically accept anything and everything “experts” have to say.

Sometimes, experts disagree with other experts in their field on the same topic.

When such situations arise, which expert should I believe, Expert 1 or Expert 2? And who is to say?

If you say I should listen to Expert 2 on topic Z and ignore Expert 1, why should I take your word for it?

What makes you the final arbiter on who is right or wrong on an issue, and why should I automatically bow the knee to what Group X says on Topic Z, just because you believe that Group X are experts or that Group X are even generally regarded by others as being experts?

One has to use critical thinking as one goes through life.

I do respect giving some amount of credence to people who have higher education and/or life experience regarding a topic, so I am by no means an advocate for applauding ignorance or for totally ignoring and disregarding what “experts” have to say on whatever subject matter they have chosen to specialize in.

Experts Sometimes Have Political (or other) Agendas and Will Use Their Platform and “Expert” Credentials to Lie About, Distort, or Omit Facts

I am not opposed to taking into consideration what so-called “experts” on a topic have to say, but I’m old enough, with a college degree and enough life experience accumulated, to know that sometimes experts are wrong – and sometimes, experts have agendas.

An example or two here:

Covid-19 Virus

Progressives and liberals often slant scientific news and findings to bend to the will of the Democrats and progressive values and causes: Covid is a good example of this.

Progressives have politicized science and medicine to determine how and who should wear masks, should schools be closed and for how long, who should be vaccinated (they press even those who are not likely to get or die from Covid to get vaccinated).

The Obnoxious Abuse Survivor Community Is Targeting Julie Roys Again – this time begun by R L Stollar

The Obnoxious Abuse Survivor Community Is Targeting Julie Roys Again – this time the witch hunt was begun by R L Stollar

The “abuse survivor community” has taken their pitchforks out again, and again their pitchforks and torches are for journalist Julie Roys.

This time, the bullying is being carried out by a R L Stollar, a name I’ve seen on twitter off and on in the last few years.

I believe he originally began speaking out against harms caused by Christian homeschooling? Good on him for that (I mean that, that was not snark).

Beyond that, though, I’m not familiar with Stollar. He may have even tweeted a few things in the past I saw shared by others I follow on Twitter that I agreed with.

To Julie Anne (“Defend the Sheep” on twitter) – why are you  participating in this continued pile on?

(Edit: I believe Julie Anne “Liked” some of the comments in that thread, or I saw her share it on her Twitter account, which is how I became aware of it in the first place)

Why are you, Julie Anne, continuing to associate with people who behave this way?
I’m sorry if you feel that Roys did not credit you or friends of yours or whatever on older reportage she did (which she tried to discuss with you), but what is the deal with cozying up to the people singling her out every few weeks?

Anyway. Roys is being bullied online again, and this time it was started by Stollar.

Yes, I said “again” – see (Link): my previous post about this weird, disturbing anti-Roys obsession from the Amy Smiths, Ashley Easters, and other so-called abuse survivor advocates.

If you take note of this obnoxious behavior, as I did, (that is, noting their bullying and mob mentality where they target someone), some of them will erroneously misconstrue you as being a “Julie Roys Stan,” or use that as an ad hominem against you (see embedded tweets below for more on that).

Birth Control Movie

Now, the “abuse survivor community” is targeting Roys for having once appeared in a several years old (conservative created, I believe) movie about birth control and the sexual revolution.

I’ve not seen the movie they are referring to, but I did watch and listen to a clip of Roys presumably from the film (that clip located in a tweet by someone else here), and the comments Roys made were pretty conventional.

There was  nothing “far out” there by Roys in that clip, not unless, I suppose, you’re operating from a faulty, far left liberal paradigm, in which case pointing out that sexual behaviors with little- to- no boundaries can result in things like disease or other harmful ramifications will sound judgmental, fuddy duddy, and stodgy.

Speaking of which:

(Link): Monkeypox virus could become entrenched as new STD in the US – via ABC News (warning: auto-playing video file with audio on that page)

Excerpts:

The spread of monkeypox in the U.S. could represent the dawn of a new sexually transmitted disease, though some health officials say the virus that causes pimple-like bumps might yet be contained before it gets firmly established

By Mike Stobbe AP Medical Writer
July 22, 2022

… So far, more than 2,800 U.S. cases have been reported as part of an international outbreak that emerged two months ago. About 99% have been men who reported having sex with other men, health officials say.
— end excerpts —

Secular Criticisms of Birth Control and the Sexual Revolution

In the past year, a few secular books criticizing the consequences of the sexual revolution (including the role of the advent of birth control pills) have been published
(which I’ve blogged about here (Where the Sexual Revolution Went Wrong by Maria Albano) and here (The Sexual Revolution Has Backfired on Women by S. Moore),
so it’s not only those evangelicals all you hipster “Exvangelicals” despise pointing out the flaws and dangers with no-holds-barred sexual behavior.

In the past few years, more and more liberals and feminists have been speaking out about the excesses and harms of loose sexual behavior; these are just a couple of examples on my blog:

(Link): Why Sex-Positive Feminism is Falling Out of Fashion by S. Greenberg – excerpts via New York Times

(Link): Did Hell Freeze Over?: Liberal Rag Promotes Idea that Celibacy is Acceptable, and a Valid Life Choice / Re: 2016 Study Says Millennials Aren’t Having Much Sex

Progressives / Abuse Advocates Define Christianity to = Democrat Party, Progressive Values and Views

Many of the abuse advocates under consideration in this blog post I am discussing are politically driven (or some have left-leaning sympathies).

They conflate Christianity with leftism, progressive views, causes, and the Democratic Party, and reject anyone who doesn’t agree with all their socio-political views.

Here is my reaction to what got the ball rolling (tweet link – my comment – and here is a link to the original R L Stollar comment I was replying to):

Another witch hunt against Julie Roys by loving, tolerant progressive Christians 🙄
Is Amy Smith in on this one too, or did she put down her pitchfork this time?

You guys still using the goofy #EmptyThePews and #Exvangelical hash tags?#abuseSurvivorCommunity https://t.co/CY3wRfFQc7

— sololoner (@sololoner2) July 23, 2022

Link to Tweet embedded below.

As I told this guy, I'm not a "Julie Roys stan," but most abuse survivor advocates I've seen are more loyal to a leftist political agenda than in actually helping victims. It's gross.
They've been targeting Roys for a couple of months now. That's also gross.#ChurchToo #JulieRoys https://t.co/fciN2nsYJT

— sololoner (@sololoner2) July 23, 2022

So this Stollar guy initially did a tweet with a link to this page (also linked to below, with excerpt) at Right Wing Watch – of course he did.

Does Stollar ever follow sites with names like “Left Wing Watch” (i.e., any accounts that are critical of progressive ideology?) – probably not.

Why a Masculine Ministry Rose and Fell – Re: Christianity Today’s Podcast Episode of Mark Driscoll’s Sexism

Why a Masculine Ministry Rose and Fell – Re: Christianity Today’s Podcast Episode of Mark Driscoll’s Sexism

Huge disclaimer:
David French, author of the piece I am excerpting later in this post, claims to be a conservative, but he leans pretty liberal, and he is totally wrong about Critical Race Theory.
I do not endorse his acquiescence to the far left, on his acquiescence to the left to basically just lay back and permit CRT being allowed into public schools.

But I do think many of French’s points in his essay about Mark Driscoll (the sexist, crackpot, control freak pastor of The Trinity Church and formerly, Mars Hill), and the state of Christianity today (over stressing masculinity as much as they do) are correct.

Yes, complementarians often take sin and paint them as virtue, as French notes in his piece.

The Bible does not teach that men should rule over women, but that male rule over women would be a result of the Fall – and complementarians today twist that and insist sexism against women was all part of God’s original intent and design: complementarians are demonic in teaching vice as virtue.

Complementarians also spend more time trying to get men to act like masculine manly-men (and at that, usually patterned after Hollywood movie characters or historical tough guys), when the Bible tells men (and women) to pattern themselves after the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

(Link): Why a Masculine Ministry Rose and Fell – Learning the lessons of Mark Driscoll’s decline.  by David French

Excerpts:

….[The several part pod cast series] by Mike Cosper at Christianity Today [is remarkable, French says], and it chronicles the rise and fall of Mars Hill church in Seattle and the corresponding rise and fall of its celebrity pastor, Mark Driscoll.

The thing that’s remarkable about the podcast is that it spends as much time describing what worked about Mars Hill—why Driscoll and his church became a sensation—as it does describing why it failed.

… Driscoll resigned from Mars Hill in 2014, under fire for his harsh, “domineering” leadership and almost a year after Driscoll apologized for “mistakes” following plagiarism allegations. Mars Hill Church dissolved shortly thereafter.

Mega Church Preacher Bill Hybels in Trouble Again For More Sexual Harassment

Mega Church Preacher Bill Hybels in Trouble Again For More Sexual Harassment (2018)

I don’t think I ever blogged about this Hybels guy before.

He was first in the news many months ago for sexually harassing several different women in his church years before, who had worked as church staff.

His church first denied that this was true, and they attempted to say the women who stepped forward to discuss their harassment or abuse by this guy were lying.

There are so many of these pervy pastors it’s hard to keep up with them all. If all I ever did was blogged about perverted pastors, it would be a full time job, and I’d never have a break from this blog!

I’m pretty sure that Hybels is a married guy, too. Christians keep teaching that marriage is necessary to make a person a godly, responsible adult, and to keep them out of sexual sin, but as we see (yet once again!) marriage does not necessarily instill character into anyone, nor does it keep anyone from sexual sin or from sexually abusing others.

Let this story also go to show that a person does NOT have to become perfect, godly, or sinless to “earn” a spouse from God.

Yes, there are some Christians out there who teach that if you are single and want to get married, God will with-hold your spouse from you unless you become more godly, mature, or whatever quality. As  you can see from news reports such as this one, that is total bunk.

God did not withhold a spouse from Hybels (again, I’m fairly certain he has a wife), even though God had to know what a pervert the man is.

(Link): He’s a Superstar Pastor. She Worked for Him and Says He Groped Her Repeatedly.

Excerpts:

Bill Hybels built an iconic evangelical church outside Chicago. A former assistant says that in the 1980s, he sexually harassed her.

SOUTH BARRINGTON, Ill. — After the pain of watching her marriage fall apart, Pat Baranowski felt that God was suddenly showering her with blessings.

She had a new job at her Chicago-area megachurch, led by a dynamic young pastor named the Rev. Bill Hybels, who in the 1980s was becoming one of the most influential evangelical leaders in the country.

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

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

Update Below June 2022

The following blog post contains strong profanity in places and some frank sexual talk.

---

Not that I object to this editorial per se, but it’s being carried by the same site (a pro-life site) that (Link): usually denigrates female virginity – because they put too high a premium on people pro-creating, and if a woman is remaining chaste, she is, in their opinion, in sin, or error or some sort, for not having sex and making babies, because supposedly, a woman’s only purpose in life is to make babies (even though the Bible no where teaches this concept).

But here is a guest editorial they are featuring where the author is defending a person’s right to sexually abstain, and it’s okay.

(Link): Virginity is a Sacred Choice, Not a Shameful Status by C. Martin

Excerpts:

by C. Martin

Our society is obsessed with talking about sex, regardless if you’re having it or not. Take for instance the recent March (Link): cover of People magazine, which featured the title, “Bachelor’s Sean & Catherine, Waiting for Our Wedding night.”

To make things a bit clearer, they added below the title, “No sex until ‘I do.’” The cover may intrigue those who scratch their heads, wondering in earnest why anyone would (gasp) wait to have sex.

A Response To J D Hall’s Vomit-tastic Post about Village Church’s Handling of Certain Members, Covenants, and Marriages

A Response To J D Hall’s Vomit-tastic Post about Village Church’s Handling of Certain Members, Covenants, and Marriages 

Before we get to the post by J D Hall:

Background:

• The Village Church (TVC) of Texas has placed Karen, who was once a member of theirs, under church discipline because she did not, according to them, abide by the church covenant she signed.
• Instead of conferring with the church on what to do, Karen, on her own, sought an annulment from the state of Texas, once she discovered her then-spouse, Jordan, was a pedophile.
• Karen said she spent about 50 days conferring with other Christians (not from the TVC), and in prayer, mulling over what to do, before seeking the annulment.
• This action of hers has ticked off TVC leadership, because Karen did not get their permission to get the annulment.
• Matt Chandler is the lead preacher of TVC.

You can read additional reporting of this situation here (additional material is at the bottom of this post):

• (Link, off site): She Wanted an Annulment from a Pedophile. What Happened Next Ignited a Controversy

Here is the page I am responding to:

(Link, off site): A Rational Response to the Criticism of Village Church  by  J D Hall, Pulpit and Pen blog

The covenant that Hall is so rigorously defending – TVC’s membership covenant – here does not even mention annulments.

As Karen explains (off site Link, Source):

• …it is worth noting here that although The Village Church claims [in their e-mail] that “We see an annulment as a subcategory of what Scripture defines as a divorce in Mark 10:9” …, this cannot be found anywhere in their Membership Covenant or Bylaws.
• In signing their Membership Covenant shortly after my 24^th birthday, I had agreed to nothing in regards to the possibility of annulment should I come to realize that my marriage had been a complete sham from the beginning.
• There is a vast difference between a divorce and a marriage that is voided on the grounds of fraud, and I had no way of knowing that the leadership of The Village Church would respond to it in this fashion.

Male Entitlement In Dating and In Marriage – Single Christian Men Who Feel Entitled – Part 1

Male Entitlement In Dating and In Marriage  – Single Christian Men Who Feel Entitled – Part 1

Stay tuned for a Part 2 to this post [August 2016: I did intend on doing a Part 2, but now, I’m not sure if I’ll get around to it or not. I might. I don’t know]. This is Part 1, and it’s pretty long.

I have been meaning to do a post about this topic for a long time.

First, here are a couple of pages about a newly released dating advice book, aimed at single women and written by a couple of men who are in their early 30s.

These authors think male entitlement is a given, and women should go along with it if they want a husband:

(Link):  ‘You should prepare his meals and massage his feet’: New dating guide written by men offers women brutally honest advice on how to snag a husband 

“Single Man, Married Man” was penned by seven New York-based men who are single, engaged, married and divorced

It argues ‘all men’ who say they don’t want to get married are ‘lying’

According to one author, men lie to ‘get their women to listen’ and insists telling the truth is ‘risky’

Another suggests men are more likely to feel guilty about changing their barber than cheating on their partner

 A new book written by a panel of men seeks to advise women on the ‘do’s and don’ts’ of dating from a brutally honest male perspective.

Single Man, Married Man was compiled by childhood friends Jean Alerte, a 33-year-old married businessman who owns a Brooklyn yogurt shop, and Frank Gateau, a 32-year-old ‘serial dater’ who works in PR.

…Mr Alerte and Mr Gateau [who wrote the book] – who claim that when men say they don’t want to get married, they’re ‘lying’ – spent three years surveying more than 300 male subjects online and in person to arrive at their conclusions.

One contributor described as single mentions the song ‘Cater 2 U’ by Destiny’s Child as being an anthem that ‘should be on every woman’s playlist and kept on repeat.’

He advises: ‘Prepare his meals, draw him a bath and massage his feet every now and then.’
— end excerpts —

No, let me tell you how it really is.

If a man wants to be with me, he will massage MY feet every now and then, prepare meals FOR ME, and draw ME a bath.

I am not going to “cater” to his behind. I’ve been down that road before, and it is unrewarding and so not worth it (more on that below).