Interesting Thoughts About Christian Views on Sex and Gender Roles at Sunshine Mary blog – also some obnoxious, totally wrong views
Please understand that I do not always completely agree with all views of every blog or site I link to, and that would be the case here.
I do not have an irrational hatred or suspicion of secular feminism, for example, and that this Sunshine Mary person links to the Vox Popli blog, suggests that she might – but she has a few points in some posts I related to.
I am not a secular feminist, btw, and disagree with some of their views, eg,
- (Link): Inconsistency on Feminist Site – Choices Have Consequences
(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): 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?
As I’ve discussed before on this blog, Christians claim to be alarmed at the deficit of marriage among Christians.
Conservative Christians claim to support sexual purity and virginity, but in reality, they do not (see my prior blog post: (Link): No, Christians Do NOT Support or Idolize Virginity and Celibacy, they attack both)
I, like “Sunshine Mary,” do not understand why so many Christians keep maintaining stereotypes and views that are either untrue, stupid, or counter-productive to values Christians say they support (such as marriage and procreation).
Here are thoughts on this by Sunshine Mary:
In that post, Sunshine Mary discusses attending class at her church where the people in the class gave the usual Christian stereotypes about sex and marriage:
- This past week was rough because the topic was sex. I just could not believe that all the things we joke about Christians saying were actually said.
For example, one young woman actually used the women-are-like-a-crockpot crock of crap.
This is not true, in case anyone has not figured it out yet.
It does not take a woman, Christian or otherwise, eight hours to become sexually aroused.
The idea that a man needs to spend eight hours giving her tender kisses, helping with the laundry, telling her how much he loves her, and bringing her flowers just to turn her on is wrong. She may like all those things very much, they may be nice things to do, but they will not make her sexually aroused.
Why do Christian women keep telling men this? It’s like we’ve all succumbed to mass delusion.
I don’t support Sunshine Mary’s implication that because some survey or another she read says that males who do more housework get less sex than males who do not, that one should conclude from this that this necessarily means males should be permitted to abdicate from housework, or that it makes such males more desirable: sorry, Sunshine Mary, not in my universe.
Sunshine Mary goes on to say,
- Why do Christian women perpetuate these myths about attraction, thereby assuring themselves and their husbands a frustrating sex life? It’s certainly not Biblical.
We could be really jaded and say they are just lying, but I don’t think that is the reason.
It’s more that we hear this over and over again – that we want men who are always tender, gentle, and sensitive, that we need a deep emotional connection, lots of intimate conversation, and plenty of sweet romance before we can feel sexual attraction.
This advice is pervasive: it’s on every Christian website, in our movies, magazines, sermons, and books, and thus we just come to believe it.
Given that Sunshine Mary talks about swallowing red pills (and that she links to Vox’s blog), I take it that she is supportive of the sexist “men’s rights” groups. She writes,
- I seem to have picked up a lot of new readers as of late, and if you are new around this corner of the web, you may have seen the phrase “the blue pill”. What this means is believing lies and choosing to ignore the truth because society has deemed the truth inconvenient or unacceptable for some reason.
Visit (Link): THE BLUE PILL on Reddit for an anti-dote to the men’s rights bull shit; they satire the Red Pill, ‘wah wah, society is so unfair to men, and feminism is at the root of all evil in the world, waaah!!!!’ groups.
Sunshine Mary writes,
- We are attracted to men who are leading and who quash challenges to their leadership.
It depends on what she means by that.
I personally would not want to be in a relationship with a man who falls on too far either side of the spectrum:
I don’t want a doormat (which is what she seems to be describing, but I don’t want to date a stoic, only cares about himself and what he wants never considers my feelings and needs Marlboro Man, either.
Sunshine Mary writes,
- Donalgraeme explains what women are attracted to: Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power, and Status – in other words, women respond with sexual attraction to men who demonstrate some degree of physical and social dominance.
Who the fuck is Donalgraeme and why should I care what he thinks?
Sunshine Mary writes,
- Just as teaching the lie of mutual submission in the marital hierarchy does not help us, so too teaching lies about what generates attraction between spouses does not help us.
Oh, Sunshine Mary wants to be dominated by her man, kinky – but that’s what SHE wants. I don’t want that.
Sunshine Mary must totally be into Doug Wilson, who wrote (in a criticism, or shall we surmise, bubbling- under- the- surface- frustration- and- jealousy, of Christian wives’ fandom of the Fifty Shades of Grey erotica novel):
- (by Doug Wilson):
When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants.
A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.
By the way, that is the same idiotic Doug Wilson who believes people, including Christians, cannot go without sex for three minutes:
(Link): Douglas Wilson and Christian Response FAIL to Sexual Sin – No Body Can Resist Sex – supposedly – Re Celibacy
- (Link): The Gospel Coalition, sex, and subordination
From Sunshine Mary’s page,
✱ (Link): Feminism and the Progressive Principle: Christian edition
According to Sunshine Mary’s comments on that page, the Bible forbids women from teaching or preaching, as in all women, for all time – no, it does not.
Anyway, what I did find interesting on that page were these comments (I’m not saying I necessarily agree with all these views, only that I find some of them interesting):
- (by Sunshine Mary):
Now let’s consider the elite covert Christian feminists.
Alpha male pastors, usually of mega-churches, like Mark Driscoll, who aren’t intentionally feminist but who enable feminism by training a legion of Christian White Knights to save women from suffering any temporal consequences for their terrible life choices.
Also, some alpha male pastors, though it may not have been their original plan to do so, end up cultivating a nice little harem for themselves within their churches, if the number of pastors who eventually get caught in sex scandals is any indication.
These women are truly wolves in sheep’s clothing. They are often pro-life themselves, usually married mothers, but they are eager to remove from women all stigma associated with sexual sin.
I’ve noticed many of these women are professors at Christian colleges (example: Karen Swallow Prior, a Christian professor, explains that God’s purity standard is impossible to meet and calls for a more “realistic” (i.e. slutty) definition of purity than virginity).
They masquerade as conservative or traditional women, but they are not. Additionally, some mega-pastors’ wives who like their cushy lifestyle and high status might fit here.
The Driscoll commentary was just interesting, to suggest that a Cave Man such as Driscoll is aiding feminists in some manner.
Where Sunshine Mary does get things (partially) correct is under the second section, where she opines that even conservative Christians today don’t really support sexual purity.
Sunshine Mary also has a long section farther down that page pointing out how churches support unmarried women who are fornicating and having multiple children out of wedlock, while the single women who are remaining chaste are being hosed by the whole system -that is most certainly true and a point I’ve raised on my own blog in months past.